redmid17: BigBooper: redmid17: You either missed the content of the post he was replying to, a troll, or you're a complete moron.

Lighten up Francis. It was an attempt at humor.

And it's moran.

/sorry, pet peeve

okay troll then

Once again, it seems that I'm the only one who thinks I'm funny.

Fine then, at least I make my self laugh.

/I'll be in the coroner weeping bitterly
//and masturbating furiously

fracto73: My statement isn't about a jury. It is about using self defense as justification for his actions. He must show that it was justified and the burden is on the defense. I've already said I don't think he is legally guilty. The statement that I was responding to just had the burden of proof backwards.

GAAHH! how at this point in time can you have that screwed up?!? In Florida's SYG law the burden of proof is on the prosecution in cases of self defense, not on the defense.

BigBooper:
/I'll be in the coroner weeping bitterly
//and masturbating furiously

Why masturbate when you're already inside the coroner? Just finish off in there.

BigBooper: fracto73: My statement isn't about a jury. It is about using self defense as justification for his actions. He must show that it was justified and the burden is on the defense. I've already said I don't think he is legally guilty. The statement that I was responding to just had the burden of proof backwards.

GAAHH! how at this point in time can you have that screwed up?!? In Florida's SYG law the burden of proof is on the prosecution in cases of self defense, not on the defense.

People are making the same retarded arguments they made 2 months ago, despite all the new facts that have come out. It's hopeless trying to reason with justice for Trayvon folks. It's a religion to them at this point.

The Chicago Rule: NEVER THROW shiat AT AN ARMED MAN.

Zimmerman is the appointed closed-community watch officer and therefor represents all his neighbors while out on patrol
Zimmerman was armed and the trespasser must assume that he was confronting an armed man.
I doubt Zimmerman could catch up with the trespasser, so the trespasser confronted an armed watchman on private property.
That's an "aggressive action" and implies intent.

The gated community was closed and locked.

The FAULT in this situation is the childhood education of the trespasser, not the tasks assigned to the watchman.

meow said the dog: 9beers: meow said the dog: Last I looked this was not the actual case; it was less than 50%. Perhaps you know of new data on the topic of this.

From 1976 - 2005, it's 52.2% Link

Oh I did not realize we were going back to 1976. I thought we were speaking of the present time. Trayvon should have been in the home of his master, then.

Other than 1988 and 1998, the black percentage of homicides committed has been greater than 50%.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/ovracetab.cfm

The breakdown has been almost exactly 50-50 since 1988.

BigBooper: fracto73: My statement isn't about a jury. It is about using self defense as justification for his actions. He must show that it was justified and the burden is on the defense. I've already said I don't think he is legally guilty. The statement that I was responding to just had the burden of proof backwards.

GAAHH! how at this point in time can you have that screwed up?!? In Florida's SYG law the burden of proof is on the prosecution in cases of self defense, not on the defense.


I don't think it does. It's been a while since I read it, but I thought it just opened the avenue to use self defense in more situations, not changing it from an affirmative defense.

Moderator: Remember to keep it civil in here. We don't need you to be Junior Thread Watch Captains.

Since 2012-05-16 11:10:08 PM is after tonight's lotto picks, could you please tell us the winning numbers?

meow said the dog: 9beers: meow said the dog: Oh I did not realize we were going back to 1976. I thought we were speaking of the present time. Trayvon should have been in the home of his master, then.

You could have just admitted you were wrong.

2010 Uniform Crime Report disagrees with the wrongness of me:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl03.xls
(although the number of unknown could ALL be Black)

The black proportion is greater than the white proportion in that table. (38% to 32%, with 28% unknown)

Talondel: BigBooper:
/I'll be in the coroner weeping bitterly
//and masturbating furiously

Why masturbate when you're already inside the coroner? Just finish off in there.
redmid17: Methinks it's going to be difficult to masturbate whilst inside a coroner. Are you going to be wearing his skin?

Damned auto correct. Hey, I may lean to the right, but I'm not REPUBLICAN for god sakes.

If I was gay I'd admit it.

fracto73

The statement that I was responding to just had the burden of proof backwards.

You're talking about legal semantics, I'm talking about reality. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself. You can say that's not legally accurate all day, but it's true.

If this guy is up in front of a jury for murder, you know he's going to say he was defending himself against an assault. We already know he was being assaulted, no one's disputing that save a few farkers who think Zimmerman roughed himself up or something. And we know that these jurors are going to be told that if they have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could have been acting to protect himself, they should find him not guilty.

So, yes...the prosecution has to prove he wasn't defending himself, which seems impossible with the information available.

This text is now purple: The black proportion is greater than the white proportion in that table. (38% to 32%, with 28% unknown)

Or put another way, in cases where the race of the offender was known, the offender was black 52.7% of the time, and was white 41.0% of the time.

Why the fark is this relevant again?

BigBooper: Damned auto correct. Hey, I may lean to the right, but I'm not REPUBLICAN for god sakes.

If I was gay I'd admit it.

What are you, some kind of male chauvinist pig? Why couldn't it have been a female coroner, eh? Why do you assume a coroner has to be a man? Women aren't qualified?

Facetious_Speciest: And we know that these jurors are going to be told that if they have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could have been acting to protect himself, they should find him not guilty.

That's not what the jurors will be told. They will be told that if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman intentionally or recklessly killed Martin, that he is guilty of second degree murder, unless Zimmerman has been able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self defense. So that's the answer to you from a 'legal' perspective.

Now to address your 'realist' concerns. Go back and read this thread. Do you see how many people are already convinced that Zimmerman deserves to be punished, no matter what the facts are? Those people could very well make up the entire jury.

Talondel: BigBooper: Damned auto correct. Hey, I may lean to the right, but I'm not REPUBLICAN for god sakes.

If I was gay I'd admit it.

What are you, some kind of male chauvinist pig? Why couldn't it have been a female coroner, eh? Why do you assume a coroner has to be a man? Women aren't qualified?

But then I'd have to imagine that I'd be having sex with a real live woman. So no, I didn't consider a woman coroner because I still have a small grasp of reality left.

2 grams: prjindigo: The Chicago Rule: NEVER THROW shiat AT AN ARMED MAN.

Zimmerman is the appointed closed-community watch officer and therefor represents all his neighbors while out on patrol
Zimmerman was armed and the trespasser must assume that he was confronting an armed man.
I doubt Zimmerman could catch up with the trespasser, so the trespasser confronted an armed watchman on private property.
That's an "aggressive action" and implies intent.

The gated community was closed and locked.

The FAULT in this situation is the childhood education of the trespasser, not the tasks assigned to the watchman.

The hell you talking about?

Zimerman was going to Walmart. Not "out on Patrol"
Marten was an invited guest of a resident.
Shooting people for tresspassing is not an assigned task of a watchman.

Atrocious spelling aside, this is correct.
Also, I haven't read the rules for neighborhood watch in that particular community, but most of them around here specifically mention you are NOT to be carrying during your watch, CHL status notwithstanding.
That being said, the fact that he was carrying could indicate he was in fact running an errand, not "stalking" the neighborhood looking for people of a particular race to shoot.

Also...



"Remember to keep it civil in here. We don't need you to be Junior Thread Watch Captains."

Talondel: This text is now purple: The black proportion is greater than the white proportion in that table. (38% to 32%, with 28% unknown)

Or put another way, in cases where the race of the offender was known, the offender was black 52.7% of the time, and was white 41.0% of the time.

Why the fark is this relevant again?

I think the tangent got started when a farker who couldn't count to potato decided to try the argument that blacks don't commit homicides against whites.

Odd that none of those injuries were apparent when Zimm showed up at the police station. Black eyes might not show right away, but a broken nose and cuts on the back of the head should have been visible on the video tape.

3dougnight: but a broken nose and cuts on the back of the head should have been visible on the video tape.

Goddammit!

2 grams: prjindigo: The Chicago Rule: NEVER THROW shiat AT AN ARMED MAN.

Zimmerman is the appointed closed-community watch officer and therefor represents all his neighbors while out on patrol
Zimmerman was armed and the trespasser must assume that he was confronting an armed man.
I doubt Zimmerman could catch up with the trespasser, so the trespasser confronted an armed watchman on private property.
That's an "aggressive action" and implies intent.

The gated community was closed and locked.

The FAULT in this situation is the childhood education of the trespasser, not the tasks assigned to the watchman.

The hell you talking about?

Zimerman was going to Walmart. Not "out on Patrol"
Marten was an invited guest of a resident.
Shooting people for tresspassing is not an assigned task of a watchman.

http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p638/stinkytheclown666/sense.jpg

2 grams: prjindigo: The Chicago Rule: NEVER THROW shiat AT AN ARMED MAN.

Zimmerman is the appointed closed-community watch officer and therefor represents all his neighbors while out on patrol
Zimmerman was armed and the trespasser must assume that he was confronting an armed man.
I doubt Zimmerman could catch up with the trespasser, so the trespasser confronted an armed watchman on private property.
That's an "aggressive action" and implies intent.

The gated community was closed and locked.

The FAULT in this situation is the childhood education of the trespasser, not the tasks assigned to the watchman.

The hell you talking about?

Zimerman was going to Walmart. Not "out on Patrol"
Marten was an invited guest of a resident.
Shooting people for tresspassing is not an assigned task of a watchman.

html durrrr
/sorry

3dougnight: Odd that none of those injuries were apparent when Zimm showed up at the police station. Black eyes might not show right away, but a broken nose and cuts on the back of the head should have been visible on the video tape.

9beers: Goddammit!

Are we being trolled? I honestly can't tell any more.

redmid17: TXEric: Atrocious spelling aside, this is correct.
Also, I haven't read the rules for neighborhood watch in that particular community, but most of them around here specifically mention you are NOT to be carrying during your watch, CHL status notwithstanding.
That being said, the fact that he was carrying could indicate he was in fact running an errand, not "stalking" the neighborhood looking for people of a particular race to shoot.

Also

And the penalty for not adhering to neighborhood watch rules is?

Not sure. I don't even know if it's criminal, most likely you lose your status in the neighborhood watch patrol if it's discovered you didn't follow their rules. However, in this case, the weapon was actually pulled and used. I know here in TX, that in and of itself is breaking the law, even for CHL holders. It's just a matter of whether that law ("brandishing") was broken to prevent a more heinous crime from happening.

My point was simply that if he was going out on "patrol" for the neighborhood watch, he should not have been carrying. Which, as I mentioned, lends credence to the possibility he was just running to the store.

This text is now purple: Talondel: This text is now purple: The black proportion is greater than the white proportion in that table. (38% to 32%, with 28% unknown)

Or put another way, in cases where the race of the offender was known, the offender was black 52.7% of the time, and was white 41.0% of the time.

Why the fark is this relevant again?

I think the tangent got started when a farker who couldn't count to potato decided to try the argument that blacks don't commit homicides against whites.

Talondel: Facetious_Speciest: And we know that these jurors are going to be told that if they have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could have been acting to protect himself, they should find him not guilty.

That's not what the jurors will be told. They will be told that if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman intentionally or recklessly killed Martin, that he is guilty of second degree murder, unless Zimmerman has been able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self defense. So that's the answer to you from a 'legal' perspective.

Now to address your 'realist' concerns. Go back and read this thread. Do you see how many people are already convinced that Zimmerman deserves to be punished, no matter what the facts are? Those people could very well make up the entire jury.


Actually, there will be a hearing to have the charges dismissed due to Florida's SYG law which, as it's written, doesn't leave the judge with a whole lot of room to do otherwise, given the evidence.

Now, the judge may cave to public pressure to push the case in front of a jury but that case goes to trial with a built in mistrial appeal (based on judicial error in letting the case go forward at all). You may not like that Zimmerman has a better than even chance of walking but what'll decide that is laws and not some murky subjective personally held morality argument. The medical records show that a physical altercation took place before the kid was shot and the shooter, apparently by far, was getting the worst of that exchange. Treyvon didn't break the man's nose, black his eyes and cut the back of his head AFTER he was shot now did he?

Regardless of what you believe matters (the lead up to the confrontation itself) only one of the combatants is able to testify...and he's saying the kid laid in wait and then attacked him. Minus eyewitness or other substantial evidence, and buttressed by Zimmerman's own actions that evening, that'll be the evidence the judge has to make a decision on the viability of a SYG dismissal.

Like it or not, that's the way it'll go.

craig328: Actually, there will be a hearing to have the charges dismissed due to Florida's SYG law which, as it's written, doesn't leave the judge with a whole lot of room to do otherwise, given the evidence.

Where do you get that from? I don't see anything in the Florida self defense statute that suggests it works that way.

Case law suggests that self defense is generally a matter of fact for the jury to decide:

If evidence of self-defense is adduced, self-defense becomes issue for jury to determine. Stewart v. State, App. 2 Dist., 672 So.2d 865 (1996)

Question of self-defense is ordinarily one of fact to be determined by a trier of fact. J. Y. v. State, App. 3 Dist., 332 So.2d 643 (1976).

There is one case that could be interpreted in the way you say:

If defendant establishes prima facie case of self-defense, state must overcome defense by rebuttal, or by inference in its case in chief, and should it fail to do so, trial court is duty bound to grant judgment of acquittal in favor of defendant. State v. Rivera, App. 5 Dist., 719 So.2d 335 (1998),

But a reading of that case makes clear that if the defendant successfully puts on evidence of each element of a self defense claim, and the prosecution fails to put on any rebuttal evidence at all, the judge is required to dismiss. But the judge doesn't weigh the merits of the prosecutions evidence, he only dismisses if they fail to provide any evidence at all.

craig328: Now, the judge may cave to public pressure to push the case in front of a jury but that case goes to trial with a built in mistrial appeal (based on judicial error in letting the case go forward at all). You may not like that Zimmerman has a better than even chance of walking but what'll decide that is laws and not some murky subjective personally held morality argument. The medical records show that a physical altercation took place before the kid was shot and the shooter, apparently by far, was getting the worst of that exchange. Treyvon didn't break the man's nose, black his eyes and cut the back of his head AFTER he was shot now did he?

Again, from what I can gather this is wrong. Please feel free to correct me if you have citations to a more current version of the law or better cases. Until then, I'll stick with my reading of the statutes and cases, which indicate that this will certainly come down to the subjective moral views of the jurors. They will be asked to determine if he proved on a preponderance of the evidence that he was in reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm.

craig328: Minus eyewitness or other substantial evidence, and buttressed by Zimmerman's own actions that evening, that'll be the evidence the judge has to make a decision on the viability of a SYG dismissal.

Once again, this won't be up to the judge. It also won't have much if anything to do with 'stand your ground.' Had that law never been passed, the outcome would be the same.

Mid_mo_mad_man: Zimmerman going to lynched evendince be damned!

Listening to these Black Racist Thug Farkers and the White Guilt Liberal Farkers....they just wanna lynch Zimmerman.

This BS that "we still do not know who attacked who first" is Black Racist BS. Everything Zimmerman and his people said of what happened is 100% correct....and everything Team TrayWanna has been saying...with Black Racist attorney Crump da Chump and his whiney ass racist BS still spewing....has been proven WRONG everytime

Even liberals like Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin weren't buying Crump's Black Racist spiel last nite

TrayWanna supporters are nothing but Racists

Just_a_Bear: so why did all the initial reports indicate Zimmerman didn't have a scratch on him? wtf?

The media has been lying racists about TrayWanna and the incident the whole time.

Remember this is the same media who kept posting kid photos of TrayWanna and claimed he was an angel...when in fact he was an oversized 17 yr old who was serving a school suspension when he got shot

And, there are enough Black Racists and White Guilt Liberals who will lap up anything Al Sharpton or Bernard Crump the Black Racist Chump would spew

Zimmerman is innocent..and the TrayWanna bootlickers are gonna have to accept that fact

bonerici: sure the prosecution released evidence that zimm got his ass whupped.

But they didnt release evidence that martin was shot in the back.

That will come out at trial.

Nope...already released that the bullet entered TrayWanna's chest...and that there are fragments and powder residue on the front part of his body.

Talondel: craig328: Actually, there will be a hearing to have the charges dismissed due to Florida's SYG law which, as it's written, doesn't leave the judge with a whole lot of room to do otherwise, given the evidence.

Where do you get that from? I don't see anything in the Florida self defense statute that suggests it works that way.

Case law suggests that self defense is generally a matter of fact for the jury to decide:

If evidence of self-defense is adduced, self-defense becomes issue for jury to determine. Stewart v. State, App. 2 Dist., 672 So.2d 865 (1996)

Question of self-defense is ordinarily one of fact to be determined by a trier of fact. J. Y. v. State, App. 3 Dist., 332 So.2d 643 (1976).

There is one case that could be interpreted in the way you say:

If defendant establishes prima facie case of self-defense, state must overcome defense by rebuttal, or by inference in its case in chief, and should it fail to do so, trial court is duty bound to grant judgment of acquittal in favor of defendant. State v. Rivera, App. 5 Dist., 719 So.2d 335 (1998),

But a reading of that case makes clear that if the defendant successfully puts on evidence of each element of a self defense claim, and the prosecution fails to put on any rebuttal evidence at all, the judge is required to dismiss. But the judge doesn't weigh the merits of the prosecutions evidence, he only dismisses if they fail to provide any evidence at all.

craig328: Now, the judge may cave to public pressure to push the case in front of a jury but that case goes to trial with a built in mistrial appeal (based on judicial error in letting the case go forward at all). You may not like that Zimmerman has a better than even chance of walking but what'll decide that is laws and not some murky subjective personally held morality argument. The medical records show that a physical altercation took place before the kid was shot and the shooter, apparently by far, was getting the worst of that exchange. Treyvon didn't ...

Sorry, but he's right. A determination of the Defendant's use of deadly force in self defense is a matter for the trial judge. The Florida Supreme Court case is Dennis v. State.

In addition, the judge must make a finding of fact, based on the preponderance of the evidence. That's a simple balancing - effectively 51%. It's a very low threshold.

I've seen both of the Martin family attorneys on TV today while Zimmerman's was nowhere to be seen.

9beers: I've seen both of the Martin family attorneys on TV today while Zimmerman's was nowhere to be seen.

Martin family attorneys are in damage control mode. They pretty much look like liars now. And, anything that makes Zimmerman look innocent upsets the TrayWanna gravy train

(I'd use "Trayvon", but its been Trademarked)

UCFRoadWarrior: 9beers: I've seen both of the Martin family attorneys on TV today while Zimmerman's was nowhere to be seen.

Martin family attorneys are in damage control mode. They pretty much look like liars now. And, anything that makes Zimmerman look innocent upsets the TrayWanna gravy train

(I'd use "Trayvon", but its been Trademarked)

Aren't you late for your Klan meeting?

keepitcherry: Aren't you late for your Klan meeting?

Shouldn't you be out apologizing to a black person?

mitEj: So you mean the young teenage boy may have defended himself when a crazy person chased him down in a SUV in the middle of the night and then chased him into the grass way between houses as he tried to get home to his stepmothers house. What would have done submitter ?

The entire point is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and killed the teen boy. If the young man fought back that was his right under the statute that Zimmerman erroneously used to get away with murder.

Thread over. Everyone else can fark off.

Your Average Witty Fark User: Thread over. Everyone else can fark off.

Especially the facts.

prjindigo: The Chicago Rule: NEVER THROW shiat AT AN ARMED MAN.

Zimmerman is the appointed closed-community watch officer and therefor represents all his neighbors while out on patrol
Zimmerman was armed and the trespasser must assume that he was confronting an armed man.
I doubt Zimmerman could catch up with the trespasser, so the trespasser confronted an armed watchman on private property.
That's an "aggressive action" and implies intent.

The gated community was closed and locked.

The FAULT in this situation is the childhood education of the trespasser, not the tasks assigned to the watchman.

Speaking of faults in education, Martin was an invitee, not a trespasser. Congratulations. You jumped to the same mistaken conclusion that George Zimmerman did.

Facetious_Speciest: And we know that these jurors are going to be told that if they have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could have been acting to protect himself, they should find him not guilty.

Talondel: That's not what the jurors will be told.

Weird! Because the Florida Supreme Court's "Instructions for Jurors" says "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty." Like what I said, not you. So whether you agree with it or not, it appears you're mistaken.

Now to address your 'realist' concerns. Go back and read this thread. Do you see how many people are already convinced that Zimmerman deserves to be punished, no matter what the facts are? Those people could very well make up the entire jury.

By the same reasoning, the jury could just as easily be made up of the hardcore pro-Zimmermans or obstinate "people who pay attention to the law" brigade as well.

He only needs one of the latter. That's more likely IMO than twelve people in lockstep deciding he needs to be punished regardless of the law. I guess we'll see.

Propain_az: His dad is white. His mom is Peruvian with some African ancestors.

So, how should he be classified, for race baiting purposes?


mocha creme?

tirob: prjindigo: The Chicago Rule: NEVER THROW shiat AT AN ARMED MAN.

Zimmerman is the appointed closed-community watch officer and therefor represents all his neighbors while out on patrol
Zimmerman was armed and the trespasser must assume that he was confronting an armed man.
I doubt Zimmerman could catch up with the trespasser, so the trespasser confronted an armed watchman on private property.
That's an "aggressive action" and implies intent.

The gated community was closed and locked.

The FAULT in this situation is the childhood education of the trespasser, not the tasks assigned to the watchman.

Speaking of faults in education, Martin was an invitee, not a trespasser. Congratulations. You jumped to the same mistaken conclusion that George Zimmerman did.

No one thinks Trayvon should have been killed. Zimmerman was policing the area watching out for regular people like you and me; he saw a 6 foot tall guy in a hoodie at dark. There had been a string of burlaries; zimmerman was trying to stop crime. Maybe he went about it by following when he shouldn't have, but that's not the question. The question is, did Zimmerman fear for his life? Why was Trayvon taking so long in getting back to his father's fiancee's apartment? It doesn't take *that* long to get back...do some research. Why did Trayvon not punch the guy and run? Instead, he continued pummeling Zimmerman. That is clearly not someone who is scared for his life...Clearly.

Why did the media circulate pictures of Trayvon from nearly 5 years ago, with a cherubic face instead of a grill on his teeth???

Here's the facts, like it or not: America's black youth get mocked, belittled and ridiculed when they 'speak proper'...they get called out for 'actin white'. They are accused of being sellouts if they show any style or individual thinking or behavior. The people doing this? Other black folk. There is a problem with the black society in America when you have such intense peer pressure to show you have street cred and when acting like a hard azz that you can't dare be caught "actin white". No amount of money thrown in schools will fix that. Fix the black community and stop calling others 'raaaacist'. Damn straight if I see a group of black kids coming, I'm leaving.

You know what else that is farking retarded? These same black kids grow up to be educated black adults and they STILL have to prove their street cred by hanging onto whatever 'black leaders' say and to do otherwise brings them epithets such as "UNCLE TOM". Because they're 'not black enough' for other blacks.

DISGUSTING!!!!!