DID YOU STOP THE INTERNET?

s2s2s2: InmanRoshi: The duty to retreat

I asked for a statute. How does one retreat when pinned down?

How does one get pinned down so far away from their own home if they've sufficiently retreated to "the last wall"?

InmanRoshi: How does one get pinned down so far away from their own home if they've sufficiently retreated to "the last wall"?

Now you see why I asked for a statute, not some words from a defunct law that you think should apply to this case.

redmid17: SYG doesn't care if Zimmerman pursued Martin or not. Even if Zimmerman swung first, if Martin escalated the situation to a sufficient level (eg to the level of inflicting great bodily harm or death) and Zimmerman is unable to escape, he is legally in the clear.

Actually, I don't believe that to be the case from what I've read....

In recent times, "stand your ground" laws extended this concept in many states beyond the home to any place where a person might lawfully be found, such as a bar or a public sidewalk. Florida's version enacted in 2005 (over the objection of many in law enforcement) is one of the most far reaching.

The law states that a person "who is attacked" anywhere he is lawfully present has "no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."

Importantly, a person cannot invoke this provision if he is "engaged in unlawful activity" or "initially provokes the use of force against himself." Finally, in Florida, once self-defense becomes an issue at trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense -- a heavy burden.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/opinion/bellin-stand-your-ground-law/in d ex.html

monoski: tenpoundsofcheese: monoski: tenpoundsofcheese: monoski: kvinesknows: Nabb1: I guess the paramedics who responded at the scene are in on the conspiracy, too, since they reported injuries to Zimmerman's face and head.

funny how usually paramedics would clean a wound and dress it. Nice bandages on his head and interesting how there is no stuck on old dried up blood.

It does not matter if he got beat up. The law says you cannot pick a fight, get your ass kicked then shoot and call it self-defense.

who said he picked a fight?
Proof?

He is on the police 911 recording being told not to follow Trayvon but he must have continued to follow him or he would not be in proximity to get his ass kicked.

Yeah so? What does that have to do with the question?

Who said he picked a fight? Proof?

I see where you are going and I will agree that picked a fight was a bad choice of words but Zimmerman called 911 from his car and was told not to follow (Martin) him, we know he disregarded that and left his car to continue following this is where he crossed the legal line (in my eyes) whether he left to start a confrontation or not.


I've listened to the 911 call, and this is not accurate. Zimmerman already was out of the car and running when the 911 dispatcher asked him if he was chasing Martin. Zimmerman answered that he was. The 911 dispatcher told him he did not have to do that, and Zimmerman said OK. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin ran away. After a few seconds, Zimmerman stopped breathing heavily. More than a minute later, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he didn't know where Martin was. Shortly thereafter, the call ended.

Based on this, I personally do not know how Zimmerman and Martin came face to face. Maybe Zimmerman found and confronted Martin. Maybe Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman. I simply don't know. However, one of the things that amazes me about this case is how it's accepted as proven fact that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being told, "we don't need you to do that."

s2s2s2: InmanRoshi: How does one get pinned down so far away from their own home if they've sufficiently retreated to "the last wall"?

Now you see why I asked for a statute, not some words from a defunct law that you think should apply to this case.

I said the laws applied before SYG was enacted when Florida was still a right to retreat state. I did not say that they apply currently.

Prior to the SYG laws Zimmerman clearly would have been in violation of the law to persue Martin

I'm not sure wasting my time providing a statute would have done much good. Your reading ability and comprehension seems quite poor. And my initial argument still stands, by the end of this trial the Zimmerman defenders will be seen standing on the sign of a racist and a psychopath, whether he's legally cleared or not.

Blowmonkey: Woot_Gawd: Splinshints:
Based on what evidence? wait..there is none...what if it went down like this " Hey man, what are you doing in this neighborhood?" "Fark you whitey, keep following me and ill beat the shiat out of you" "I am part of the neighborhood watch" "great, enjoy this beat down" "help help' BANG

Do you think there is any reasonable human being on this planet who would buy that story?

Even if it were true, Zimmerman is still the aggressor, the kid didn't notice/follow/stalk/pursue Zimmerman.

Hey Columbo, what about the witness that said Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him "MMA style"?

Unknown: Was Zimmerman arguing with Martin face to face before the fight or was Zimmerman walking back toward his vehicle, as he said he was, when Martin jumped him?

Don't self defense me bro. And screw watermelon tea, I want fried chicken skittles.

/It's not racist because everyone loves watermelon and fried chicken.

Moderator: Knock it off. Don't make Moderator have to stop this internet.

just curious, what do you find objectionable? seems this is mainly on topic discussion of the link.
where are people going wrong?

InmanRoshi: I'm not sure wasting my time providing a statute would have done much good. Your reading ability and comprehension seems quite poor. And my initial argument still stands, by the end of this trial the Zimmerman defenders will be seen standing on the sign of a racist and a psychopath, whether he's legally cleared or not.

Awww. You are a cute parrot.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: wingedkat: The most relevant evidence in this whole case is that the kid was running away when Zimmerman got out of the car and chased him.

If a strange guy were following me, then after I started running away got out of his car and started chasing me, I'd take the first chance I got to sit on top of him and bash his skull against the ground. How can Zimmerman act in self-defense if chased the kid when he ran away?

You can't attack someone then claim "self defense" when they fight back.

In one of these threads there was a guy claiming that you, in fact, can attack someone, then shoot them in self-defense if they fight back. It takes a lot for me to put someone on ignore, but that guy got on the list. These threads have been a great way to spot trolls and miserable people that don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Maybe if you had done an ounce of research instead of immediately ignoring someone and assuming they are trolling you, you wouldn't sound like a retard right now.

It is, in completely verifiable fact, absolutely legal to start a fight then use Stand Your Ground if you are losing the fight. It has been tested in Florida court MULTIPLE times.

While the SYG provisions usually say something about not being engaged in illegal activity, the courts have allowed the use of SYG when the defendant started a fight and then started losing the fight.

I'm not saying it is right, just that the courts have already decided this matter.

I'm curious, has anyone here had their opinion changed as these new developments have come across?

ThatBillmanGuy: I'm curious, has anyone here had their opinion changed as these new developments have come across?

I did. I thought it was pretty cut and dry against Zimmerman, early on.

ThatBillmanGuy: I'm curious, has anyone here had their opinion changed as these new developments have come across?

Yes. I thought Zimmerman shot if Martin lunged at him to get the gun.
Like in the movies. Bit of a struggle, gun goes off, not sure who got hit. Surprise, it wasn't who you expected.

Looking at the evidence and the witness testimony It's pretty clear this is what happened:

1. Zimmerman chased down Martin and pins him to the ground.
2. Martin, fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and turns the tables on Zimmerman and pins him down, Zimmerman sustaining injuries in the process.
3. Zimmerman, now fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and shoots Martin.

In other words this is a case of double self-defense.

Zimmerman is a crazy asshole, but it looks like he's probably a not-guilty crazy asshole.

Now, maybe the law ought to be different, but you cant convict people for stuff that they did before it was illegal.

Glad this is getting the full examination of a trial though. Just saying "well that's that" and letting the shooter head home that night after an unarmed teenager turned up dead was sillypants.

Id be interested in going through the archives and seeing how people have been influenced by the media, and how their opinions have changed everytime a new article is greenlit. But, I'm not in school for anything and have no reason to do a research study outside of a personal interest in how farked up the media is, and the way they handle everything, and how that influences Fark.

ThatBillmanGuy: Id be interested in going through the archives and seeing how people have been influenced by the media, and how their opinions have changed everytime a new article is greenlit. But, I'm not in school for anything and have no reason to do a research study outside of a personal interest in how farked up the media is, and the way they handle everything, and how that influences Fark.

Dollars to donuts everyone is on the same side they were on by thread ~3

TXEric: Bontes

It's okay. The misinformation is insane. You could still be right. I'm only following the case with mild interest :)

Blowmonkey: Even if it were true, Zimmerman is still the aggressor, the kid didn't notice/follow/stalk/pursue Zimmerman.
==========================================

You don't actually know the definition of "aggressor" do you?

My opinion has changed from the very beginning when the news story coming out was grossly distorted (looking at you, NBC). The initial story went something like the neighborhood watch guy ran this dude down and shot him dead while he was hiding under a car or something like that. If that was the truth, then I would have been firmly in the 'Zimmerman deserves the needle camp'. Now that we have a clearer picture of what really happened, I am of the opinion Zimmerman was clearly justified and him being charged at all is just the prosecutor bowing to public pressure (again, blame NBC for this).

I also don't get why people are being critical of him pursuing Martin. He was the head of the neighborhood watch. It was part of his job - investigate suspicious behavior in the neighborhood. Something like that happens to most people, they diffuse the situation by explaining to the neighborhood watch guy what they are doing (walking to relative's house), not starting a fight with him because of issues with authority.

Moderator: Knock it off. Don't make Moderator have to stop this internet.

=============================================

Dude, you are not funny. This has got to be one of the laziest attempts to troll a thread I've ever seen. Welcome to the Ignore list.

redmid17: Bontesla: So, I got the "36" inches from the below link. The ME documents attached.

Link

Where did you get yours?

Not being snarky. I don't have enough time to follow the 24 hour news cycle - so you may have more precise information than I do.

Forensic report - Link

But there are different descriptions of the gunshot wound to Martin. The Volusia County Medical Examiner said the shot was at a "intermediate range." However, the FDLE report notes residue from the gun is consistent with a "contact shot."

Pathologist's book defining intermediate range : Link

Starts at 10 mm

Right. I think we're both relying on "experts" as the forensic report doesn't give a range (at least the reports I've seen). Again, I haven't read everything pertaining to the case so there could be some document that actually gives an estimated range. I haven't seen it.

horsepocket: It is, in completely verifiable fact, absolutely legal to start a fight

Law =/= Precedent

Assault/Battery is still illegal. However, in a murder case, they are rarely charged with it.

Also, it's not about losing a fight, it's about reasonable fear of immediate harm/death. Paraphrasing so dishonestly is a pretty shiatty move, please stop. Presuming TM was kicking ass and taking names is tatamout to "My dad can beat up your dad", and really, is only support for Zimm's self defense claims.

People are using SYG to justify past actions, it is a measuring stick with which to judge guilt. Whether the machanic works as designed is up in the air, but by it's own intent and wording, it's not a get out of jail free card as people are pretending.

People are not using SYG as inspiration to go out and cause murders by picking a fight, as you claim. It is not legalizing murder / starting a fight.

People are reading "stand your ground" and taking it just that vaguely and simply, IE "stand up for your self, don't back down" in arguments about TM's right to attack GZ. This is grossly ignorant interpretation of what SYG technically is.

redmid17: mikemil828: Looking at the evidence and the witness testimony It's pretty clear this is what happened:

1. Zimmerman chased down Martin and pins him to the ground.
2. Martin, fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and turns the tables on Zimmerman and pins him down, Zimmerman sustaining injuries in the process.
3. Zimmerman, now fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and shoots Martin.

In other words this is a case of double self-defense.

How did you come to point #1?

Think about it from Zimmerman's perspective, there is this punk that may be doing something evil and ruining your neighborhood, and you are sure as hell not going to let him get away, what are you going to do to prevent him from leaving?

redmid17: mikemil828: Looking at the evidence and the witness testimony It's pretty clear this is what happened:

1. Zimmerman chased down Martin and pins him to the ground.
2. Martin, fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and turns the tables on Zimmerman and pins him down, Zimmerman sustaining injuries in the process.
3. Zimmerman, now fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and shoots Martin.

In other words this is a case of double self-defense.

How did you come to point #1?

=================================

He/she came to point #1 by FARK YOU!, that's how. It seems like all the Martin supporters really like to just make up "facts" as they go along, anything to make the narrative fit their racist viewpoint.

lisarenee3505: Moderator: Knock it off. Don't make Moderator have to stop this internet.

=============================================

Dude, you are not funny. This has got to be one of the laziest attempts to troll a thread I've ever seen. Welcome to the Ignore list.


LOL!

fawlty: from the pic, It was watermelon flavored ice-tea, btw

/just saying

it's not watermelon flavored iced tea. it's watermelon flavored juice cocktail. there is no tea in it.

horsepocket: Don't Troll Me Bro!: wingedkat: The most relevant evidence in this whole case is that the kid was running away when Zimmerman got out of the car and chased him.

If a strange guy were following me, then after I started running away got out of his car and started chasing me, I'd take the first chance I got to sit on top of him and bash his skull against the ground. How can Zimmerman act in self-defense if chased the kid when he ran away?

You can't attack someone then claim "self defense" when they fight back.

In one of these threads there was a guy claiming that you, in fact, can attack someone, then shoot them in self-defense if they fight back. It takes a lot for me to put someone on ignore, but that guy got on the list. These threads have been a great way to spot trolls and miserable people that don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Maybe if you had done an ounce of research instead of immediately ignoring someone and assuming they are trolling you, you wouldn't sound like a retard right now.

It is, in completely verifiable fact, absolutely legal to start a fight then use Stand Your Ground if you are losing the fight. It has been tested in Florida court MULTIPLE times.

While the SYG provisions usually say something about not being engaged in illegal activity, the courts have allowed the use of SYG when the defendant started a fight and then started losing the fight.

I'm not saying it is right, just that the courts have already decided this matter.

Yeah, I'm the one who "looks like a retard" here.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Yeah, I'm the one who "looks like a retard" here.

I agree!

monoski: Propain_az: I see where you are going and I will agree that picked a fight was a bad choice of words but Zimmerman called 911 from his car and was told not to follow (Martin) him, we know he disregarded that and left his car to continue following this is where he crossed the legal line (in my eyes) whether he left to start a confrontation or not.

What legal line did he cross? 911 Operators have no authority over ANYBODY. They are not Police Officers, and you know this.


Yes, the 911 operator does not have "authority" to tell him to stop but she was giving valid advice. There was no need for him to pursue the suspect. He chose to pursue Martin putting himself in a situation where a conflict occurred. That is not "Standing your ground"

He had no legal duty to follow the dispatcher's advice. But his refusal to follow it proves he was committed to confrontation against Neighborhood Watch protocol, and police advice. Trayvon, by contrast, hid from Zimmerman, and tried to escape. He made every reasonable effort to avoid confrontation. That Zimmerman surely saw Trayvon flee further adds to the inference that Zimmerman was committed to a confrontation that, because he was carrying a loaded firearm, knew could turn deadly.

And that right there is why he is guilty of depraved heart murder.

bugontherug: But his refusal to follow it proves

I stopped at "proves" to ask how you prove he refused. Any evidence, whatsoever that he did not comply?

relcec: Bontesla:

that's exactly what I said, it hinges entirely on whether the jury finds that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances.

Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't taking issue with every single statement you had made. I was only taking issue with something I disagreed with. I should have been clear.

I disagree that this case hinges on whether or not Zimmerman's actions were reasonable. Depraved mind isn't technically the same thing as the reasonable standard. So, I can be unreasonable but still not be depraved. That's the hurdle the prosecution will need to leap in order for the murder 2 charge to land.


this might be our problem. do you know what an affirmative defense actually is?

it is an absolute legal excuse for alleged crime. it doesn't matter even a little bit if the prosecution can prove the elements of the charged crime if they can't get over the legal excuse to what they are accusing him of. this case is absolutely about whether Zimmerman's state of mind was reasonable because he will quite obviously guilty of an unlawful killing of some sort if he can't rely on this affirmative defense. if the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not act reasonably we don't even get to mens rea. it's over.


behaving reasonably will mean he acted legally. you don't really need to say he needs to prove he acted reasonably AND legally AND that his actions were necessary to defend himself. do you see how your adding words but no substance here?

However, behaving unreasonably may still be legal. For example - if I were to yell at my neighbor because they blew their leafs on to my lawn - it may be an unreasonable response on my part. Yet, me yelling at my neighbor may be completely legal (depending on the content of my speech).

The prosecution is accusing Zimmerman of having a depraved mind at the time of the incident. They have to do more than argue he was being unreasonable. They actually have to establish depravity.

So, ...

My god, you're wordy. And you have no legal training - as evident by your response. I'm going to skim because I don't frankly care about convincing you. My goal is to waste time without much effort.

In response to, "[an affirmative defense] is an absolute legal excuse for alleged crime. it doesn't matter even a little bit if the prosecution can prove the elements of the charged crime if they can't get over the legal excuse to what they are accusing him of. "

I think you're confused about the procedure.

In an affirmative defense - the defense must affirm a defense. I know this sounds obvious but for some reason you seem to be claiming that the defense doesn't have to affirm anything. You're claiming the burden of proof still rests on the prosecution.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the elements of a crime. An affirmative defense is an argument saying that the defendant's actions were justified because of x. This is something you actually argue.

See Link

The SYG law changes the procedure slightly by allowing the defense to become immune from prosecution in a pretrial motion if they can establish enough evidence that their justification is likely legal. So, if the accused can factually establish pre-trial that his or her use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances outlined in Section 776.012 or Section 776.013, the State of Florida is legally and procedurally barred from further prosecution in the matter.

The burden of proof is on the defense but the standard is a little different (reasonable doubt isn't necessary).

Addtl sources:

Link

Link

This whole case has been screwed up from the beginning, both by the local cops and the news media. For what it's worth, I am just really hoping that Zimmerman will at least go to trial so that ALL of the evidence comes out. This selective leaking of factoids (from NBC, Zimmerman's defense lawyers, et al) isn't doing anybody justice.

In the beginning, most of the story seemed to assume Zimmerman's guilt. Now, as the defense begins to push back, it starts to look like he may be legally in the clear. But this is too serious to simply play out in the court of public opinion. I have to think the prosecution believed it had enough evidence to warrant such severe charges. Though I haven't followed the case all that closely, my understanding was that the judge issued a gag order about it. That seemed to last for about three days.

\regardless of the final verdict, I hope the result will be a teachable moment in this country so that at least Trayvon Martin's death will not have been in vain.

Philimus: This whole case has been screwed up from the beginning, both by the local cops and the news media. For what it's worth, I am just really hoping that Zimmerman will at least go to trial so that ALL of the evidence comes out. This selective leaking of factoids (from NBC, Zimmerman's defense lawyers, et al) isn't doing anybody justice.

In the beginning, most of the story seemed to assume Zimmerman's guilt. Now, as the defense begins to push back, it starts to look like he may be legally in the clear. But this is too serious to simply play out in the court of public opinion. I have to think the prosecution believed it had enough evidence to warrant such severe charges. Though I haven't followed the case all that closely, my understanding was that the judge issued a gag order about it. That seemed to last for about three days.

\regardless of the final verdict, I hope the result will be a teachable moment in this country so that at least Trayvon Martin's death will not have been in vain.

Any outcome will be used as an excuse for rioting in certain communities, be it in protest or celebration.

redmid17: mikemil828: redmid17: mikemil828: Looking at the evidence and the witness testimony It's pretty clear this is what happened:

1. Zimmerman chased down Martin and pins him to the ground.
2. Martin, fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and turns the tables on Zimmerman and pins him down, Zimmerman sustaining injuries in the process.
3. Zimmerman, now fearing for his life, stands his ground(c) and shoots Martin.

In other words this is a case of double self-defense.

How did you come to point #1?

Think about it from Zimmerman's perspective, there is this punk that may be doing something evil and ruining your neighborhood, and you are sure as hell not going to let him get away, what are you going to do to prevent him from leaving?

So nothing really other than your own speculation then?


That's not a valid answer. Sheesh, why are folks so defensive, its not like this case has anything to do with most of you guys.

bugontherug: monoski: Propain_az: I see where you are going and I will agree that picked a fight was a bad choice of words but Zimmerman called 911 from his car and was told not to follow (Martin) him, we know he disregarded that and left his car to continue following this is where he crossed the legal line (in my eyes) whether he left to start a confrontation or not.

What legal line did he cross? 911 Operators have no authority over ANYBODY. They are not Police Officers, and you know this.


Yes, the 911 operator does not have "authority" to tell him to stop but she was giving valid advice. There was no need for him to pursue the suspect. He chose to pursue Martin putting himself in a situation where a conflict occurred. That is not "Standing your ground"

He had no legal duty to follow the dispatcher's advice. But his refusal to follow it proves he was committed to confrontation against Neighborhood Watch protocol, and police advice. Trayvon, by contrast, hid from Zimmerman, and tried to escape. He made every reasonable effort to avoid confrontation. That Zimmerman surely saw Trayvon flee further adds to the inference that Zimmerman was committed to a confrontation that, because he was carrying a loaded firearm, knew could turn deadly.

And that right there is why he is guilty of depraved heart murder.

Advice (opinion), an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct

Hey Prosecutor the judge just told you to shut up and sit down after you said "advice", because the Defense just asked for a mistrial.

What next?

ThatBillmanGuy: I'm curious, has anyone here had their opinion changed as these new developments have come across?

Not me. I initially thought that there wasn't enough evidence to determine whether Zimmerman's self-defense claim was legit, and even with the release of this packet of evidence I still don't know. IMHO the case will come down to Zimmerman's credibility, inasmuch as, in order to walk away from this, he has to show that he reasonably believed that he was in danger of being killed or suffering serious bodily injury when he shot Martin.

bmr68: bugontherug: monoski: Propain_az: I see where you are going and I will agree that picked a fight was a bad choice of words but Zimmerman called 911 from his car and was told not to follow (Martin) him, we know he disregarded that and left his car to continue following this is where he crossed the legal line (in my eyes) whether he left to start a confrontation or not.

What legal line did he cross? 911 Operators have no authority over ANYBODY. They are not Police Officers, and you know this.


Yes, the 911 operator does not have "authority" to tell him to stop but she was giving valid advice. There was no need for him to pursue the suspect. He chose to pursue Martin putting himself in a situation where a conflict occurred. That is not "Standing your ground"

He had no legal duty to follow the dispatcher's advice. But his refusal to follow it proves he was committed to confrontation against Neighborhood Watch protocol, and police advice. Trayvon, by contrast, hid from Zimmerman, and tried to escape. He made every reasonable effort to avoid confrontation. That Zimmerman surely saw Trayvon flee further adds to the inference that Zimmerman was committed to a confrontation that, because he was carrying a loaded firearm, knew could turn deadly.

And that right there is why he is guilty of depraved heart murder.

Advice (opinion), an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct

Hey Prosecutor the judge just told you to shut up and sit down after you said "advice", because the Defense just asked for a mistrial.

What next?

After some thought, judge apologizes to prosecutor for his inappropriate outburst, and overrules defense's motion for a mistrial. The jury could reasonably infer that words like "Are you following him?" and "We don't need you to do that" were intended and understood as "advice."

Unless you really mean to say to say no reasonable person could possibly believe the words "we don't need you to do that," uttered in the tone and under the circumstances in which they were, constituted an offered opinion or guide to action.

Bontesla: My god, you're wordy. And you have no legal training - as evident by your response. I'm going to skim because I don't frankly care about convincing you. My goal is to waste time without much effort.

In response to, "[an affirmative defense] is an absolute legal excuse for alleged crime. it doesn't matter even a little bit if the prosecution can prove the elements of the charged crime if they can't get over the legal excuse to what they are accusing him of. "

I think you're confused about the procedure.


I'm wordy?
mr. *I'm just satisfying the various imaginary prongs when I say reasonably, legally, and necessarily for no reason* says I'm wordy?
the same moron that thinks once the prosecution proves up the elements of the crime it doesn't matter if the excuse (affirmative defense) is found applicable is going to talk about a lack of legal training?
and then cite a lawyers advertisement (that doesn't even speak to his various retarded arguments) as his authority?
listen buddy, you'll have to play at law talking guy somewheres else. I'm done teaching you about the apparently difficult to grasp concepts "affirmative defense" and "burden shift" for today.

MONTIJO v. STATE
Michael V. MONTIJO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D09-3434.
-- April 15, 2011

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a "burden of proof" identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value-other than they might be true?

The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.

HeWhoHasNoName: fawlty: from the pic, It was watermelon flavored ice-tea, btw

/just saying

Moonfisher: I must express my shock that none of the resident fark racists have mentioned that the can of tea in the picture is watermelon flavored.

Full of win.


Next we just need a "Waste The Rainbow" joke.