This still requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of their case.

As I understand it, an Affirmative Defense as part of a Self Defense defense requires the defendant to concede the states claims against him. There is no reason to do this when its a slam dunk win for the defense... its a tool of last resort or used in the case of insanity or other oddball defenses that concede the defendant committed the crime. For example, a psychotic axe murder cuts up a bunch of children and is caught in the act and doesn't deny any of the facts.... concedes he did it and pleads insanity. The defense in this case is not conceding the defendant committed 2nd degree murder. The state in this case seems to be miles away from proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

All that said, the burden of proof is never on the defendant, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution as the presumption of the innocence of the defendant exists... proving your innocence assumes guilt.

Honestly? I could give two fucks. lol

I know that sounds cold. But since I was a kid in the 1960's and 1970's I've been hearing about this shit.

Gangs are gonna kill each other. Ain't nothing that you or me can do about it. The only ones who could are those noble black leaders.

A couple of middle aged white pornographers? Yeah, I suppose we could go to Chicago together and try to hold hands with the black youth and sing songs of peace...but they'd kill our dumb asses in the first five minutes. :1orglaugh

zimmerman declined to testify. this is the smoking gun. he committed manslaughter.

spare me your armchair bullshit about the process, the burden of proof. im just talking about the truth. Fact is, zim should not have chased down trayvon. should not have put himself into a spot where he got his ass beat.

credibility is the most important part of this case. Zim has none. i know the prosecution is weak. that was inevitable given the witnesses contradict each other & there is no video tape. so when the only person who can say what happened refuses to testify, that says everything as to credibility.

Im hoping for a manslaughter conviction. Zim does not deserve to be a free man for his actions. an innocent kid was killed because he was playing wannabe cop.

:)

Why exactly would he need to testify? There's nothing he can say or add that hasn't been picked apart from video interviews/statements already...

He wanted to be a cop years ago...but the cop that trained him for the neighborhood watch...offered him a job on the Citizens on Patrol program which would have provided him with a cops uniform and a cops patrol car...but he turned it down flat. In addition his college professor said that Zimmerman wanted to become an attorney. So much for the over used "wanna be cop".

Ugh. If the FIRST punch can be fatal, can the SECOND? I only ask that because contrary to the experts, YOU know he wasn't hurt at all. So at what point does it BECOME self-defense? When you're too incapacitated to respond? That could be the SECOND punch and then YOU'RE the dead one.

I don't know of a single person who would NOT feel threatened if someone punched them and then climbed on top of them. He wasn't on top of him to make sure he was ok. He was on top of him to cause further harm. And as YOU said, the VERY NEXT punch could have killed him. You're not going to take your chances that the cops are only a couple of minutes away, and how do you know the guy himself doesn't have a gun or a knife??

You're in a vulnerable position in a confrontation with someone that has already demonstrated their willingness to do you harm. That is the reason it's CLEARLY self-defense. It's a no-brainer.

1. Defendants should try to never take the stand. I watched Mark Geragos explain today on CNN how the prosecution had botched the trial and the video of Zimmerman explaining to police at the scene took away ANY reason for him to have to get on the stand and go through a cross examination.
Also...thank God that what you are saying is not how our justice system works. Can you imagine if you were instantly guilty and it was a "smoking gun" if you didn't take the stand? Holy shit man. I'm glad it's not that way.

2. Yeah, because REAL cops never shoot unarmed citizens. lol
No, real cops would have killed Trayvon BEFORE he ever got one punch on them and would have said it was self defense. The fucking cops do it every day. That's why they didn't even arrest GZ in the first place or bring up any charges until the media started the race issue (GZ is referred to as a "self described hispanic" by some media stories lol)

i was not talking about process. i was just talking bout my impression as to his guilt or innocence. to me his credibility is all that matters, as it is clear the facts are in dispute. my post is just my opinion. I think he committed a crime by the way zim has conducted himself AFTER the shooting, all the way up to declining to testify. that is guilty to me.

Did he "decline" to testify???

How do you know he didn't want to testify? He certainly talked to the cops (remember, he was the one who called them in the first place). And he went back and explained the entire sequence of events with the cops on VIDEO right after it happened with no attorney present.

He didn't even have an attorney until the media stirred up race (they probably thought he was white and didn't realize he was Hispanic at the time).

My guess is that the defense attorneys saw no reason to put him on the stand. Why do that and let the prosecution try to make him look bad?

The goal is to WIN the trial. Not lose it by doing something dumb.

And putting GZ on the stand (or ANY defendant) is dumb because it allows the prosecutor to pick you apart. And trust me...a good lawyer WILL pick you apart even if you are innocent as a baby.

Didn't anybody here ever watch Matlock or Perry Mason on T.V.? :1orglaugh

i was not speaking of the process. only that his credibility blows, & i think he committed a crime. I dont know that he will be acquitted or convicted. & its Zims right not to testify. i simply think he committed a manslaughter. this should never have happened.

a guy who got an A in law enforcement class should have known better how to handle the situation without needing to shoot someone. just IMO.

there was a guy in NY years back that got shot 41 times by cops. the cops were cleared. it caused a huge ruckus here in NY. Just because they were free, doesnt make it right. Just IMO.

No, not at all. Zimmerman didn't testify because the risk was too great. He could get up on the stand, and they can ask him a question, and if it doesn't match up exactly to what he said earlier on some police report months ago... He'll be ripped to shreds.

In a murder case the defendant should never testify.

Said no cop, ever.

Please name one murderer that was caught that did not have a trial where the state had to prove his guilt. Just one. Even dead guys get trials.

Because he is anti-gun.

Another armchair quarterback that has not even listened to the testimony. Testimony, shlamony.

I can see him being convicted of discharging a weapon causing the death of another.

Any punch can be life threatening. But that doesn't mean you can shoot people in self defense because you were in fear of someone punching you.

With Zimmerman he was barely hurt, and he obviously wasn't incapacitated - he was aware of what was happening enough to pull out a handgun during a struggle AND shoot him dead.

Zimmerman didn't even get a single stitch. He didn't even see a doctor. There was no reason to believe this was life threatening or that his life was in danger.

yes. the judge asked zimmerman directly if he wished to testify, & confirmed it was his decision not to & his alone. He declined. it was broadcast on live TV today.

a prosecutor cannot pick you apart if you are innocent. the defense can rebut any damaging testimony. credibility. thats all im talking about.

if Zim ends up convicted, i guarantee it was because he lacked credibility. so if he was innocent, he could do 10+ years because he didnt take the stand.

:2 cents:

So by your logic, he should have waited until he was unconscious or worse before shooting Martin...

Ignorant ass troll, do you ever think before you speak?

I do not know why I am responding to your post yet again. You have been repeatedly told that the extent of his injuries...or lack there of have nothing to do with...his claim of self defense.

His one and only claim to self defense was that Martin went for his gun and verbally threatened his life at the same time...he beat Martin to the gun. That his is only claim to self defense...period.

He did not claim self defense because of a fight...no matter who may have started it. He did not claim self defense because he was losing a fight. He did not claim self defense because of any injuries.

According to Zimmerman Martin went for his gun is his only claim to self defense.

Answer these questions...

-at what point does it BECOME self-defense?
-how do you know the guy himself doesn't have a gun or a knife??

and remember that you paraphrased this..."the VERY NEXT punch could have killed him."

i respect you man. please re-read what i said. i was just speaking my opinion. not the merits of the case or the strength of the prosecution. he might walk. you dont know, neither do i. But if he gets convicted, it will be because the jury does not believe his side of the story. An innocent man would clarify discrepancies not hope the jury just frees him because there was no video tape.

Cool.... so you admit that the defendant had a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm ... particularly after being punched multiple times.

Welcome to the reasonable side of the discussion. We've been waiting for you.

In the real world defendants very seldom take the stand because any good attorney will tell their clients not to take the stand. I don't know the stats but my guess would be that less than ten percent take the stand...and maybe even far less than ten percent.

I'm pretty sure an innocent man would heed the advice of his defense attorney. That is what they get paid for after all.

You can bet your last dollar that if GZ's attorney thought it would be beneficial to his defense, or that it was even remotely necessary, GZ would have testified.

since you impolitely "dismissed" me in another thread you get no respect nor a response from me. you demonstrate closemindedness when you debate. even though you have good points they are eliminated by your self perceived omniscience...your dismissed.

The very fact that you replied to his post is a response, regardless of whether or not you addressed what he said...

Don't look now...but you just provided a response...sport.

correct. if he was factually innocent, GZs attorney would understand the danger of the holes in zims facts & would seek to rectify them with testimony. The truth tends to come out through the examination process. so any truly innocent person corrects the record & tells the jury directly that he was defending himself, & why.

http://media2.abcactionnews.com//pho...18_320_240.JPG

:stoned

ADG

obviously i have to communicate my intentions. its a shame you are so arrogant & rude because i actually agree with most things you write. but you fucked up again & called me sport. so goodbye & i hope you continue to enjoy the GFY community. :)

Geezus, you just don't get the concept behind self defense.

Here, from Findlaw....

What's an affirmative defense?

An affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so, and therefore should be excused from all criminal liability.

In criminal trials, the most common affirmative defenses include self-defense, defense of others and insanity. Duress, entrapment and involuntary intoxication are used less often.

To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/201...e-defense.html

Well I have been a member for more than 10 years and have wasted/killed alot of time...but I am retired so I have time to kill.

:rasta

Wrong...he is not using the "Stand Your Ground Law"...for his defense.

i learned from the thread about snowden & breaking an oath vs law thing that you have a set way of thinking, & when you are challenged you denigrate to dismissive comments. you are entitled to your style & i am entitled not to further engage you. it would be interesting to discuss our difference on the wannabe cop thing. but why subject myself to you dismissing whatever i say. i wont persuade you to why i think he is a wannabe, you will just think im wrong. so whatever.

I know I keep saying this over and over...but at the risk of sounding like a broken record:
The REAL cops shoot unarmed citizens every day.

Here in Vegas they have set new records in the last year for shooting and killing unarmed citizens because they FELT threatened. :(

None of them have went to jail. And the Obama administration has refused to send the DOJ in here to investigate the Vegas cops over this.

The point I'm trying to make is: If the REAL cops shoot you dead (and they would have killed Trayvon Martin LONG before he threw that first punch), then why would you think that a guy who took a "law enforcement class" would do a better job than the guys who are the "pros"?

See what I'm saying?

The judge always asks them if it's their decision. They always say "yes".

I JUST watched Mark Geragos 20 minutes ago on Anderson Cooper on CNN. He was explaining that they NEVER let a defendant on the stand. Never.

He said he had one defendant who insisted on it. He said he went into the judges chambers and explained that this was against everything he was telling his client...because everyone knows you NEVER let the defendant on the stand.

Geragos explained that no civilian has the skill set to contend with a prosecuting attorney on the stand.

Anyway, his client took the stand. And was convicted! The jury members were interviewed afterwards and said that they would have never convicted him...UNTIL he took the stand and the prosecuting attorney tore him to shreds and made him look bad.

Geragos said his work in the courtroom of that trial was like this: "I painted a Picasso, and then my client took the stand and pissed all over it"

Dude...you NEVER take the stand as a defendant. Unless you want to go to jail.

:1orglaugh

I give up. :helpme

It is a fact you would have known if you had watched the trial.

You obviously have a rose colored glasses view of what happens in court. Here is the main problem to your suggestion, witnesses are not allowed to give narratives. An innocent man can easily be convicted because he was worked over by a prosecutor. Not everyone is as smart as you. :2 cents:

For example . . . .


Good timing.

Any punch can be life threatening. If hit just right, you could kill a person with the first punch. But that doesn't mean someone can punch you and then you can shoot and kill him.

A few years ago I "tripped and fell" while walking on a sidewalk. (Please, try not to snicker and laugh at me.) One moment I was walking on the sidewalk, the next moment I was in an ambulance on my way to the ER. No one saw what happened; It seems I tripped and fell flat on my face. I tripped and fell on concrete, was knocked unconscious for twenty minutes, was rushed to the ER, and spent the next year in and out of doctor's offices getting fixed up. Zimmerman was "beat down" on concrete and had only two little cuts?

His story just doesn't add up.

yeah man, i hear you. But you do know that cops have different standing under the law then citizens. the law presumes a cop is telling the truth when he testifies. so much that a defendants different story would be discounted by a cops version.

by that token, cops also get a MASSIVE benefit of the doubt when claiming self defense. it is so extreme, the rodney king cops walked. then there is the amadou diallo shooting, where he got shot 41 times by new yorks finest, & they walked. & you cite examples in vegas.

No way on earth a group of citizens shoots amadou diallo 41 times & walks free. or beats rodney king on video & walks free.

whether zim can act like a cop will be decided by a jury in a couple days. :)

i will reply with one of your rhetorical tactics. please name a case where an innocent man went to jail because a prosecutor worked him over.

:winkwink:

Sad isn't it? I'm actually going to take a nice long break from this place. I don't deserve to be subjected to the sheer level of stupidity I read here lol.

Of course, and as such a person on the ground, getting pummeled has a legitimate reason to fear grave bodily harm. You've just again said its a reasonable concern.

You can't argue that getting killed or crippled is a reasonable concern and then simultaneously argue that its not a reasonable concern at the same time.

If it is, he has an argument for a self defense shooting. You don't have to like it or agree with it... that's the law. It's quite bizarre that you keep ignoring that this is exactly what the law is. You don't have to agree with it... but repeating over and over that its not the law does not make it so.

The case is about the law. Plain and simple.

Again, this is where you derail. If the person getting hit has reason to fear grave bodily harm or death, then he can kill the attacker. Making up fantasy scenarios and downplaying Zimmermans injuries etc has nothing to do with the simple fact that if a person feels they are at reasonable risk for grave bodily harm or death, they can shoot.

Again, this is the law man. That's not a disputable fact or opinion, no matter how many times you want to state it as not being true.

It's the law in the State of Florida.

This isn't about anyones feelings on skittles or gun control or losing fights.

This is your opinion. This is also pure speculation and conjecture. This is not something you've managed to demonstrate with fact.

He wasn't charged for so long, precisely because the belief was that his story did add up and was corroborated by eye witnesses, all the phone calls, character witnesses and so on.

the 64,000 dollar question is. if he gets convicted of anything that results in large time. will every poster in this thread, who insists the state has no case, admit they were wrong?

or will you insist the 6 jurors were all wrong & your still right.

:1orglaugh

No one knows what the jury will come back with. I don't think anyone has claimed to.