17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope, that is not correct. Prosecution will have to prove at trial Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

I think you're wrong (once the case gets to trial), although the prosecutor may choose to present evidence to that effect. Would you like to support your assertion?
 
I think both claims are true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Florida


There is a requirement in the statute that the State's Attorney show probable cause that an SYG defense does not apply. And I understand a special hearing is held to determine that. (Of course, "probable cause" is required in most jurisdictions to bring anybody to trial. Florida's SYG law just makes the process of showing probable cause a little more formal with regard to one element of a crime.)

If the State passes that hurdle, then SYG becomes an affirmative defense and I believe you are right that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

IANAL.

No, that is not correct. The burden of proof at trial will be on the prosecution.
Zimmerman can request a hearing from a judge before trial in which Zimmerman will have to present preponderance of the evidence that this was self-defense. If the judge doesn't think Zimmerman presented preponderance of the evidence the case will go to trial. The burden of proof at trial is on the prosecution. They will have to prove Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.
 
To kinda change the subject from the girlfriend, I just have to ask y'all......is Frank Taafe getting on everyone's nerves like he is mine? :banghead:

Every time he is on Nancy Grace, I just want to throttle him! lol Did y'all hear him the other night when he mentioned "myself and my constituents?" LOL His constituents? Nancy nailed him on that one, she said she didn't know he held a political office!

Yes. I've stopped watching any program where he appears.
 
Based on the conversation the past thread or so I would say that it has been proven that is not the case. I remember reading numerous posts saying that the defense will be the one that has to prove that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

MOO

I know, I seem to recall numerous posts by Gitana1 and Beach that laid out exactly how this work. It's really a very simple process.


~jmo~
 
I think you're wrong (once the case gets to trial), although the prosecutor may choose to present evidence to that effect. Would you like to support your assertion?

I've already posted links.
Here is one with quotes from Richard Hornsby. I really hope his stops by here and explains it once and for all.

"The moment George Zimmerman fired that shot is the key question in this entire case," Hornsby said. "Did he reasonably believe he had to fire that shot to defend himself? And the fact (Corey) completely left that out, begs the question, does she not have any evidence to refute his version of the events?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_...-case-against-zimmerman-questioned/?tag=stack
 
I know, I seem to recall numerous posts by Gitana1 and Beach that laid out exactly how this work. It's really a very simple process.


~jmo~

It is a simple process and the burden of proof is on the prosecution if it gets to trial.
 
Well, I am sorry, but because of SYG it works the other way. Prosecutor will need evidence that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. Not the other way around.

According to this link, it's the defense that has the burden of proof:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/1...is-charged-in-trayvon-martin-death/?hpt=hp_t1


Step 5 – Defense files a motion to dismiss based on Florida's “stand your ground” law

•If Zimmerman is charged, he is entitled to a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on whether he is entitled to the immunity based on the law.

•The burden at that hearing is on the defense to prove by “a preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not) that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force.
 
Even if the investigation was done, I am not so sure it should have resulted in an arrest and a charge. For prosecution to convict Zimmerman, they will have to prove Zimmerman did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't see anything in that arrest affidavit that indicates prosecution got the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

"The moment George Zimmerman fired that shot is the key question in this entire case," Hornsby said. "Did he reasonably believe he had to fire that shot to defend himself? And the fact (Corey) completely left that out, begs the question, does she not have any evidence to refute his version of the events?"....

I can't find language in Florida's SYG statute that makes it different from any other affirmative defense once the case gets to trial. (As mentioned before, there is a probable cause hurdle to clear before trial begins, but the standard is NOT "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".)

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense"]Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.
 
According to this link, it's the defense that has the burden of proof:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/1...is-charged-in-trayvon-martin-death/?hpt=hp_t1


Step 5 – Defense files a motion to dismiss based on Florida's “stand your ground” law

•If Zimmerman is charged, he is entitled to a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on whether he is entitled to the immunity based on the law.

•The burden at that hearing is on the defense to prove by “a preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not) that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force.

You are talking about a different thing. Zimmerman can request a hearing where he has a burden of proof by preponderance of evidence. If judge doesn't feel Zimmerman has met his burden of proof the case will go to trial, in which prosecution will have the burden of proof. This hearing is an extra protection for Zimmerman and the judge can find Zimmerman immune from prosecution if Zimmerman meets his burden of proof there. But it's not a trial.
 
Even if the investigation was done, I am not so sure it should have resulted in an arrest and a charge. For prosecution to convict Zimmerman, they will have to prove Zimmerman did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't see anything in that arrest affidavit that indicates prosecution got the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

"The moment George Zimmerman fired that shot is the key question in this entire case," Hornsby said. "Did he reasonably believe he had to fire that shot to defend himself? And the fact (Corey) completely left that out, begs the question, does she not have any evidence to refute his version of the events?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_...-case-against-zimmerman-questioned/?tag=stack

Fine, since Trayvon can't speak for himself, it is just that GZ have the opportunity to tell the nation why he acted in the manner he did that resulted in the death of an unarmed teenager. GZ owes us an explanation and we are gonna get it!
 
I wanted to share with you all an incident that happened to my family and I this morning. This is in line with the discussion about why Tracy didn't know or realize that Trayvon was not home. I know we have discussed extensively with opinions back and forth about why Tracy didn't do anything once he realized that Trayvon came home that night. Well, what I'm about to share will hopefully help some understand the way it seems to be when you are dealing with a teenage son. My youngest daughter's ex-boyfriend's (whom I shall call John who is 16) mother called me about 1 p.m. this afternoon asking if I had seen or heard from John. My daughter came out of her room when she heard me on the phone and came out to tell me that John's mother had just contacted her right before calling the house. I asked her to tell me a little about what was going on so she said she had allowed John to stay in town last night until she got off from her job until about roughly 9 or 9:30 last night. She said when she got there to pick him up at Burger King, he wasn't there. She said she really didn't think anything of it because he could have ended up getting a ride home instead. She went home thinking that he would be home most anytime. She said she fell asleep and didn't realize until this morning that he had never come home last night and had never called. He didn't have his own cell phone and had to use the family cell phone so she proceeded to start going through all the numbers on the phone looking for anything she could find in hopes of tracking him down. She was concerned rightly so but she wasn't panicked. In fact, I was probably more upset than she was about it. Anyway, we just heard about an hour ago that John has made it home, he had decided to spend the night with his friend and hadn't even thought that his mom would be worried. Thankfully there was a happy ending to this story and yes, had he been my son, he'd be on restriction for the rest of his life. She told me a little while ago that she had been through that before with John's older brother and that was the reason she wasn't panicked. I told her it scared me to death, all I could think of was him missing, having to come to Websleuths to start a thread on him, and had convinced myself (especially after Trayvon's case) that the worst had happened. My daughter, on the other hand, couldn't understand why I was worried sick, she was really laid back about the whole situation and that it really wasn't a big deal. Sorry my story is rambling but I wanted to put it out there that it appears sometimes boys are just going to be boys.




~Jmo~

I totally agree with you. Chit happens. I think the only reason people question TM's dad that night is because that very day Trayvon was suspended for 10 days and for the third time. So some might wonder why the kid was even allowed out the door that night. And why dad just assumed he went to the movies. He was suspended that day and they had no problem with him going off to the movies, with out asking or telling anyone, after telling his kid brother he was going off to get him candy? I am not bashing, just explaining why some might wonder about it. If my 17 yr old says I am coming right back with candy, and I am just walking to the store, then I don't go to bed assuming everything is fine, if he never comes back that night. I know a few people will yell at me for asking these questions, but I am responding to a post in which the questions were already asked.

Your friends son was in his own hometown, so it made more sense that he had found a ride with a friend somewhere. And he wasnt grounded.
 
Why is that surprising? I think it's rather obvious the reason Zimmerman was arrested is because of public pressure.

And its about time the public starts putting on the pressure. I think we'll see it happening more and more from now on. Glad about it too!
 
I can't find language in Florida's SYG statute that makes it different from any other affirmative defense once the case gets to trial. (As mentioned before, there is a probable cause hurdle to clear before trial begins, but the standard is NOT "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".)

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a blog that explains it really well but apparently it can not be linked to.
But prosecution will have burden of proof, not the other way around, if this gets to trial.

"Then the burden would be on prosecutors to prove Zimmerman is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” — a tougher standard than preponderance of the evidence."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/defense_taking_stand_Hsd7TZOxwWPTLoctw71izM#ixzz1s3dENyVL
 
And its about time the public starts putting on the pressure. I think we'll see it happening more and more from now on. Glad about it too!

And if defendant isn't guilty? Is that good too?
 
To kinda change the subject from the girlfriend, I just have to ask y'all......is Frank Taafe getting on everyone's nerves like he is mine? :banghead:

Every time he is on Nancy Grace, I just want to throttle him! lol Did y'all hear him the other night when he mentioned "myself and my constituents?" LOL His constituents? Nancy nailed him on that one, she said she didn't know he held a political office!

I am a skeered Frank and Lenny P are going to go on tour ;)
 
I've already posted links.
Here is one with quotes from Richard Hornsby. I really hope his stops by here and explains it once and for all.

"The moment George Zimmerman fired that shot is the key question in this entire case," Hornsby said. "Did he reasonably believe he had to fire that shot to defend himself? And the fact (Corey) completely left that out, begs the question, does she not have any evidence to refute his version of the events?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_...-case-against-zimmerman-questioned/?tag=stack

With all due respect, that link does not say what you have asserted it says. Yes, Hornsby is quoted as questioning the SA's failure to address the SYG issue; it does not address burden of proof in an affirmative defense.

We may expect a criminal defense attorney to argue that the defendant's word should be taken as fact unless clearly contradicted, but a prosecutor will just as certainly argue otherwise.
 
I think you're wrong (once the case gets to trial), although the prosecutor may choose to present evidence to that effect. Would you like to support your assertion?

I believe JJenny is wrong also.
 
And there is that big word, even with only two letters it really means so much.......IF. At this point in time we have nothing that proves what Zimmerman said was true. There is no evidence yet that proves that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman other than asking him "why are you following me?". If that is an attack then more people would be shot dead.

Even IF Trayvon attacked Zimmerman why didn't Zimmerman do what has come so natural to him in the past? Why didn't he call 911 himself and request an ambulance? If not for Trayvon, why not for himself?

I think that will be a huge sticking point for the jury. The fact that Zimmerman did not call 911 and request medical attention for himself points to his story about being attacked, beaten, nose broken and having his head bashed into the sidewalk being just that......a story.

MOO

Hadn't he already called 911 twice? Didn't the police arrive at the scene within minutes or less of when the shot was fired? Honestly, when I first heard that witness saying he asked her to call 911 I asked myself why he would to that. SPD was already well on their way.
 
I believe JJenny is wrong also.

Well I believe I am correct.
I've yet to see any link that says I am not. No one has provided any links that say burden of proof will be on Zimmerman if this gets to trial. The msm articles say burden of proof is on prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
1,568
Total visitors
1,726

Forum statistics

Threads
589,160
Messages
17,914,971
Members
227,744
Latest member
McKeith
Back
Top