re: Zimmerman not guilty

quote:

---

Why on earth would you EVER willingly put a defendant on the stand plus it's not the defendant job to prove he is innocent

---

No, but it typically is the defendant's job to prove that he is privileged to use deadly force against an attacker. Not in FLA, but in most other states. When the state accuses you of murder, your best bet is to assert a defense. One way to do that is to take the stand in your own defense and outline why you felt you were acting in self-defense.

You know, when I was 17, if I had been walking down the street and someone was following me, I would've confronted them; maybe not assault them, but had words with them. At that age, like most kids and probably like Trayvon, I thought I was invincible and a bad arse (It helped that I was strong as an ox back then, but still...).

That beings said, the beating the that Zimmerman appeared to take, from photos and eye witness testimony, was serious and I can see how one would be fearful for their life at that point. Martin and Zimmerman are the only two that will ever really know what happened that night and there was simply not enough evidence to show that Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense.


Legally, the verdict was correct. Say what you want about moral ramifications or views of humanists, but in the eyes of our legal system there was not enough to convict a man.

quote:

---

The reality is this: his political motivations and ideology have blinded him from the truth and when presented with a hypothetical situation, he was unable to answer fully.

---

Political motivations? Ideology?

The great weight of many years of legal authority backs my view here. FLA's law is unusual, not the position that when asserting self-defense the burden rests on the defendant. If you don't agree w/ that then fine, but don't portray my opinion as radical. It's quite conservative in the sense that it is rooted in legal history and the majority of states still operate as such.

You also assume that GZ wouldnt have been able to prove his case for self defense had he been put on the stand. You act like he was hiding something when he voluntarily spoke with investigators and voluntarily turned himself in.

the prosecution didn't have shite and it wasn't necessary for him to take the stand. But there is no reason to believe he wouldn't have simply made his case even stronger.

quote:

---

As a former uber-liberal myself, I can say that as I grew up and learned to think freely, I became far less-so.

In my experience, the average modern-day American liberal is more of an un-thinking idealogue than the most dedicated, brain-dead fundamentalist of any religious sect.

They are easier to whip into a frenzy, too.

---

Right. I, who have not reference any sort of liberal/conservative narrative (nor race), am the one who is making this political. Not the people trying to shoehorn my legal analysis (and speculation) into a liberal/conservative framework. Gotcha.

We don't know, you are right. I just fail to see the miscarriage of justice here. Or any evidence that suggests Zimmerman did not act in self defense.

Zimmerman/Deen 2016

quote:

---

We don't know, you are right. I just fail to see the miscarriage of justice here. Or any evidence that suggests Zimmerman did not act in self defense.

---

Reasonable people can disagree. I worry a/b the precedent this sets, a/b whether its proper to require the state to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt in cases in which there are no witnesses, and whether or not putting yourself in a situation such as this should make you culpable to a degree in the result.

quote:

---

Your legal analysis is all speculation!

---

No, it isn't. Were he tried in one of any number of states he would've had to prove self-defense.

quote:

---

You have said you don't necessarily agree with the law which makes this discussion political which makes you an ideologue.

---

My disagreement w/ the law isn't politically motivated. I don't disagree w/ the law in order to advance some agenda on behalf of a party. I disagree w/ the law b/c it flies in the face of traditional legal principles. You keep saying I'm making things political from a liberal perspective and can't even understand that the best interpretation of my opinion is a more conservative, tradition-bound POV.

stranger than fiction

quote:

---

I worry a/b the precedent this sets

---

Ideologue.

quote:

---

a/b whether its proper to require the state to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt in cases in which there are no witnesses

---

You need to go watch the entire case. There were witnesses to the assault which in of itself is reasonable ground along with the injuries Zimmerman sustained to warrant the need for force to defend himself. The defense asserted this in opening and brought it up throughout the trial. The defense proved without a reasonable doubt that he felt the need to use deadly force to avoid great bodily harm/death.

quote:

---

whether or not putting yourself in a situation such as this should make you culpable to a degree in the result.

---

This is horrible line of thinking. As I said before, how far would you like to extend culpability? Is he culpable because he joined the neighborhood watch, because by your logic that was an event that led to this confrontation?

quote:

---

Were he tried in one of any number of states he would've had to prove self-defense.

---

Self-defense was proven as mentioned above. In most other states (esp. Texas), this would not have made it past the grand jury (which they bypassed in this case).