Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:07 pm to bdelarosa7
quote:
Ideologue.
It's quite apparent you have zero idea what this word connotes.
quote:
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.
No. Just no. Saying the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ wasn't privileged to use force is not the same as saying the defense proved that GZ was privileged to use force. There is a very clear distinction here. To meet the latter, GZ would most likely have had to take the stand. The testimony of the witnesses wasn't nearly strong enough to support a defense of deadly force in most states, in my estimation.
quote:
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?
This is such awful logic that I don't know where to begin. Equating the culpability of an armed civilian tailing a private citizen who had broken no law w/ the simple act of joining a neighborhood watch is evidence of an inability to grasp simple distinctions.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:13 pm to CHSgc
quote:
Most of this is circumstantial. The real issue (as I understand it, and I've freely admitted I didn't follow this trial all that closely) is whether he was privileged to use deadly force. As I've noted, under the general common law, I don't think he was (and whether you disagree or not it's certainly a question for a jury). Under FLA law, there is a laxer statutory standard, and the jury probably reached the correct result. I'm not going to cheer a standard, though, that results in a verdict like this. It seems to me, and many others, an egregious miscarriage of justice.
Based on the above, I stand by what I said. In my opinion, you fall into one of three categories:
1) You are a very young attorney or a law student. You don't have enough experience to know what you don't know yet.
2) You aren't an attorney at all, but rather just wanted to claim to be one.
3) You are an attorney, but practice in an area that is so far removed from trial work of any sort that your opinion on it is irrelevant.
I can say all this comfortably because you just made one of the strangest comments I've ever seen a lawyer make. You just described Zimmerman's interview and first-person account of what happened as circumstantial. There is absolutely no way an attorney with any sort of experience in any courtroom could make that kind of ignorant statement and actually mean it. In fact, there is no way that I can believe that you actually know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence given that statement. A party that was a part of the incident who testifies directly regarding what happened is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is when the neighbor says he saw two men fighting, one on top who had a darker complexion and a hoodie and one on the bottom with a lighter complexion and a jacket. In that instance, you draw the inferences as to who is who, so it is circumstantial. In the instance of Zimmerman saying what happened, you don't have to draw inferences. When he says he was on the ground being pummeled by Martin, you don't have to draw an inference that Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was on top because he just testified to that. It's not circumstantial in any way shape or form, it is direct evidence. Just as when Zimmerman says "I shot him" it's direct evidence that he shot Trayvon. You don't need to link up bullets with forensics and fingerprints and so forth. he has provided you with direct evidence that he pulled the trigger. That would be circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman shot Trayvon as opposed to Zimmerman's direct evidence via his admission.
As for the second part of your post, I just don't know what world you're living in. Now you're acting like you're playing the role of prosecutor or defense attorney and you're building a case? What are you talking about? We're talking about the result here. You made statements that were directly contradicted by the evidence at trial because you hadn't paid any actual attention and you drew conclusions from that evidence to call it an injustice. You weren't discussing whether or not you would have proceeded under the applicable law previously, you were saying that the actual result was a miscarriage of justice given what occurred. And your idea of "what occurred" was patently wrong. You weren't "making a case." Nor would I hope you'd ever be asked to given your statements in this thread.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:20 pm to CHSgc
quote:
CHSgc
Obstinance as displayed here, can only come from an insurmountable political/professional/whatever bias or someone tied closely to the case.
ETA: my before-made comment was rude and uncalled for even on a message board and I apologize.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:30 pm to CHSgc
quote:
It's quite apparent you have zero idea what this word connotes.
It is becoming more apparent (more than last night), that you're an idiot.
quote:
Saying the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ wasn't privileged to use force
Of which they did not.
quote:
saying the defense proved that GZ was privileged to use force
Of which they did.
quote:
GZ would most likely have had to take the stand
No he did not. Verbal testimony was provided by him on multiple occasions to the investigators and was presented at trial and was corroborated by other testimony and evidence. Self-defense was proven without him taking the stand and thus did not require him to take the stand - and this holds true for MOST states.
quote:
in my estimation
Which is becoming a joke.
quote:
This is such awful logic that I don't know where to begin. Equating the culpability of an armed civilian tailing a private citizen who had broken no law w/ the simple act of joining a neighborhood watch is evidence of an inability to grasp simple distinctions.
You're obviously a moron. You're extending culpability to Zimmerman merely because he followed a suspicious individual. Who are you to make that definition? Culpability in this instance is applied to the aggressor of the physical confrontation and that is as far as it goes. To extend it further means you have to have a finite end point of which there is no clear and appropriate definition.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:41 pm to reservoir_dawg
quote:
3) You are an attorney, but practice in an area that is so far removed from trial work of any sort that your opinion on it is irrelevant.
This is true, I haven't maintained that I'm an expert (beyond possessing general legal skills) and I've repeatedly hedged most of what I've said w/ an "in my opinion," etc. I haven't studied CrimLaw or CrimPro since the bar exam (and, as is consistent w/ my stmts, that is mostly common law/MBE stuff... there is no SC specific CL/CP stuff on the bar). I've never maintained otherwise. I, like the majority of atty's, work in civil defense.
quote:
I can say all this comfortably because you just made one of the strangest comments I've ever seen a lawyer make. You just described Zimmerman's interview and first-person account of what happened as circumstantial. There is absolutely no way an attorney with any sort of experience in any courtroom could make that kind of ignorant statement and actually mean it. In fact, there is no way that I can believe that you actually know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence given that statement. A party that was a part of the incident who testifies directly regarding what happened is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is when the neighbor says he saw two men fighting, one on top who had a darker complexion and a hoodie and one on the bottom with a lighter complexion and a jacket. In that instance, you draw the inferences as to who is who, so it is circumstantial. In the instance of Zimmerman saying what happened, you don't have to draw inferences. When he says he was on the ground being pummeled by Martin, you don't have to draw an inference that Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was on top because he just testified to that. It's not circumstantial in any way shape or form, it is direct evidence. Just as when Zimmerman says "I shot him" it's direct evidence that he shot Trayvon. You don't need to link up bullets with forensics and fingerprints and so forth. he has provided you with direct evidence that he pulled the trigger. That would be circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman shot Trayvon as opposed to Zimmerman's direct evidence via his admission.
I was referring to the testimony of the witnesses as circumstantial in regards to whether deadly force was necessary. In my eagerness to reply I quoted the full text rather than the latter half.
quote:
As for the second part of your post, I just don't know what world you're living in. Now you're acting like you're playing the role of prosecutor or defense attorney and you're building a case? What are you talking about? We're talking about the result here. You made statements that were directly contradicted by the evidence at trial because you hadn't paid any actual attention and you drew conclusions from that evidence to call it an injustice. You weren't discussing whether or not you would have proceeded under the applicable law previously, you were saying that the actual result was a miscarriage of justice given what occurred. And your idea of "what occurred" was patently wrong. You weren't "making a case." Nor would I hope you'd ever be asked to given your statements in this thread.
I don't think it's beyond the bounds of rationality to speculate how one might've proceeded differently. My point a/b miscarriage of justice isn't that the result was wrong, it's that the law that permitted the result creates perverse incentives.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:46 pm to CheeseburgerEddie
quote:
Are u using privilege and right interchangeably?
This link is calling it the right if self defense.
LINK
Yes. They can be used interchangeably. They are obviously different words w/ different implications in other realms, but I've never understood them to have a meaningful distinction when talking a/b it in this context.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:53 pm to bdelarosa7
quote:
Of which they did.
No they didn't. The jury instruction included the FLA statutory language. That's what the verdict was based upon. Obviously, the jury wasn't interpreting whether or not GZ was guilty under a stricter standard used in another state.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 2:55 pm to 3nOut
quote:
Obstinance as displayed here, can only come from an insurmountable political/professional/whatever bias or someone tied closely to the case.
I'm genuinely interested to know what sort of political agenda you think I have here? What is to be gained by me saying that the FLA law is unusual and inverts the traditional notion of a defendant having to prove self-defense?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:01 pm to CHSgc
quote:
No they didn't.
YES, they did. "Verbal testimony was provided by him on multiple occasions to the investigators and was presented at trial and was corroborated by other testimony and evidence. Self-defense was proven without him taking the stand and thus did not require him to take the stand."
quote:
Obviously, the jury wasn't interpreting whether or not GZ was guilty under a stricter standard used in another state.
Why does it matter what other states standard of self-defense is? The incident happened in Florida by a man who was licensed in Florida to carry a concealed weapon and was familiar with Florida state law.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:12 pm to bdelarosa7
quote:
Why does it matter what other states standard of self-defense is? The incident happened in Florida by a man who was licensed in Florida to carry a concealed weapon and was familiar with Florida state law
This has been the entire point of my argument, that the common law rule operates differently from the FLA statute, and that the common law rule is more reasonable. I have never maintained that the jury reached an illogical or unfair result, based on the law.
Originally, I thought most states still adhered to the common law rule (or some stat interpretation thereof), but I just read something that suggests the FLA statute is actually more common than I was led to believe from other sources. I haven't been able to confirm it, yet.
Regardless, I still tend to side w/ the CL view, as I've been saying endlessly in this thread. You're going to hear a lot of discussion in the coming days a/b whether current statutory rules are fair and necessary.
That's enough discussion for one day.
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:13 pm to CHSgc
quote:
I'm genuinely interested to know what sort of political agenda you think I have here? What is to be gained by me saying that the FLA law is unusual and inverts the traditional notion of a defendant having to prove self-defense?
i didn't say it had to be a political agenda by any stretch. i just am implying that I believe their is an underlying reason why you refuse to accept self-defense as it was presented by the Z defense team, accepted at the time of the crime by the police, and ultimately agreed upon by the Jury.
obviously the Defense team argued self-defense successfully
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:16 pm to 3nOut
quote:
i didn't say it had to be a political agenda by any stretch. i just am implying that I believe their is an underlying reason why you refuse to accept self-defense as it was presented by the Z defense team, accepted at the time of the crime by the police, and ultimately agreed upon by the Jury.
obviously the Defense team argued self-defense successfully
True enough, but I like to think my objection to the statute is based more on how I was taught in school (common law), and of what I perceive to be a fair standard to apply. I've tried like hell not to drag any race/political stuff into this convo, and to not let that color my thinking.
Anyways, like I said above, that's enough discussion for one day. I enjoyed it, it's helped me clarify my own thoughts.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:17 pm to CHSgc
quote:
that the common law rule operates differently from the FLA statute
The Florida statute was based off common law and so it is NOT significantly different than most states self-defense law. Additionally, most states have codified their self-defense law and are no longer simply case law.
quote:
Regardless, I still tend to side w/ the CL view, as I've been saying endlessly in this thread. You're going to hear a lot of discussion in the coming days a/b whether current statutory rules are fair and necessary.
As I said before, this is a discussion of politics because the law in question does not fit with you're political beliefs and ideology.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:20 pm to CHSgc
You have admittedly not followed the trial proceedings very closely or at all, so how can you say that the defense didn't prove GZs right to self defense?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:20 pm to bdelarosa7
is the thread worth reading?
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:22 pm to bdelarosa7
quote:
The Florida statute was based off common law and so it is NOT significantly different than most states self-defense law. Additionally, most states have codified their self-defense law and are no longer simply case law.
Can't let this slide: the statute may be "based" off common law but it inverts the burden of proof. That is a substantial difference that has real world consequences. And yes, most states have codified their self-defense law and originally I was under the impression that most adopted some form of the common law roughly verbatim. As I posted above, that info I received may be incorrect, and I'm going to look into it further once I get more free time.
quote:
As I said before, this is a discussion of politics because the law in question does not fit with you're political beliefs and ideology.
It has nothing to do w/ political beliefs. I'm not even sure what would be the "liberal" position here. As I maintained earlier, I think a significant departure from the common law could be construed as liberal. You could also make an argument that it is conservative... it's not one of those issues that has a readily identifiable political bias.
Alright, that's it, I promise.
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:28 pm to CHSgc
quote:
the statute may be "based" off common law but it inverts the burden of proof.
Despite the so-called "inversion", the defense did demonstrate that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of great bodily harm/death and used deadly force appropriately to fend off that result. It is because of this, I do not understand why you are caught up on this "inversion" when the defense did not sit back and force the prosecution to disprove this claim, they were active in their demonstration of the reasonable use of self-defense.
quote:
It has nothing to do w/ political beliefs.
I never said you were left or right politically. I said when you start debating about the validity of a law you enter the realm of politics which is what this discussion devolved into.
quote:
is the thread worth reading?
Not really
This post was edited on 7/14/13 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:38 pm to heartbreakTiger
Not at all.
Page 16 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News