George Zimmerman shot

sunmaster14 said:
I don't have time to check, but IIRC, that concerns the Stand Your Ground law which allows dismissal of the case during a preliminary hearing. Even if you can't meet that burden during the hearing, you still can't be convicted if the jury finds reasonable doubt that you didn't act in self-defense.
Click to expand...

I think we are on the same page. the state always has the ultimate burden of proof. However, the State does not have to introduce evidence that the perpetrator did not act in self defense. The initial burden of production on the issue lies with the defense.

sunmaster14 said:
I'm not a fan. I'm just pushing back at the extreme arguments his detractors are using to attack him. The guy was shot at for crying out loud. The natural response would be to have some sympathy for him. Instead, this is strong evidence in some people's minds that he's a criminal. It is more likely strong evidence that he is being harassed and stalked because of his notoriety.
Click to expand...

I do not know why you bother even responding so politely to posts like 12ax7's posts. You have the patience of a Saint.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'm not a fan. I'm just pushing back at the extreme arguments his detractors are using to attack him. The guy was shot at for crying out loud. The natural response would be to have some sympathy for him. Instead, this is strong evidence in some people's minds that he's a criminal. It is more likely strong evidence that he is being harassed and stalked because of his notoriety.
Click to expand...

Yep being stalked by the guy who works near where his doctor is, I am sure he only got that job after Zimmerman made the doctors appointment.
 
RandFan said:
If you don't think it unreasonable that people would be wary of Zimmerman or that there are people that think that there is a probability greater than that of the the average person that Zimmerman will kill or be killed, then let's move on.

If not then you will have to explain yourself better. I don't know why you are talking about "allegations" not equating to "facts" (as one example). AFAIK, I never said or implied that they did.

So yeah, if we can agree on the first paragraph I don't care about the rest.
Click to expand...

My perception is that you raised the allegations in support of your conclusion. Everything I've said about the allegations you raised was intended to explain why I disagreed that they led to your conclusion.

As far as I'm concerned, you never asked about whether it was reasonable to be wary of Zimmerman or reasonable to expect that he would kill.

The only question of yours that I was answering was if anyone would be surprised if Zimmerman were killed in self defense. I don't see much value in continuing this conversation, but if we do, I would prefer to reach some kind of clear understanding on that singular point, before expanding the discussion to consider the merits and flaws of your opinions about Zimmerman generally.

In conclusion, on that one point: You don't think it would be surprising if someone were to kill Zimmerman in self-defense. I think it would be a little surprising. I gave my reasons, but since attempting to explain them to you more fully only seems to lead to confusion and acrimony, I'm thinking we should probably quit [ETA:]while we're ahead before we fall too much further behind.
 
Last edited:
Many are quick to convict GZ on his history, but is there any data on Apperson's record? Seems to be a hot head, is this his first complaint?
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'm not a fan. I'm just pushing back at the extreme arguments his detractors are using to attack him. The guy was shot at for crying out loud. The natural response would be to have some sympathy for him. Instead, this is strong evidence in some people's minds that he's a criminal. It is more likely strong evidence that he is being harassed and stalked because of his notoriety.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman's previous body of work doesn't lead you to believe that it's not completely out of the realm of possibility he may have been the aggressor here?

Be honest.
 
casebro said:
Many are quick to convict GZ on his history, but is there any data on Apperson's record? Seems to be a hot head, is this his first complaint?
Click to expand...

Oh I suspect they are both violent loons. Though I would certainly want a gun if GZ was following me around.
 
casebro said:
Many are quick to convict GZ on his history, but is there any data on Apperson's record? Seems to be a hot head, is this his first complaint?
Click to expand...

This was a point I was going to make.

'Person A is a dickhead with lots of accusations against him. Therefore, Person B's accusation is more credible.'

Wait, we don't know anything about Person B. Why does Person A's history make Person B's version more reliable? Maybe Person B raped his cousin and kicks puppies. So even if one accepts the reasoning that 'there isn't smoke without fire/accusations are red flags, so we shouldn't trust Zimmerman', there is still a flaw with simply rejecting his version and accepting Apperson's.

Not that everyone is doing that of course.
 
Belz... said:
Indeed. Is your own conclusion the only valid one ?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I mean, obviously all my conclusions are valid, and any conclusion that disagrees with one of mine is invalid, but there are topics I don't have any conclusions about, and so there must be valid conclusions about those topics which are not mine. It's just common sense. :o
 
16.5 said:
The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010), held that a defendant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to self-defense immunity by the preponderance of evidence.
Click to expand...

That's only when the defendant is seeking immunity.

This was all established during the Zimmerman murder trial.
 
12AX7 said:
Zimmerman's previous body of work doesn't lead you to believe that it's not completely out of the realm of possibility he may have been the aggressor here?

Be honest.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely it's possible that he was the aggressor here. I think it's pretty likely that he has anger management problems and doesn't have the good sense to back off of confrontation. That being said, the other guy is the one who actually did the shooting. That's pretty extreme. GZ's detractors hate him because he fired only one bullet at a person who was pummeling him. This guy fired at least two bullets at a guy who was in another car.

There's some inconsistency here, but I don't think it's on my side.
 
16.5 said:
I think we are on the same page. the state always has the ultimate burden of proof. However, the State does not have to introduce evidence that the perpetrator did not act in self defense. The initial burden of production on the issue lies with the defense.
Click to expand...

The above is the law in Florida

johnny karate said:
That's only when the defendant is seeking immunity.

This was all established during the Zimmerman murder trial.
Click to expand...

To the extent that this is inconsistent with the foregoing, it is erroneous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom