Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

What were those?

Wait, you snipped my post and then have the chutzpah to ask me what was in the post that you just snipped out?

Uh...

Wut?

 

[Rare Truth]

Is that a direct quote from on his statements? Do you have a source for that?

That's a synopsis. That's why I didn't put it in quotes.

Same same.

 

[Cylinder]

I grabbed the first one I could find.

It's the same, dude.

"Once an affirmative defense is raised, the Plaintiff has the burden of either disproving it or establishing the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defense."

http://floridalegalwiki.com/index.php?title=Affirmative_Defense

Once again, self-defense is a justification - not an affirmative defense. Killing a person is not illegal in Florida.

ETA: Or Arkansas, for that matter.

 

[Rare Truth]

RT, Be easy on SgtBaker, s/he is ok. I can vouch for that.

That wasn't easy?

 

[Rare Truth]

Once again, self-defense is a justification - not an affirmative defense. Killing a person is not illegal in Florida.

Think about what you just said.

Just think about it.

 

[Unabogie]

That's a synopsis. That's why I didn't put it in quotes.

Same same.

Well, we should probably avoid that and stick to real quotes, IMO.

 

[crimresearch]

Florida -like the vast majority of states - has no such requirement.

Wright v. State

Because of course, Googling *civil* law definitions, editing out some words and claiming that is 'the same' standard for *criminal* cases, is soooo useful...

With tricks like that, who needs knowledge?



http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm

These crucial elements of criminal defense total strategy include the following affirmative defense measures:
•Alibi, which as the Latin translation approximates, states a defendant was “elsewhere” at the time of the alleged crime. Coupled with sufficient proof of whereabouts away from a crime scene, an alibi is a solid affirmative defense strategy.
•Self Defense, which can also include the defense of others from grave injury or death, is an affirmative defense stating a defendant acted solely out of fear for their, or another’s, safety pending imminent use of force by another in an unlawful capacity. Some caveats to the affirmative defense of self-defense include speculation as to the specific events leading up to the use of self-defense actions, as well as the amount of force used and against whom this alleged self-defense action was used.
• Duress, which states a defendant only participated in the alleged crimes under force or pressure from another individual or entity, which often implies or overtly threatens physical harm for a defendant if their participation in a given criminal action does not occur.
•Statute of limitations, which states a criminal statute, under which a given defendant is being charged, has applicable statute of limitations periods, which have already expired.
•Entrapment, which asserts a government official, typically law enforcement officers, persuade a defendant to commit a given crime when no previous intention to commit such a crime existed.
•Double Jeopardy, which according to the Fifth Amendment, offers protections from being tried by government officials for the same offense multiple times.
•Intoxication, which states a defendant was involuntarily placed under the influence of a substance, is an affirmative defense. While on the other hand, voluntary intoxication may be another form of affirmative defense in mitigating an element of a criminal charge, typically the intent of the defendant at the time of the alleged crime.
•Mistake of Fact, which asserts a defendant made an honest mistake in good faith, and in turn, that mistake must be reasonable to some degree. This defense, however, is not effective in strict liability crimes, which do not possess an element of intent.
•Mental Illness or Deficiency, which states at the time of an alleged crime that a given defendant was not of sound mind, not capable of understanding his or her actions, and is not criminally responsible for these actions due to mental illness.
•Collateral Estoppel, which means, “issue preclusion”, is a legal term outlining an affirmative defense in a case where a state judiciary has already acquitted or prosecuted a given defendant for a given crime, which should preclude and prevent the federal judiciary from prosecuting a given case.

 

[Rare Truth]

Florida -like the vast majority of states - has no such requirement.

Wright v. State

Man, what is it with this heart on for Jeralyn?

She's wrong so often, why such love?

 

[Unabogie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[citation needed]
A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.[4]

I swear I've posted this before. Everything old is new.

More:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense

A defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts. Self-defense, entrapment, insanity, and necessity are some examples of affirmative defenses. See, e.g. Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998).

And Ohio:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.05

1) An “affirmative defense” is either of the following: (a) A defense expressly designated as affirmative;
(b) A defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, on which the accused can fairly be required to adduce supporting evidence.

And more:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/04/what-is-an-affirmative-defense.html

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey announced on Thursday that George Zimmerman had been arrested and would be charged with second degree murder. During that press conference, a reporter asked her about the possible implications of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
In response, she explained that the law provides Zimmerman with an "affirmative defense," and that if it was raised, it would be dealt with in court. She further vowed to fight the "affirmative defense."

I guess Angela Corey needs to consult with JREF posters to learn the law.

 

[crimresearch]

Once again, self-defense is a justification - not an affirmative defense. Killing a person is not illegal in Florida.

ETA: Or Arkansas, for that matter.

Or the rest of the USA, Canada, the UK, Europe, etc.


Imagine living in a world where the wrongful killing has to be proven by overwhelming proof to fit the elements of the *crimes* of murder, et al. And not only that, but anyone, even poor people, minorities, battered spouses, can make such a claim...

Oh, the humanity.

 

[triforcharity]

I grabbed the first one I could find.

It's the same, dude.

"Once an affirmative defense is raised, the Plaintiff has the burden of either disproving it or establishing the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defense."

http://floridalegalwiki.com/index.php?title=Affirmative_Defense

Right, that is for Civil trials in Florida.

http://floridacivpro.com/rules-1-010-to-1-250/1-110-general-rules-of-pleading/

From your link.

" Florida Rules of Civil Procedure" not "Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure"

The only mention of affirmative defense in the Florida State statutes, speak about an insanity defense.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...se"&URL=0900-0999/0916/Sections/0916.115.html

I don't think any other defense is an affirmative defense. I mean, look at the Casey Anthony case.

 

[Cylinder]

Imagine living in a world where the wrongful killing has to be proved by overwhelming proof to fit the elements of the *crimes* of murder, et al. And not only that, but anyone, even poor people, minorities, battered spouses, can make such a claim...

That's really it. It does not shock my conscience that the state has to provide proof of a crime before someone is imprisoned for life. The fact that criminals can abuse the system designed to protect innocent people is a feature - not a bug.

There is no epidemic of false claims of justification and certainly not epidemic of half-hearted prosecutors; too timid to assert crimes. If the claim is frivolous and self-serving then the state can easily impeach it. If the claim is less frivolous, then how do we know that it's not also true?

 

[triforcharity]

That wasn't easy?

It just sounded to me to be a little snippy, that was all. I apologize if it wasn't.

Cheers!

 

[WildCat]

Wait, you snipped my post and then have the chutzpah to ask me what was in the post that you just snipped out?

Uh...

Wut?

I saw what you had in your post, I saw nothing material in your nitpicking. Following means different things in different contexts, and you expect him to remember such details while he was in a fight?

I just don't see the bid deal that you do.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here's a little no-nothing much commentary, but I just saw this:

http://friendsofgz.com/

Gracie aka "Susie" -- that would be GZ's sister who was conspiring with Shel.Lie, GZ's wife, to hide the money, is now pumping a website to beg for mo money for GZ,

Site was created a few days ago, was active Thursday, and she says:

"To those who have shared their support, I have this to say: Thank you for your courage, strength and hope as we face a crucial day tomorrow in which not only will George's foreseeable future be determined but ours as well."

Give till it Hertz, Zimmermanians!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Mumbles]

Another one that Serino pointed out, was that George claimed he stopped following when asked, then started back to his truck. The walk back to the T in the walkthrough takes all of ten seconds. You can watch it in real time. But on the tape, from the time he stops running, you can time until the end of the call, and it's 84 seconds. Almost a minute and a half. So he could not have immediately turned around and walked back to his truck. It's impossible. He's lying to cover up whatever he really did during that time. And the obvious conclusion is that after being asked to stop following, he continued, even though he said OK. This is further supported by the fact that in the tape, he says not to meet him at his truck. Just call him and ask him where he is, he says. This is because after hanging up he went to look for Trayvon. And this is even further supported by DeeDee, who is told by Trayvon that George is following him again and is approaching him.

At this point, all of the evidence supports DeeDee, while George is telling a story that is contradicted by the tape, the location of the body, and DeeDee.

Can that be excused as a bad memory?

Another fact supporting DeeDee is that Martin's cell phone, and Zimmerman's flashlight, we're found near Martin's body, as was Martin's bag from the 7-11. The only item found near the T is Zimmerman's car keys - which could have been dropped before the fight, or flung during it.

One thing that bothers me is the timeline - I can't really get it to match up for DeeDee's version of events, there's simply too much of a gap between when Martin runs, and when the fight supposedly starts. That may not turn out to be sigificant,and she's certainly far loser to the evidence than Zimmerman's absurd reenactment is, but it's still a hole in her story.

 

[johnny karate]

Sorry but that is how the law works. If they think you are guilty and they can make a case out of it, they have to be able to prove it. The burden of proof is on the state. I am sorry if you don't like it but that is the way it is.

I am aware of that.

Please try to follow along:

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with this logic by now, and how it influences the legality of the case.

Speaking outside the bounds of legality, it's completely counter intuitive to not expect the person making a claim ("I shot him in self-defense") to substantiate that claim.

Don't want to acknowledge it or just give you an answer that you don't want to hear because those are contradictory statements. Are you lying or are your thoughts scattered? Because first you say I don't want to acknowledge it, then you quote me responding to what I am supposedly not acknowledging and call my response sophistry.

Again, please try to follow:

Many inconsistencies in Zimmerman's narrative have been pointed out, but you and many others in this thread don't acknowledge them as instances of dishonesty.

That's quite a bit different than acknowledging them at all.

Please, if you're going to argue semantics with me and make implications that I'm a liar in the process, have the courtesy to argue against things I've actually said.

See, there is. Saying you have not made a case for murder does not mean I believe Zimmerman.

That's all I'm saying. I don't believe Zimmerman.

And I have said over and over and over again that that belief has no bearing on the standard of proof required to convict him of a crime.

Yet for some reason knee-jerk zealots in this thread translate "I don't believe Zimmerman" into "Death to Zimmerman!!!".

It still comes down to, he claims he was on the bottom and Trayvon was on top. The back of his shirt is wet with grass on it (according to the police report). He claimed Trayvon punched him in the nose and his nose was bleeding. He claimed Trayvon hit his head on the sidewalk, multiple times and he has multiple cuts as well as a lump or two, on the back of his head. He claims Trayvon was trying to cover his mouth and he has scratches around his face. His wounds are consistant with his story. Before he knew "John's" statement, he managed to say pretty much the same thing as John.

He claims he was repeatedly punched.

He claims he had his head repeatedly slammed onto the ground.

I disagree that his wounds are consistent with these claims. Hopefully, we will eventually have the testimony of medical professionals to decide the issue.

And then there is the curious lack of Zimmerman's blood on the person who was beating him while he bled profusely.

I DON'T HAVE A POSITION. I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned, it can go either way. You said yourself, "maybe" Trayvon attacked him. "Maybe" Zimmerman was really in fear for his life. As long as there is that maybe, I am open to either or.

Isn't it your position that Zimmerman is telling the truth?

See, I thought he was found not guilty because the defense claimed that the evidence was tainted/planted and it wasn't about "lack of evidence."

He was acquitted because the state failed to meet their burden.

Do you think O.J. was actually innocent?

Continue call it defending, if you need to but you are still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

Really?

de·fend

Verb:

• Resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger: "we shall defend our country".
• Speak or write in favor of (an action or person); attempt to justify: "he defended his policy of imposing high taxes".

Do you deny engaging in the activity as defined above in regard to Zimmerman?

 

[Cylinder]

Following means different things in different contexts, and you expect him to remember such details while he was in a fight?

...or even without the stress.

Who went to the store today? Here's a quiz:

What prompted the trip to the store?
What items did you buy?
How did you pay?

What parking spot did you use?
What were you thinking about while walking from your car?
How many seconds did it take to get to the door?
Whick checkout lane did you use?
Was the cashier wearing a wedding band?

Variances in memory is expected. Memories even change over time. Ever walked out of the store and went to the wrong spot? Didn't you seem certain about where you parked only a minute earlier?

You judge the reliability of the claim by material inconsistencies and comparison with what is reasonably known about the event. Most people have come to their own conclusion - that's fine. To me, there is an amazimg level of corroboration in this instance - none of which impeaches Zimmerman's account.

What did DeeDee claim was the first words spoken between Zimmerman and Martin? What did Zimmerman claim?

Who did W6 claim was on top during the altercation? Who did Zimmerman claim?

What did Cutcher claim Zimmerman did after the shooting? What did Zimmerman claim?

Where did W11 hear the initial argument begin? Where did Zimmerman claim it began?

That's how you judge if a pretty spontaneous statement is materially correct.

 

[Mumbles]

It seems to me that there's a difference between:

1) not remembering which checkout line you used, and

2) imagining that you lost sight of someone , and then a police dispatch told you to look for that person, and then you move your car, and then you spot him walking between two houses, and then he comes back and circles your car and runs off again, and then the dispatcher repeatedly asks you for an address, and then you get out of your car to look for an address, and then the guy who ran off jumped at you while spitting corny movie dialogue.

 

[crimresearch]

It seems to me that there's a difference between:

1) not remembering which checkout line you used, and

2) imagining that you lost sight of someone , and then a police dispatch told you to look for that person, and then you move your car, and then you spot him walking between two houses, and then he comes back and circles your car and runs off again, and then the dispatcher repeatedly asks you for an address, and then you get out of your car to look for an address, and then the guy who ran off jumped at you while spitting corny movie dialogue.

Do people's brains store memories differently in the period of time before a dramatic event like that?

Why would adrenalin, tachypsychia, etc. make someone's recall better to the point that we can declare them to be suspect for getting details wrong?