Posters for the jury

[California Girl]

Self defense is the same as innocent. It means you are not guilty. See how that works?

Actually, in my mind (and this is my opinion so don't get worked up about it) "innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things. "Innocent" implies no wrong doing. "Not guilty" on the other hand means you didn't commit a crime.

Someone can be "not guilty" of a crime but not be "innocent" of being responsible for the events that took place.

A subtle distinction I know - go ahead and shoot me.



>>>>

Fair point... but 'not guilty' means one is not guilty... therefore, one is, technically, innocent of the charge. One can commit an act but not a crime... killing someone in self defense is not a crime. Even the Catholic Church (and you know how anal the Catholic Church is about preserving life) accepts that one can kill another person and not be guilty of a crime in God's eyes. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Self defense is the same as innocent. It means you are not guilty. See how that works?

Actually, in my mind (and this is my opinion so don't get worked up about it) "innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things. "Innocent" implies no wrong doing. "Not guilty" on the other hand means you didn't commit a crime.

Someone can be "not guilty" of a crime but not be "innocent" of being responsible for the events that took place.

A subtle distinction I know - go ahead and shoot me.



>>>>

Fair point... but 'not guilty' means one is not guilty... therefore, one is, technically, innocent of the charge. One can commit an act but not a crime... killing someone in self defense is not a crime. Even the Catholic Church (and you know how anal the Catholic Church is about preserving life) accepts that one can kill another person and not be guilty of a crime in God's eyes. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me.

That's cool, just having a discussion.


>>>>>

 

[California Girl]

Actually, in my mind (and this is my opinion so don't get worked up about it) "innocent" and "not guilty" are two different things. "Innocent" implies no wrong doing. "Not guilty" on the other hand means you didn't commit a crime.

Someone can be "not guilty" of a crime but not be "innocent" of being responsible for the events that took place.

A subtle distinction I know - go ahead and shoot me.



>>>>

Fair point... but 'not guilty' means one is not guilty... therefore, one is, technically, innocent of the charge. One can commit an act but not a crime... killing someone in self defense is not a crime. Even the Catholic Church (and you know how anal the Catholic Church is about preserving life) accepts that one can kill another person and not be guilty of a crime in God's eyes. If it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me.

That's cool, just having a discussion.


>>>>>

You did say I could shoot you... so I did... down in flames, Worldy. Down. In. Flames.

 

[koshergrl]

Considering the merit of the legal eagles stupidly opining on this....I think wiki is the source best suited to put this topic to rest:

"

Not guilty means that there was not enough evidence to move a juror beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent means that one has not committed a crime. A jury doesn't find a person innocent."

What is the Difference between not guilty and innocent

 

[saveliberty]

Not overly interested in what you think... other than the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty in the US.

You have the right to be wrong, should you give up that right, your still wrong. Self defense cases where the accused has already admited to the act is different.

Self defense is the same as innocent. It means you are not guilty. See how that works?

See how admitting you killed someone shifts the burden of proof in self defense to the accused?

 

[California Girl]

You have the right to be wrong, should you give up that right, your still wrong. Self defense cases where the accused has already admited to the act is different.

Self defense is the same as innocent. It means you are not guilty. See how that works?

See how admitting you killed someone shifts the burden of proof in self defense to the accused?

It is for the prosecution to prove or not prove it's charge. It is not for the defense to prove jack shit.

 

[saveliberty]

Self defense is the same as innocent. It means you are not guilty. See how that works?

See how admitting you killed someone shifts the burden of proof in self defense to the accused?

It is for the prosecution to prove or not prove it's charge. It is not for the defense to prove jack shit.

The prosecution is claiming second degree murder. The DEFENSE is claiming self defense. Please continue to talk out your ass.

 

[koshergrl]

Self defense means no crime. Prosecution has to prove their case.

Moron. Please continue to display your ignorance of the most basic precepts of our legal system for all to see....

 

[Si modo]

So, after most have had an opportunity to review the guidelines in post #167, and there are few additions, edits, deletions (other than our trying to see if Trajan is game to move troll posts outta here to elsewhere), we are good on those guidelines?

I'll leave the current list of potential mock jurors and alternates and the guidelines in that post for now and if it seems that most are cool with both the list and the guidelines, I'll send a PM to all mock jurors and alternates asking for a buy into the guidelines, then start the thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We are going to need another thread

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, after most have had an opportunity to review the guidelines in post #167, and there are few additions, edits, deletions (other than our trying to see if Trajan is game to move troll posts outta here to elsewhere), we are good on those guidelines?

I'll leave the current list of potential mock jurors and alternates and the guidelines in that post for now and if it seems that most are cool with both the list and the guidelines, I'll send a PM to all mock jurors and alternates asking for a buy into the guidelines, then start the thread.

We need a way to keep outside influences away that is if we are going to be open to what is shown in court.

 

[saveliberty]

Self defense means no crime. Prosecution has to prove their case.

Moron. Please continue to display your ignorance of the most basic precepts of our legal system for all to see....

Zimmerman admits to pulling the trigger, the evidence supports he pulled the trigger. Open and shut second degree murder. Oh, but the defendent is claiming self defense. Guess who has to prove that idiot?

 

[koshergrl]

Uh, the prosecution still has to prove 2nd degree murder.

Idiot.

 

[saveliberty]

Uh, the prosecution still has to prove 2nd degree murder.

Idiot.

Asolutely. Got a confession, ballistics and tons of other evidence. THE ONLY WAY he's innocent is self defense. The defense proves that, not the prosecution. What part of that is giving you a hard time? Am I saying its not self defense, no I'm not saying either way.

 

[Si modo]

So, after most have had an opportunity to review the guidelines in post #167, and there are few additions, edits, deletions (other than our trying to see if Trajan is game to move troll posts outta here to elsewhere), we are good on those guidelines?

I'll leave the current list of potential mock jurors and alternates and the guidelines in that post for now and if it seems that most are cool with both the list and the guidelines, I'll send a PM to all mock jurors and alternates asking for a buy into the guidelines, then start the thread.

We need a way to keep outside influences away that is if we are going to be open to what is shown in court.

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

 

[The Gadfly]

Self defense is the same as innocent. It means you are not guilty. See how that works?

See how admitting you killed someone shifts the burden of proof in self defense to the accused?

It is for the prosecution to prove or not prove it's charge. It is not for the defense to prove jack shit.

Actually , CG, Save has a point here. Self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense", which simply means the burden of proof in asserting that defense is on the defendant; BUT, (and this is critical), the standard of proof required of the defendant is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt", but simply the "preponderance of the evidence"; that is, if the greater weight of evidence favors the defendant's affirmative defense (however slightly), it must be presumed to be so; the burden on the defense is not to prove, but to simply tip the scale. This is not a trivial distinction. Further, the defense will have the opportunity, under this Florida statute, to present a motion for dismissal of the murder charge if it can show to the satisfaction of the judge presiding that the preponderance of the evidence indicates self defense. The judge may so find, and dismiss the case, or leave the finding to a jury.

The real worm in the apple here may be the current Florida self defense statute; its wording would suggest that a use of deadly force is self defense, provided only that the defending party was not where he was unlawfully, did not commit an "unlawful act" prior to whatever "unlawful act" by the other party led to the use of deadly force, and that the force was used in "reasonable" fear of death, OR "serious bodily injury". To overcome "the preponderance of evidence" affirmation by the defendant, the state would thus have to show either that he (a) violated some Florida statute prior to the "unlawful act" of the other, or (b) that his fear of death or serious injury was not "reasonable" under the circumstances. The overall effect, as I interpret it, is to create a fairly low bar for the defense to clear to establish self defense; it appears in this case it would be sufficient simply to show no violation of Florida law in the incident, up to the use of deadly force, and that his fear of death or serious injury was reasonable, by the standard of common sense. A showing that the other party's conduct was a felony under statute, would be sufficient to establish the latter point, so it is entirely possible that the Florida statute on "aggravated battery" might also come into play; it's not hard to imagine the defense asserting it in this case.

All that is somewhat confusing, but I think we may very well be confronted with exactly that sort of confusion with regard to the application of law in this case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, after most have had an opportunity to review the guidelines in post #167, and there are few additions, edits, deletions (other than our trying to see if Trajan is game to move troll posts outta here to elsewhere), we are good on those guidelines?

I'll leave the current list of potential mock jurors and alternates and the guidelines in that post for now and if it seems that most are cool with both the list and the guidelines, I'll send a PM to all mock jurors and alternates asking for a buy into the guidelines, then start the thread.

We need a way to keep outside influences away that is if we are going to be open to what is shown in court.

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

What I was referring to was other posters arguing about what happen and what constitutes murder in this thread. I have unsubscribed from all the trayvon zimmerman thread and dang iot if they aren't following me here.

 

[Si modo]

We need a way to keep outside influences away that is if we are going to be open to what is shown in court.

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

What I was referring to was other posters arguing about what happen and what constitutes murder in this thread. I have unsubscribed from all the trayvon zimmerman thread and dang iot if they aren't following me here.

In this thread, it's OK, IMO. Once we get the who and hows taken care of and confirmed, I'll start another thread and maybe Trajan can help us there - if he can, if he's willing.

If not, well it IS USMB......

 

[California Girl]

See how admitting you killed someone shifts the burden of proof in self defense to the accused?

It is for the prosecution to prove or not prove it's charge. It is not for the defense to prove jack shit.

Actually , CG, Save has a point here. Self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense", which simply means the burden of proof in asserting that defense is on the defendant; BUT, (and this is critical), the standard of proof required of the defendant is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt", but simply the "preponderance of the evidence"; that is, if the greater weight of evidence favors the defendant's affirmative defense (however slightly), it must be presumed to be so; the burden on the defense is not to prove, but to simply tip the scale. This is not a trivial distinction. Further, the defense will have the opportunity, under this Florida statute, to present a motion for dismissal of the murder charge if it can show to the satisfaction of the judge presiding that the preponderance of the evidence indicates self defense. The judge may so find, and dismiss the case, or leave the finding to a jury.

The real worm in the apple here may be the current Florida self defense statute; its wording would suggest that a use of deadly force is self defense, provided only that the defending party was not where he was unlawfully, did not commit an "unlawful act" prior to whatever "unlawful act" by the other party led to the use of deadly force, and that the force was used in "reasonable" fear of death, OR "serious bodily injury". To overcome "the preponderance of evidence" affirmation by the defendant, the state would thus have to show either that he (a) violated some Florida statute prior to the "unlawful act" of the other, or (b) that his fear of death or serious injury was not "reasonable" under the circumstances. The overall effect, as I interpret it, is to create a fairly low bar for the defense to clear to establish self defense; it appears in this case it would be sufficient simply to show no violation of Florida law in the incident, up to the use of deadly force, and that his fear of death or serious injury was reasonable, by the standard of common sense. A showing that the other party's conduct was a felony under statute, would be sufficient to establish the latter point, so it is entirely possible that the Florida statute on "aggravated battery" might also come into play; it's not hard to imagine the defense asserting it in this case.

All that is somewhat confusing, but I think we may very well be confronted with exactly that sort of confusion with regard to the application of law in this case.

I'm aware.... until the trial, I'm not paying a whole hell bunch of attention to the legalities of the FL laws. However, generally speaking... if one acts in self defense, that's not an offense... ergo, one is not guilty because no crime is committed. I'm comfortable that I can apply the law in this case... and I remain uncommitted to the guilt or innocence of any accused... The only fact that I am certain of is that Zimmerman shot Martin.

It's not the first time I've taken this stance... I didn't get overly into the Kasey Anthony case, but my stance was the same.... innocent until proven guilty.

 

[The Gadfly]

So, after most have had an opportunity to review the guidelines in post #167, and there are few additions, edits, deletions (other than our trying to see if Trajan is game to move troll posts outta here to elsewhere), we are good on those guidelines?

I'll leave the current list of potential mock jurors and alternates and the guidelines in that post for now and if it seems that most are cool with both the list and the guidelines, I'll send a PM to all mock jurors and alternates asking for a buy into the guidelines, then start the thread.

We need a way to keep outside influences away that is if we are going to be open to what is shown in court.

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

I don't know, Si, if there is any more we can do; we'll just have to rely on the jury pool observing the rules on the honor system, checking each other on anything based on "facts" which have not been admitted into the record, and following the guidelines laid out in #167.

I do like WW's suggestion that the actual voting on guilty/not guilty be handled by PM to you, on each ballot (if more than one vote is needed). That will give all of us a secret ballot, which I think would be a good idea. Only you will know how each of us voted. You can simply post the numbers on the thread, when everyone's vote is in. Thoughts?