Zimmerman

[Gadawg73]

Whether Zimmerman is found guilty or innocent, the whining about justice is sure to be epic.

NO one is ever found innocent.
Not guilty is always the standard in America and The Constitution.
If the state fails to prove their case and you believe he is not innocent then under the law you MUST find him NOT GUILTY.
The defendant is under NO burden to prove himself innocent, ever.
But you are right if he is found Not Guilty as the MOB RULE folks here would riot.
If the jury finds him guilty or not guilty I will stand with the jury.
Unlike the mob rule ignorant of the law folks here.

I will remember you said this

Please do.
Everyone should respect the jury system.
The anti Zimmerman mob rule supporters have no respect for the jury system.
They do not even understand what it stands for and how it is the best in the world, separating us from most all other countries on earth.
Everyone here that has predetermined Zimmerman's guilt takes their freedom for granted.

 

[Gadawg73]

The blood level that Martin had of THC is considered under the law in most states as "impaired for driving".
I do not make the laws and I believe that is an absurd law but that is the law.

Could you link to something showing that 1.5 ng/ml is considered "impaired" as a function of most states laws?

You are making a claim as to a factual condition of the law and would just like to see if there is something to support it.


Thanks in advance.


>>>>

Not most states, 6 states and Florida is not one of them. Was wrong on that.
In these 6 states ANY TRACE ELEMENT of THC in the blood is evidence of impairment.
Fucked up law like I said.
Arizona, Georgia as I have seen these cases many times and they are absurd, Illinois, Nevada, Utah and Indiana. ANY TRACE is impairment and an automatic conviction.
Some states the trace elements have been ruled as "insufficient evidence" because of the unreliability of the testing that I mentioned earlier.
The Michigan case, which is the case always cited in the fights here in Georgia to do away with the BS law, always mentions the unreliability of the testing of half life primarily metabolite THC-COOH.
Of course the primary argument is always, was the drug-weed, the proximate cause of an accident?; as most of these cases are brought with vehicular homicide and the 2005 Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that it is insufficient evidence of impairment.
IOW, my take is that they ruled that smoking weed can not be proven to cause driver impairment, testing irregularities or not.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hint: bloody knuckles Martin in the autopsy.
'Splain that one.

Easy...


There are no "bloody knuckles" in Martin's autopsy report. The autopsy report begins on page 125. (If you have something different than what was previously released, I'd be interested in seeing the ME's revision.)


State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


>>>>

Abrasions on the left ring finger and the prosecutors' office has acknowledged that it is the knuckle.
Cut your finger at the knuckle and tell us if it does not bleed. The body is wiped before the autopsy. Diagram shows the area and it is at the knuckle.
Where is any of that in your analysis? How come you deflect, side step, avoid and omit any of that?
I would be interested in any questions you have as to any of the allegations about Zimmerman.
Everything you offer is questions concerning Zimmerman's innocence, which is a presumption UNDER THE LAW, and nothing on Martin's possible involvement in attacking Zimmerman where there is plenty of physical evidence that he did.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The blood level that Martin had of THC is considered under the law in most states as "impaired for driving".
I do not make the laws and I believe that is an absurd law but that is the law.

Could you link to something showing that 1.5 ng/ml is considered "impaired" as a function of most states laws?

You are making a claim as to a factual condition of the law and would just like to see if there is something to support it.


Thanks in advance.


>>>>

Not most states, 6 states and Florida is not one of them. Was wrong on that.
In these 6 states ANY TRACE ELEMENT of THC in the blood is evidence of impairment.
Fucked up law like I said.
Arizona, Georgia as I have seen these cases many times and they are absurd, Illinois, Nevada, Utah and Indiana. ANY TRACE is impairment and an automatic conviction.
Some states the trace elements have been ruled as "insufficient evidence" because of the unreliability of the testing that I mentioned earlier.
The Michigan case, which is the case always cited in the fights here in Georgia to do away with the BS law, always mentions the unreliability of the testing of half life primarily metabolite THC-COOH.
Of course the primary argument is always, was the drug-weed, the proximate cause of an accident?; as most of these cases are brought with vehicular homicide and the 2005 Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that it is insufficient evidence of impairment.
IOW, my take is that they ruled that smoking weed can not be proven to cause driver impairment, testing irregularities or not.

OK, thanks.

I agree you are technically correct. For example I looked up the Arizona law (Arizona Revised Statute 28-1381) and it shows "While there is any drug defined in section 13-3401 or its metabolite in the person's body."

So ya, under the law (which I note you disagree with) whether the dude had a joint 1 day before or 4-weeks before under the law he would be considered "impaired".

No the reality is that the level of "any trace in the body" has no real impact on the Zimmerman/Martin case as we are talking the equivalant of someone smoking a joint the day before or having a beer with breakfast and is that person "impaired" 12 hours later. Not likely.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hint: bloody knuckles Martin in the autopsy.
'Splain that one.

Easy...


There are no "bloody knuckles" in Martin's autopsy report. The autopsy report begins on page 125. (If you have something different than what was previously released, I'd be interested in seeing the ME's revision.)


State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


>>>>

Abrasions on the left ring finger and the prosecutors' office has acknowledged that it is the knuckle.

You are still using plural, that is not what is in the ME's report. The ME noted only one (singular) 1/8 x 1/4 small abrasion on a single finger (fourth finger, left hand).

Cut your finger at the knuckle and tell us if it does not bleed. The body is wiped before the autopsy. Diagram shows the area and it is at the knuckle.
Where is any of that in your analysis? How come you deflect, side step, avoid and omit any of that?

Gadawg, you know me, I've been around for awhile I don't deflect or side step. You said...

Hint: bloody knuckles Martin in the autopsy.
'Splain that one.

There are no "bloody knuckles" mentioned in the ME's report. (A) it is described as a small abrasion, and (b) it is singular not plural as you describe.

I would be interested in any questions you have as to any of the allegations about Zimmerman.

Could you be more specific? That's kind of broad.

Everything you offer is questions concerning Zimmerman's innocence, which is a presumption UNDER THE LAW, and nothing on Martin's possible involvement in attacking Zimmerman where there is plenty of physical evidence that he did.

I've repeatedly said that from the time that Zimmerman followed Martin around behind the apartment complex to the time that the first witnesses (some claiming Martin was on top, at least one claiming Zimmerman was on top) there is a "dead zone" where we don't know what happened. It is equally possible that Zimmerman or Martin initiated hostilities.

The only witness to the events between the end of the dispatcher call and the first neighbors starting to view the scene is the girl friends testimony (and mark my words she will be allowed to testify) that she was (a) on the phone with Martin, (b) that the time of the call was during the incident, and (c) that she heard a voice confront Martin while he was talking to her. That testimony will be admitted because it is direct observation even if she is barred from stating what Martin said to her because of the hearsay rule.

What you do see me post on is when people incorrectly state what the evidence shows (either for or against Zimmerman). For example I've disagreed with people that said the Zimmerman was motivated by racism, no he was a neighborhood watch, he was motivated by protecting the neighborhood. I've disagreed with people that try to claim that Zimmerman's previous assault on a police officer 8 years ago was relevant to the Martin shooting. I've also disagreed and defended Zimmerman against those who claim he clearly committed Murder 2 and should get life in prison. IMHO, the evidence does not support that charge. So I've not ONLY impugned Zimmerman.

But lets face it Martin is dead, we don't have his story. The ONLY story we have to try to match to the physical evidence, the forensic evidence, and the witness statements is Zimmerman's story and that why much of the discussion focuses on that. If we had statements, audio recordings, and video reenactments by Martin, then we could equally focus on those as well - but we don't.

But lets me honest, when people say the evidence shows that Zimmerman returned to his truck when told to do so by the dispatcher - they are wrong. A time distance analysis shows that Zimmerman had to continue away from his truck. Then of course Zimmerman also indicated he continued to move away from his truck. I will also disagree when someone says the autopsy report showed Martin had "bloody knuckles" - it didn't. The autopsy report showed a single small abrasion which (IIRC from the audio tapes) are inconsistent with someone delivering multiple blows to the head.

Do I question Zimmerman's story as being inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence - you bet your ass. While there is no doubt that Zimmerman and Martin were in a fight, some things don't match up. Is that saying Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 - not in the least.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

Why would a body be wiped before an autopsy if the autopsy is used to determine cause of death?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would a body be wiped before an autopsy if the autopsy is used to determine cause of death?

Actually it would a two step process. The body wouldn't be just "wiped" by a flunky and then the ME comes in and examines the body for cause of death. The body would be examined first to preserve any evidence especially when the death was not likely caused by natural causes. Then it would be cleaned or "wiped" to makes sure all the skin was exposed so irregularities (like a single small abrasion on one finger) could be located.


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

Why would a body be wiped before an autopsy if the autopsy is used to determine cause of death?

Actually it would a two step process. The body wouldn't be just "wiped" by a flunky and then the ME comes in and examines the body for cause of death. The body would be examined first to preserve any evidence especially when the death was not likely caused by natural causes. Then it would be cleaned or "wiped" to makes sure all the skin was exposed so irregularities (like a single small abrasion on one finger) could be located.


>>>>

That's what I thought. It'd be stupid to clean the body up first.

I am disappointed that the abrasion hasn't been fully described. For instance, I currently have an abrasion on my hand from a paper cut yesterday. It certainly isn't bloody or related to any altercation I got into today.

Though if the abrasion on Trayvon Martin's hand had been bloody I imagine that would have been noted before a more thorough examination.

 

[Trajan]

world doesnt care anymore

You are right, he is white.

no, hes a 'white Hispanic'

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would a body be wiped before an autopsy if the autopsy is used to determine cause of death?

Actually it would a two step process. The body wouldn't be just "wiped" by a flunky and then the ME comes in and examines the body for cause of death. The body would be examined first to preserve any evidence especially when the death was not likely caused by natural causes. Then it would be cleaned or "wiped" to makes sure all the skin was exposed so irregularities (like a single small abrasion on one finger) could be located.


>>>>

That's what I thought. It'd be stupid to clean the body up first.

I am disappointed that the abrasion hasn't been fully described. For instance, I currently have an abrasion on my hand from a paper cut yesterday. It certainly isn't bloody or related to any altercation I got into today.

Though if the abrasion on Trayvon Martin's hand had been bloody I imagine that would have been noted before a more thorough examination.

Abrasion is an adequate description. It was described as small (meaning it wasn't deep) and the length and width were provided (1/8 x 1/4).

A paper cut is not an abrasion it is a cut or "laceration" (i.e. a cut or tearing of the skin). An abrasion on the other hand is a scraping away of the surface of the skin. A shallow abrasion doesn't even have to produce much blood at all (or even any blood).

Punch a glass window and the broken glass will cut your skin that's a laceration. On the other hand punch a stone wall with a glancing blow and the removed skin will be an abrasion.



>>>>

 

[jtpr312]

Who gives a crap about levels? The ONLY fact that is relevent is that trayvon was not the innocent little 12yr old that the news media tried to portray him as. What he was was your typical, 6'+, dope smoking, gang banging, negro thug. Prison or a bullet from one of his homies was in his future anyway. Zimmerman saved only God knows how many innocents from being victimized by this pos by killing him sooner rather than later.

God did not want Trayvon Martin to be shot and killed.
Any way you look at it this is a tragedy for everyone involved.

God has no problem with a person killing a thug who is attacking them and attempting to kill them. God evidently didn't mind trayvon getting killed, otherwise he would still be alive.

 

[JoeB131]

Resorting to racism and homophobia... Nice job libtards

Wasn't that your plan in the last election?

I think it was yours as well as anti-mormon bigotry

Unless you are signing up for your own pair of magic underpants tomorrow, you are just as "bigoted" against the Mormons as I am.

I'm just clearer on the point.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Please do.
Everyone should respect the jury system.
The anti Zimmerman mob rule supporters have no respect for the jury system.
They do not even understand what it stands for and how it is the best in the world, separating us from most all other countries on earth.
Everyone here that has predetermined Zimmerman's guilt takes their freedom for granted.

Actually, I think trial by jury is the stupidest thing ever come up with by modern man.

Felt that way since the woman on the Simpson Jury said that she didn't understand the DNA evidence, so she ignored it.

There's no question about Zimmerman's guilt. Trayvon's dead. Zimmerman shot him.

Other than the whacky gun-nutters who think we should be able to shoot non-whites "just because", there really isn't an issue here.

 

[Gadawg73]

Easy...


There are no "bloody knuckles" in Martin's autopsy report. The autopsy report begins on page 125. (If you have something different than what was previously released, I'd be interested in seeing the ME's revision.)


State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


>>>>

Abrasions on the left ring finger and the prosecutors' office has acknowledged that it is the knuckle.

You are still using plural, that is not what is in the ME's report. The ME noted only one (singular) 1/8 x 1/4 small abrasion on a single finger (fourth finger, left hand).




Gadawg, you know me, I've been around for awhile I don't deflect or side step. You said...

​

There are no "bloody knuckles" mentioned in the ME's report. (A) it is described as a small abrasion, and (b) it is singular not plural as you describe.

I would be interested in any questions you have as to any of the allegations about Zimmerman.

Could you be more specific? That's kind of broad.

Everything you offer is questions concerning Zimmerman's innocence, which is a presumption UNDER THE LAW, and nothing on Martin's possible involvement in attacking Zimmerman where there is plenty of physical evidence that he did.

I've repeatedly said that from the time that Zimmerman followed Martin around behind the apartment complex to the time that the first witnesses (some claiming Martin was on top, at least one claiming Zimmerman was on top) there is a "dead zone" where we don't know what happened. It is equally possible that Zimmerman or Martin initiated hostilities.

The only witness to the events between the end of the dispatcher call and the first neighbors starting to view the scene is the girl friends testimony (and mark my words she will be allowed to testify) that she was (a) on the phone with Martin, (b) that the time of the call was during the incident, and (c) that she heard a voice confront Martin while he was talking to her. That testimony will be admitted because it is direct observation even if she is barred from stating what Martin said to her because of the hearsay rule.

What you do see me post on is when people incorrectly state what the evidence shows (either for or against Zimmerman). For example I've disagreed with people that said the Zimmerman was motivated by racism, no he was a neighborhood watch, he was motivated by protecting the neighborhood. I've disagreed with people that try to claim that Zimmerman's previous assault on a police officer 8 years ago was relevant to the Martin shooting. I've also disagreed and defended Zimmerman against those who claim he clearly committed Murder 2 and should get life in prison. IMHO, the evidence does not support that charge. So I've not ONLY impugned Zimmerman.

But lets face it Martin is dead, we don't have his story. The ONLY story we have to try to match to the physical evidence, the forensic evidence, and the witness statements is Zimmerman's story and that why much of the discussion focuses on that. If we had statements, audio recordings, and video reenactments by Martin, then we could equally focus on those as well - but we don't.

But lets me honest, when people say the evidence shows that Zimmerman returned to his truck when told to do so by the dispatcher - they are wrong. A time distance analysis shows that Zimmerman had to continue away from his truck. Then of course Zimmerman also indicated he continued to move away from his truck. I will also disagree when someone says the autopsy report showed Martin had "bloody knuckles" - it didn't. The autopsy report showed a single small abrasion which (IIRC from the audio tapes) are inconsistent with someone delivering multiple blows to the head.

Do I question Zimmerman's story as being inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence - you bet your ass. While there is no doubt that Zimmerman and Martin were in a fight, some things don't match up. Is that saying Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 - not in the least.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense and I mean you no disrespect as I believe you to be reasonable and open minded.
But you still do not understand where I am coming from as this ENTIRE case is a criminal case yet you and others still do not understand the basics of the criminal law and how it applies to how each side has totally OPPOSITE burdens not only on how they prosecute and defend the case but, most importantly, how they present it to the jury.
1. The standard of proof in a civil case is where most of you are coming from in our discussions here. In a civil case there requires one side to have more evidence than the other or that the winning argument is more probable than not. This entails some sense of weighing evidence based on the relative importance of the various pieces of evidence presented in a case. That is PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE and that is what you are arguing here in CRIMINAL CASE and it is a faulty argument 100% of the time. Let me give you an example of this. You are arguing that since the finger had abrasions on it then maybe it happened from something else. That holds NO water in this criminal case because the state, the prosecution, has to PROVE EVERY ELEMENT of their argument BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Your "well, the defendant really can not prove that the abrasions on the finger was bloody and he can not prove the broken nose and the abrasions on the back of his head and face were caused by the victim" would be a foolish argument for the prosecution to make as you CAN NOT prove it DID NOT HAPPEN. The defendant does not have to PROVE ANYTHING in defense of his innocence. That burden is 100% on the prosecution. If you can not prove any and every assumption YOU make beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is found not guilty. Every assumption made by the defendant such as the abrasions on his finger were most likely and probably from a bloody knuckle is allowed as that is their case FOR REASONABLE DOUBT. And the only way for the prosecution to attack that is with 100% PROOF that it was not from that. That burden, under the law, is 100% for the prosecution to prove false without ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
2. The requirement that the prosecution, or anyone here that believes Zimmerman may be guilty or is offering "well, it possibly could have been this or that" is ALWAYS that the prosecution and everyone here that believes Zimmerman may be guilty is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The requirement that the prosecution prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EVERY ELEMENT of a crime in order to convict Zimmerman is NO EXCEPTION. That is the law of the land in all criminal cases. The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution, and anyone here that offers "well, maybe Martin did this or Zimmerman did that, that is a "possibility"", and the presumption of innocence granted EVERY DEFENDANT AND ZIMMERMAN, are based on the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
3. At the end of the trial the jury will hear a Wentworth charge from the Judge. I have heard this charge hundreds of times in the criminal cases I have worked on for 34 years. The charge will be very similar to this and this one IS allowed in Florida: "Under all constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until provenguilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove or disprove anything. That burden is entirely on the prosecution. The burden of prove is entirely on the State. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and YOU must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of EVERY element of the alleged offense. If after all the evidence and arguments you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's having committed ANY ONE or more of the elements of the offense then you MUST find him not guilty."
A reasonable doubt definition is added at the end as to what constitutes reasonable doubt. The fact remains that at this point any and all arguments about "well, maybe Zimmerman did this and maybe he did that" are moot and no prosecutor would ever present his case against any defendant that way. That is not proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt and that is HIS BURDEN. The prosecution's argument has to be SOLID PROOF ALL THE WAY. The defendant's burden is 100% different. His argument can be "well, maybe it was this because the finger was that and that is a possibility" And THAT IS A VALID argument as the defendant has a DIFFERENT BURDEN than the prosecution in a criminal case where the burden is ON the prosecution 100%. The prosecution can have 99.999999999% of the evidence to prove his case and all Zimmerman would have to have is .00000000000001% of the evidence to prove reasonable doubt and the charge and duty of the jury would be to find him NOT GUILTY. In a civil case the plaintiff has to have 50.1% to win, the more evidence he has in a civil case wins it.
Not here. Here and in the criminal court anyone that offers anything as to the guilt of Zimmerman has to have 100% SOLID PROOF.
All the defenders of Zimmerman, a man that is PRESUMED INNOCENT now and through the entire trial have to have is reasonable doubt and we do not need any evidence to prove reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is presumed innocent and any way the defense can show any possibility in any way that the evidence MAY show this or that CAN be that reasonable doubt.
The prosecution can not argue any of that. Their burden has to be 100% solid fact to prove guilt.
The defendant does not HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.

 

[Synthaholic]

Nobody reads walls of text.

 

[Gadawg73]

[

Please do.
Everyone should respect the jury system.
The anti Zimmerman mob rule supporters have no respect for the jury system.
They do not even understand what it stands for and how it is the best in the world, separating us from most all other countries on earth.
Everyone here that has predetermined Zimmerman's guilt takes their freedom for granted.

Actually, I think trial by jury is the stupidest thing ever come up with by modern man.

Felt that way since the woman on the Simpson Jury said that she didn't understand the DNA evidence, so she ignored it.

There's no question about Zimmerman's guilt. Trayvon's dead. Zimmerman shot him.

Other than the whacky gun-nutters who think we should be able to shoot non-whites "just because", there really isn't an issue here.

Firing squad works well for your communist friends all over the world.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nobody reads walls of text.

20 feet over your head?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Abrasions on the left ring finger and the prosecutors' office has acknowledged that it is the knuckle.

You are still using plural, that is not what is in the ME's report. The ME noted only one (singular) 1/8 x 1/4 small abrasion on a single finger (fourth finger, left hand).




Gadawg, you know me, I've been around for awhile I don't deflect or side step. You said...

​

There are no "bloody knuckles" mentioned in the ME's report. (A) it is described as a small abrasion, and (b) it is singular not plural as you describe.



Could you be more specific? That's kind of broad.

Everything you offer is questions concerning Zimmerman's innocence, which is a presumption UNDER THE LAW, and nothing on Martin's possible involvement in attacking Zimmerman where there is plenty of physical evidence that he did.

I've repeatedly said that from the time that Zimmerman followed Martin around behind the apartment complex to the time that the first witnesses (some claiming Martin was on top, at least one claiming Zimmerman was on top) there is a "dead zone" where we don't know what happened. It is equally possible that Zimmerman or Martin initiated hostilities.

The only witness to the events between the end of the dispatcher call and the first neighbors starting to view the scene is the girl friends testimony (and mark my words she will be allowed to testify) that she was (a) on the phone with Martin, (b) that the time of the call was during the incident, and (c) that she heard a voice confront Martin while he was talking to her. That testimony will be admitted because it is direct observation even if she is barred from stating what Martin said to her because of the hearsay rule.

What you do see me post on is when people incorrectly state what the evidence shows (either for or against Zimmerman). For example I've disagreed with people that said the Zimmerman was motivated by racism, no he was a neighborhood watch, he was motivated by protecting the neighborhood. I've disagreed with people that try to claim that Zimmerman's previous assault on a police officer 8 years ago was relevant to the Martin shooting. I've also disagreed and defended Zimmerman against those who claim he clearly committed Murder 2 and should get life in prison. IMHO, the evidence does not support that charge. So I've not ONLY impugned Zimmerman.

But lets face it Martin is dead, we don't have his story. The ONLY story we have to try to match to the physical evidence, the forensic evidence, and the witness statements is Zimmerman's story and that why much of the discussion focuses on that. If we had statements, audio recordings, and video reenactments by Martin, then we could equally focus on those as well - but we don't.

But lets me honest, when people say the evidence shows that Zimmerman returned to his truck when told to do so by the dispatcher - they are wrong. A time distance analysis shows that Zimmerman had to continue away from his truck. Then of course Zimmerman also indicated he continued to move away from his truck. I will also disagree when someone says the autopsy report showed Martin had "bloody knuckles" - it didn't. The autopsy report showed a single small abrasion which (IIRC from the audio tapes) are inconsistent with someone delivering multiple blows to the head.

Do I question Zimmerman's story as being inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence - you bet your ass. While there is no doubt that Zimmerman and Martin were in a fight, some things don't match up. Is that saying Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2 - not in the least.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

Let me appeal to your reason and common sense and I mean you no disrespect as I believe you to be reasonable and open minded.
But you still do not understand where I am coming from as this ENTIRE case is a criminal case yet you and others still do not understand the basics of the criminal law and how it applies to how each side has totally OPPOSITE burdens not only on how they prosecute and defend the case but, most importantly, how they present it to the jury.
1. The standard of proof in a civil case is where most of you are coming from in our discussions here. In a civil case there requires one side to have more evidence than the other or that the winning argument is more probable than not. This entails some sense of weighing evidence based on the relative importance of the various pieces of evidence presented in a case. That is PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE and that is what you are arguing here in CRIMINAL CASE and it is a faulty argument 100% of the time. Let me give you an example of this. You are arguing that since the finger had abrasions on it then maybe it happened from something else. That holds NO water in this criminal case because the state, the prosecution, has to PROVE EVERY ELEMENT of their argument BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Your "well, the defendant really can not prove that the abrasions on the finger was bloody and he can not prove the broken nose and the abrasions on the back of his head and face were caused by the victim" would be a foolish argument for the prosecution to make as you CAN NOT prove it DID NOT HAPPEN. The defendant does not have to PROVE ANYTHING in defense of his innocence. That burden is 100% on the prosecution. If you can not prove any and every assumption YOU make beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is found not guilty. Every assumption made by the defendant such as the abrasions on his finger were most likely and probably from a bloody knuckle is allowed as that is their case FOR REASONABLE DOUBT. And the only way for the prosecution to attack that is with 100% PROOF that it was not from that. That burden, under the law, is 100% for the prosecution to prove false without ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.
2. The requirement that the prosecution, or anyone here that believes Zimmerman may be guilty or is offering "well, it possibly could have been this or that" is ALWAYS that the prosecution and everyone here that believes Zimmerman may be guilty is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The requirement that the prosecution prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EVERY ELEMENT of a crime in order to convict Zimmerman is NO EXCEPTION. That is the law of the land in all criminal cases. The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution, and anyone here that offers "well, maybe Martin did this or Zimmerman did that, that is a "possibility"", and the presumption of innocence granted EVERY DEFENDANT AND ZIMMERMAN, are based on the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
3. At the end of the trial the jury will hear a Wentworth charge from the Judge. I have heard this charge hundreds of times in the criminal cases I have worked on for 34 years. The charge will be very similar to this and this one IS allowed in Florida: "Under all constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until provenguilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove or disprove anything. That burden is entirely on the prosecution. The burden of prove is entirely on the State. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and YOU must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of EVERY element of the alleged offense. If after all the evidence and arguments you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's having committed ANY ONE or more of the elements of the offense then you MUST find him not guilty."
A reasonable doubt definition is added at the end as to what constitutes reasonable doubt. The fact remains that at this point any and all arguments about "well, maybe Zimmerman did this and maybe he did that" are moot and no prosecutor would ever present his case against any defendant that way. That is not proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt and that is HIS BURDEN. The prosecution's argument has to be SOLID PROOF ALL THE WAY. The defendant's burden is 100% different. His argument can be "well, maybe it was this because the finger was that and that is a possibility" And THAT IS A VALID argument as the defendant has a DIFFERENT BURDEN than the prosecution in a criminal case where the burden is ON the prosecution 100%. The prosecution can have 99.999999999% of the evidence to prove his case and all Zimmerman would have to have is .00000000000001% of the evidence to prove reasonable doubt and the charge and duty of the jury would be to find him NOT GUILTY. In a civil case the plaintiff has to have 50.1% to win, the more evidence he has in a civil case wins it.
Not here. Here and in the criminal court anyone that offers anything as to the guilt of Zimmerman has to have 100% SOLID PROOF.
All the defenders of Zimmerman, a man that is PRESUMED INNOCENT now and through the entire trial have to have is reasonable doubt and we do not need any evidence to prove reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is presumed innocent and any way the defense can show any possibility in any way that the evidence MAY show this or that CAN be that reasonable doubt.
The prosecution can not argue any of that. Their burden has to be 100% solid fact to prove guilt.
The defendant does not HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING.

I read you post and appreciate it.

The basic point is that we agree. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to make their case for Murder 2 and (IMHO) it's a pretty week case. I'm still not quite clear under Florida law if there are lesser included offense provisions or if it's an all or nothing shot by the prosecution at Murder 2.

But I will tell you that the defense has to prepare - well - a defense. If you think that the prosecution is going to make their case and the defense isn't going to need to present rebuttal evidence and/or witnesses, and/or expert testimony. If O'Mara tried that, then Zimmerman would be trouble.

The reality is that their is a huge difference between us here in the internet shooting the bull about this, that, and the other thing and presenting our opinions of what those things mean and a court room where the final measure is the opinion of the Jury and whether they consider the prosecution to have proved the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

[

Firing squad works well for your communist friends all over the world.

Right, whine about "communism" when all other arguments fail.

Think it's bad that a racist bully shoots an unarmed child in the middle of the street?

you must be a "communist"!

 

[BallsBrunswick]

It's amazing to me this is still a topic. Can't wait to read about Zimmerman being bashed to death in a prison shower room. Anyone defending this pig makes me seriously question their character.