Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

redgreenandblue

(2,117 posts)
Thu Jul 11, 2013, 11:11 AM Jul 2013

I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman. [View all]

The majority of people seems to think that he will walk. I would not be surprised if he is convicted of murder or manslaughter.

Here is why:

The argument that he will walk rests on the assumption that proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense is impossible.

I think this is wrong. I think the fallacy is that people ignoring the possibility of disproving the inverse.

Either it was self-defense or it was not self-defense. There are only these two options. One of these must be true, and if one is true the other isn't.

For it to have been self-defense, Trayvon Martin must have been a threat to Zimmerman's life. I think there is the possibility that the jury will see an innocent teenager, against whom charges of him being a threat to Zimmerman's life are implausible beyond any reasonable doubt.

170 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Has to be reasonably perceived as a threat.... Pelican Jul 2013 #1
I think ultimately the jury will decide based on what they perceive as just. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #3
that would be unfortunate. nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #66
Zimmies perceptions of threat are flawed and not as that of a reasonable person. Sheepshank Jul 2013 #167
a very important difference Crepuscular Jul 2013 #170
Martin was the only one on trial so far. Warpy Jul 2013 #2
yes, yesterday in the demonstration with the mannikin... grasswire Jul 2013 #31
Consider this please brush Jul 2013 #57
yes! thanks. eom LittleGirl Jul 2013 #69
BRUSH, that's what I said.. How in the bumbling hell could zimmy have reached his gun Ecumenist Jul 2013 #109
Hee Hee! Mr. Fantastic . . . I like. nt brush Jul 2013 #114
So lets clear, John2 Jul 2013 #78
in the walkthrough, he demonstrated that he reached... grasswire Jul 2013 #84
He was being straddled and pounded Warpy Jul 2013 #142
That's Right. brush Jul 2013 #116
It doesn't matter customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #128
I don't see why you say it was a mistake. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #137
Very, very little of that interview was questioned customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #144
The mannequin demonstration today was better -- prosecution showed anneboleyn Jul 2013 #130
oh good grasswire Jul 2013 #131
+++ Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #136
I call it a Travonesty of justice. Zimmerman should hang for his crime. InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2013 #152
I couldn't agree more. In closing arguments today zeeland Jul 2013 #153
You nailed it Cal Carpenter Jul 2013 #163
Agree. People seem to think the issue is "who mounted who," etc. It is not. Hoyt Jul 2013 #4
This is one where I'm glad the jury is sequestered Aerows Jul 2013 #37
It's up to the jury not up to logic upaloopa Jul 2013 #5
The jury will be instructed to use their own Just Saying Jul 2013 #80
Hence the kerfluffle this morning about the possible charge of child abuse - hedgehog Jul 2013 #6
+1 Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #7
Exactly. The jury needs to see him as a threat. Otherwise they will convict Zimmerman. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #8
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2013 #30
I Think, Sir, There Is A Better Than Even Chance Of Conviction The Magistrate Jul 2013 #9
Thanks. redgreenandblue Jul 2013 #11
ah, I'd forgotten that particular lie, about self-defense law magical thyme Jul 2013 #16
The injury issue doesn't actually matter in a legal sense. anomiep Jul 2013 #22
Well, the standard is also "a reasonable person," not some murderer trying to cover his crime. Hoyt Jul 2013 #28
It has to be "reasonable". It's NOT reasonable to believe the 150-ish lb 10th grader was MORE of a.. uponit7771 Jul 2013 #34
I disagree. anomiep Jul 2013 #45
Cool Story, Bro! The Magistrate Jul 2013 #51
Nothing more than an ad-hominem anomiep Jul 2013 #79
Still A Cool Story, Bro, And Nothing More The Magistrate Jul 2013 #83
you certainly have the right to be credulous anomiep Jul 2013 #93
Cool Story, Bro, Seriously.... The Magistrate Jul 2013 #101
So set aside what you think is a 'Cool Story' anomiep Jul 2013 #120
I have to laugh... zeeland Jul 2013 #154
I did anomiep Jul 2013 #162
I am afraid the Magistrate has raised reasonable doubt of your tale. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #139
I know anomiep Jul 2013 #147
OK it's not the first time I don't know what I'm talking about. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #148
No Worries anomiep Jul 2013 #149
holy SHIT! did The Magistrate just drop an internet meme on some fool?! frylock Jul 2013 #98
Sometimes, Sir, It Just Has To Be Done.... The Magistrate Jul 2013 #102
i'm just glad i was here to see it! frylock Jul 2013 #103
never heard you call anybody Bro before, LOL Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #138
I've seen such strong skinny guys too! Cronus Protagonist Jul 2013 #158
You must have missed pipi_k Jul 2013 #46
But does an MMA instructor have a different definition of "physically fit" SwissTony Jul 2013 #64
SwissTony....Allow me to applaud someone who has what my mom used to say wasn't so common Ecumenist Jul 2013 #106
That MMA trainer who said that zimpy the murderous chimp wasn't worth spit as a fighter Ecumenist Jul 2013 #67
Actually, that is not entirely accurate. anomiep Jul 2013 #85
If zimmy was so awful WHY IN HELL would it make sense for him to used in an advertisement Ecumenist Jul 2013 #90
i think you missed the point a little anomiep Jul 2013 #129
Listen, I have about 6 websites and I'm probably the WRONG one you want to mix it up with as to Ecumenist Jul 2013 #133
So explain to me why, then. anomiep Jul 2013 #150
Okay, you're either deliberately obtuse or simple so let me help you Ecumenist Jul 2013 #151
Yes. anomiep Jul 2013 #159
Yeah right. MAKING then is NOT the same as depending them to generate money. As I said, Ecumenist Jul 2013 #160
Umm anomiep Jul 2013 #161
Well, that must explains why he had to resort to using his gun to subdue his quarry. lumpy Jul 2013 #70
The law doesn't care who was "more" of a threat. It cares whether the defendant reasonably onenote Jul 2013 #71
I don't think the state has actually done so anomiep Jul 2013 #99
Apples And Oranges, Sir The Magistrate Jul 2013 #49
Thanks for the imput. lumpy Jul 2013 #72
The Magistrate, I wish to point out that by your rationale, any murderer, any robber, any rapist, Ecumenist Jul 2013 #74
Actually, "great bodily harm" is not *just* harm that could result in death. anomiep Jul 2013 #105
our biases and preconceptions constrain us galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #122
True that self-defense is or is not what happened but the evidence for self-defense is not so clear. cheyanne Jul 2013 #10
the Defense has to provide an affirmative Defense... magical thyme Jul 2013 #17
Wrong. The Defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. onenote Jul 2013 #24
There is no question he killed Martin. here is findlaw on affirmative defense... magical thyme Jul 2013 #32
He still doesn't have to pipi_k Jul 2013 #48
Not true. stranger81 Jul 2013 #52
I hope you're not a practicing criminal attorney. onenote Jul 2013 #56
He's right. ThoughtCriminal Jul 2013 #89
If you are saying I'm right, thank you. If you're saying that I'm wrong onenote Jul 2013 #96
I am, and I have no qualms about this statement of simple hornbook law. stranger81 Jul 2013 #145
I have over three decades of practice. onenote Jul 2013 #156
The rest of the story... pipi_k Jul 2013 #73
That is not an accurate statement of Florida law. onenote Jul 2013 #94
Instead of "findlaw" let's go to the actual Florida jury instructions and caselaw: onenote Jul 2013 #55
He has not proved John2 Jul 2013 #95
For the umpteeth time, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense onenote Jul 2013 #97
That is John2 Jul 2013 #100
But how does that fit anomiep Jul 2013 #117
Let me try again to clarify for you: stranger81 Jul 2013 #146
And I will clarify for you. onenote Jul 2013 #157
I hope you're right. Just Saying Jul 2013 #12
Why? pipi_k Jul 2013 #53
Yeah but this is a self defense case and it's more complicated than that. Just Saying Jul 2013 #58
The jury will be instructed that the state has to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt onenote Jul 2013 #118
I don't know what the jurors are thinking Just Saying Jul 2013 #121
Where did I say that if Trayvon hit Z it means Z is not guilty? onenote Jul 2013 #123
What bothers me is why people give Zimmerman the ok using self defense yet they southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #13
Exactly, TM had every right to defend himself against some lunatic with a gun. DCBob Jul 2013 #19
I agree. Zimmerman was the aggressor from the beginning. southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #108
And Martin took efforts to avoid a confrontation, which is when Zimmerman pursued him on foot killbotfactory Jul 2013 #26
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2013 #36
Zimmerman was the adult and should have known better. He shouldn't have followed him southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #112
You know why. It has to do with the skin color of the dead--excuse, me--MURDERED boy!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #65
Yes agree. Where am I not agreeing? It's called profiling. southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #110
I'm agreeing with you. Building on what you wrote. :) Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #115
Trayvon isn't on trial Azathoth Jul 2013 #68
If that idiot would have stayed in his car like he was told none of us would be talking. Yes southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #107
If TM had killed GZ customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #132
The prosecutor was terrible. For me it is simple. Zimmerman was the aggressor. southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #135
It doesn't work that way Bonduel Jul 2013 #14
I agree with your subject line pintobean Jul 2013 #15
+1,000 malaise Jul 2013 #18
I predict manslaughter now that it is on the table. hamsterjill Jul 2013 #20
I also think its going to be manslaughter. DCBob Jul 2013 #21
I'm not making any predictions one way or the other MrScorpio Jul 2013 #23
He was still holding the bag of candy when he died. BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #25
Good point and image. I'm glad the judge didn't allow the animation that showed Martin as a Hoyt Jul 2013 #33
If you include the 51% of the population (women) BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #39
REALLY?! I am REALLY upset that the PA hasn't pounded that home so far uponit7771 Jul 2013 #41
Yes, that was found during the ME exam BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #43
That's why Z felt so threatened: someone told him that Skittles will kick your ass. winter is coming Jul 2013 #60
His drink was in his hoodie? BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #75
My understanding, from following some of the daily threads, is that the defense winter is coming Jul 2013 #77
i think you are mistaken, NM_Birder Jul 2013 #87
Martin wasn't holding the bag of candy. It was in his pocket. Captain Stern Jul 2013 #119
That makes sense. But I believe that the Florida laws are written in a way that allows geckosfeet Jul 2013 #27
I hope you're right but (flame away) 4 white women from an affluent community ... Myrina Jul 2013 #29
...I agree but...but, a LOT of the affluent neighborhoods in the south are mixed race uponit7771 Jul 2013 #42
I agree. NOLALady Jul 2013 #44
But they may also be mothers Lisa D Jul 2013 #82
I'm just thankful the jury is sequestered Cali_Democrat Jul 2013 #35
3rd option: imperfect self defense = manslaughter... Deep13 Jul 2013 #38
Wrong. Self-defense = reasonable fear of death or great harm Azathoth Jul 2013 #40
Yup Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #50
That's patently ridiculous. Zoeisright Jul 2013 #59
Florida Jury Instruction onenote Jul 2013 #61
Wrong, the jury is not supposed to view it through the eyes of the defendent Bjorn Against Jul 2013 #126
You're right. onenote Jul 2013 #140
It's not only the injuries he has, but injuries he might have had if he had not used the gun. dkf Jul 2013 #62
That's crazy, a 5 year old hits me & I can kill the 5yr old because the danger the 5yr COULD pose!? uponit7771 Jul 2013 #86
Well, of course, that *isn't* the law. anomiep Jul 2013 #104
Hmmm....I guess pipi_k Jul 2013 #76
His fear was unreasonable because he approached Travon knowing R B Garr Jul 2013 #143
My guess Lee-Lee Jul 2013 #47
Hard to say without knowing the folks on the jury. ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #54
If the forensics don't fit, they CAN'T acquit!! :) Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #63
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2013 #88
Best. Comment. Ever! displacedtexan Jul 2013 #111
I don't think he's going to walk either, but he might get off fairly easily in spite of the fact Cleita Jul 2013 #81
I hope the jury sends a message that walking while black in the white zone is not a death sentence. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #91
No sense in trying to anticipate matt819 Jul 2013 #92
manslaughter is the best case scenario BainsBane Jul 2013 #113
My god, your opening statement is quadruple negative. Marr Jul 2013 #124
Over the past week I have been worried he would not be found guilty of 2nd degree murder... DrewFlorida Jul 2013 #125
If the members of the jury customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #127
I agree, have been thinking about this a lot. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #134
I never understood why anyone believed he'd walk TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #141
For me, the elephant in the room Mr.Bill Jul 2013 #155
But there was anomiep Jul 2013 #165
I missed that. Thanks for the info. Mr.Bill Jul 2013 #168
Yeah anomiep Jul 2013 #169
I hope you're correct but I think otherwise. nt Raine Jul 2013 #164
I agree. No need to find him "racist," or any other inflammatory adjective. I don't think Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #166
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I think some people are i...