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
In reply to the discussion: I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman. [View all]stranger81
(2,345 posts)52. Not true.
Self defense is called an "affirmative defense" because it carries an affirmative burden of proof. The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it does, Z can can claim self defense but has to prove it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
170 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think ultimately the jury will decide based on what they perceive as just.
redgreenandblue
Jul 2013
#3
Zimmies perceptions of threat are flawed and not as that of a reasonable person.
Sheepshank
Jul 2013
#167
BRUSH, that's what I said.. How in the bumbling hell could zimmy have reached his gun
Ecumenist
Jul 2013
#109
Exactly. The jury needs to see him as a threat. Otherwise they will convict Zimmerman.
redgreenandblue
Jul 2013
#8
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
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
If zimmy was so awful WHY IN HELL would it make sense for him to used in an advertisement
Ecumenist
Jul 2013
#90
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
Yeah right. MAKING then is NOT the same as depending them to generate money. As I said,
Ecumenist
Jul 2013
#160
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
The Magistrate, I wish to point out that by your rationale, any murderer, any robber, any rapist,
Ecumenist
Jul 2013
#74
True that self-defense is or is not what happened but the evidence for self-defense is not so clear.
cheyanne
Jul 2013
#10
There is no question he killed Martin. here is findlaw on affirmative defense...
magical thyme
Jul 2013
#32
Instead of "findlaw" let's go to the actual Florida jury instructions and caselaw:
onenote
Jul 2013
#55
For the umpteeth time, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense
onenote
Jul 2013
#97
The jury will be instructed that the state has to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt
onenote
Jul 2013
#118
What bothers me is why people give Zimmerman the ok using self defense yet they
southernyankeebelle
Jul 2013
#13
And Martin took efforts to avoid a confrontation, which is when Zimmerman pursued him on foot
killbotfactory
Jul 2013
#26
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
If that idiot would have stayed in his car like he was told none of us would be talking. Yes
southernyankeebelle
Jul 2013
#107
The prosecutor was terrible. For me it is simple. Zimmerman was the aggressor.
southernyankeebelle
Jul 2013
#135
Good point and image. I'm glad the judge didn't allow the animation that showed Martin as a
Hoyt
Jul 2013
#33
That's why Z felt so threatened: someone told him that Skittles will kick your ass.
winter is coming
Jul 2013
#60
My understanding, from following some of the daily threads, is that the defense
winter is coming
Jul 2013
#77
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
Wrong, the jury is not supposed to view it through the eyes of the defendent
Bjorn Against
Jul 2013
#126
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
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
Over the past week I have been worried he would not be found guilty of 2nd degree murder...
DrewFlorida
Jul 2013
#125
I agree. No need to find him "racist," or any other inflammatory adjective. I don't think
Honeycombe8
Jul 2013
#166