General Discussion

Ruby the Liberal

(26,618 posts)

7. Not only was the burden on the state - he didn't even have to testify.

Sun Jul 14, 2013, 07:18 PM

Jul 2013

That is fucked up. If YOU claim self-defense then YOU should have the burden to prove it - ESPECIALLY if the only other witness is *DEAD*.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Zimmerman and the misplaced burden of proof. [View all] Vox Moi Jul 2013 OP

Yes, this is likely what confused the jurors treestar Jul 2013 #1

What I was trying to say was that in making an appeal for self-defense ... Vox Moi Jul 2013 #4

I hear you, but they can raise defenses via other witnesses they bring in their case. RBInMaine Jul 2013 #17

criminally negligent - that would have been possible to prove treestar Jul 2013 #22

Even if he knew the police were comming, he didn't know how long it was going to take. Travis_0004 Jul 2013 #33

what's with the spelling? CreekDog Jul 2013 #42

Yup. Even criminally "reckless" given his long list of bad judgments and lies. Here's what happened: RBInMaine Jul 2013 #41

Constitutionally no one can be forced to testify Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #2

The fifth amendment goes to self-incrimination Vox Moi Jul 2013 #5

Forcing someone to testify to make that argument is unconstitutional Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #11

Then they are guilty of murder, end of discussion Blackford Jul 2013 #13

Right, but you cannot force someone to testify to that to make the argument. Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #20

In most states it is required you testify to take an affirmative defense. n/t Blackford Jul 2013 #21

Link? onenote Jul 2013 #26

No link needed Blackford Jul 2013 #38

I think you meant no link possible onenote Jul 2013 #40

what? qazplm Jul 2013 #34

Please see #38 n/t Blackford Jul 2013 #39

I think jurors had reasonable doubt on who was on top, etc. But that was not the crime. Hoyt Jul 2013 #3

I agree with your post but take exception to requiring defendant to testify. Avalux Jul 2013 #6

You are the only witness to a crime you committed Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #8

Yes it does, that's why the current law is flawed. Avalux Jul 2013 #9

Exactly. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #10

I'd say shift the burden but don't require testimony. Jim Lane Jul 2013 #23

Agreed Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #24

It is up to the state to disprove your self defense argument. onenote Jul 2013 #27

not even a little bit. ever. what's fucked up to me is giving the state more power cali Jul 2013 #32

Not only was the burden on the state - he didn't even have to testify. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #7

The burden was on the defense. The prosecution threw the case. IMO Vincardog Jul 2013 #12

Was he tried in Ohio? Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #14

what are you quoting? onenote Jul 2013 #28

It was a link someone posted to justify their opinion that poor widdle Z was as pure as the driven Vincardog Jul 2013 #43

+1 truebluegreen Jul 2013 #18

I had little free time to browse the news today but 2naSalit Jul 2013 #15

It gets better exboyfil Jul 2013 #30

Yes we had this discussion before the verdict Just Saying Jul 2013 #16

I agree with you, and to be honest I had always thought that was how it petronius Jul 2013 #19

I'm inclined to agree with you cpwm17 Jul 2013 #25

The shift in the burden of proof was done Turbineguy Jul 2013 #29

sorry, don't agree. cali Jul 2013 #31

I totally agree. We don't need to replace the current system which one in which ... spin Jul 2013 #35

people are reacting to the Zimmerman verdict. stupidly. still, it scares me to see how reactionary cali Jul 2013 #36

I blame our educational system. .. spin Jul 2013 #37