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

onenote

(46,079 posts)

19. sounds like reasonable doubt then doesn't it?

Reply to stranger81 (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:14 PM

Jul 2013

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I see a lot of straw men being immolated this morning. [View all] DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 OP

"That's a recipe for mayhem" VWolf Jul 2013 #1

You insure all affirmative defenses shift part of the burden of proof to the defense. Blackford Jul 2013 #2

Who is "you" in your response? VWolf Jul 2013 #3

The courts, people, justice system, etc. n/t Blackford Jul 2013 #4

So, are we talking about passing new laws that compel VWolf Jul 2013 #6

No, you pass new laws that shift the burden of proof as I laid out. Blackford Jul 2013 #7

So, if the jury concludes that the state's version and the defendant's version are equally plausible onenote Jul 2013 #8

In that case Blackford Jul 2013 #10

No, in that case the defense has failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. onenote Jul 2013 #14

The you are saying the state proved it's case beyond a reasonable doubt Blackford Jul 2013 #15

Let's try again. onenote Jul 2013 #24

I apologize, I thought I was being clearer than I was Blackford Jul 2013 #25

BTW, if its impossible for the state to rebut a claim of self defense onenote Jul 2013 #9

Jury bias Blackford Jul 2013 #11

Yeap, hit a woman...get sprayed with mace....shoot the woman dead....claim self defense and.... uponit7771 Jul 2013 #5

With syg, you can't be doing anything illegal. Dash87 Jul 2013 #12

explain how one can hit someone first and still claim self defense? onenote Jul 2013 #13

Easy -- you do what Zimmerman did. stranger81 Jul 2013 #16

Where was the evidence that Zimmerman hit first? onenote Jul 2013 #18

Since no one but Martin and Zimmerman witnessed the start of the altercation, stranger81 Jul 2013 #21

And before you say there would have been marks on Martin if Z had gotten in a punch, stranger81 Jul 2013 #17

sounds like reasonable doubt then doesn't it? onenote Jul 2013 #19

No, it sounds like evidence undermining the defense's claim that Zimmerman could not have been stranger81 Jul 2013 #22

except for the part about the burden of proof being on the state not the defense onenote Jul 2013 #26

Who said anything about it being a tie? stranger81 Jul 2013 #27

Yes they could have. But did the prosecution even suggest that is what happened? Serious question onenote Jul 2013 #30

Wasn't that the whole point of putting Rachel Jeantel on the stand? stranger81 Jul 2013 #31

Assume, hypothetically for the moment, that it is in fact true that Zimmerman started the physical stranger81 Jul 2013 #29

How convenient... Pelican Jul 2013 #20

...NOT ... NOT if the person calls no joy and assumes "innocense" in Florida. uponit7771 Jul 2013 #33

So is the alternative. Igel Jul 2013 #23

I see your point. X can't kill Y because he X hit him first, however... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2013 #32

Other states do not protect an aggressor as FL does. And my state requires more than 6 people DeschutesRiver Jul 2013 #28