General Discussion

stranger81

(2,345 posts)

29. Assume, hypothetically for the moment, that it is in fact true that Zimmerman started the physical

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:55 PM

Jul 2013

confrontation. What is to stop any Zimmerman, or any defendant, from simply lying about that fact and being guaranteed a get-out-of-jail free card if the burdens of proof are as you say? Assume all other facts, including DiMaio's testimony (and even Root's preposterous testimony about Zimmerman being utterly unable to harm a challenger in a fight), remain unchanged.

If the answer is nothing, doesn't that strike you as a problem?

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