Dear god, I hope he’s okay!
Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch. The neighborhood had had a number of break-ins and at least one shooting in the past few months. So the neighborhood had a meeting and asked for volunteers, and Zimmerman was the only one who volunteered.
Regards,
Shodan
So says Zimmerman. All we have his version of the confrontation. We could ask Martin if he saw it differently, if weren’t so dead.
Gosh! Someone should start a thread about this “Zimmerman” thing!
What a novel idea!! Nobody involved was in law-enforcement, so it doesn’t even fit this thread.
No, it isn’t. But even if it were, it would be sufficient, as the state needs to prove he was not acting in self defence. If he claimed he was, and there’s no other evidence, the case would need to be thrown out, as it’s impossible to prove guilt.
Fortunately, however, we have witness testimony of Martin’s description of his movements and actions, and they are consistent with Zimmerman’s claim.
None of this means that Zimmerman proved his innocence. But in case you need reminding, that’s not necessary, and the burden of proof is on the state.
Very little here is posted that fits the thread. It’s supposed to be about controversial encounters, but what is actually happening is a circle-jerk about how terrible all cops are, and a bunch of insults and dismissal towards anyone who actually attempts to discuss the controversy.
Spin it any way you want-The Zimmerman crap doesn’t belong in this thread, and you fucking know it.
You’re factually wrong here. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The state does not need to prove he was not acting in self defense, it is the defense’s burden to prove they were acting in it.
Nope, at least not in Florida and many other states*. Which is, of course, the way it should be, as someone who kills in self defence is a victim of crime, not a criminal, and expecting victims of crime to prove they are not criminals is morally abhorrent. Well, at least it is to me, I suspect it’s different to the large amount of people here who don’t believe in the right to self defence.
Did you actually follow the Zimmerman trial and research the issue, or are you just relying on your memories of how the law used to be, or how it is in different states.
*Technically, it is still an affirmative defence, in that the accused has to raise the issue for it to be considered. If they don’t claim it, then the prosecution don’t have to disprove it, but if the issue is raised and some evidence provided - such as a statement by the accused that it was self defence, not necessarily one provided at the trial - then it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. My cite is the actual trial of George Zimmerman.
You’re not a mod any more, so shut the fuck up with your content-free drivel.
Quit trolling this thread, troll.
Have you forgotten what thread this is…again?
So you just admitted you lied in your first sentence of that post … in the exact same post. That’s good enough for me. For that, you can sit in my ignore list all by yourself for the rest of time and think about what you’ve done.
You claimed the state did not have to prove he was not acting in self defence, which was completely wrong. I’m sure I’ll survive being on your ignore list, though, you’re the one who will have to remain in ignorance.
Well, you know it’s impossible to implement a policy whereby the police don’t elbow or punch handcuffed suspects. It goes against millions of years of human nature.
Why even* become* a cop if you can’t kick ass and bust heads?
Bribes and graft?
But how sure should they have to be that their life is actually in danger before they take a potential innocent life? 100%, 50%, 10%? How many civilians is each cops life worth? If a cop feels his life is threatened is he justified in grabbing a nearby civilian and using him as a human shield?