Yeah, I know. I’ve taken criminal law, same as you. I could string all those fancy words together if I wanted to as well.
But, here are the two points you are missing:
A trial is our society’s truth-making function. So, if a jury says that the crime didn’t occur, then our only option is to accept that the crime didn’t occur.
You and I both know that an actual juror doesn’t say to themselves “self, did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime?” They just think “I do/don’t think this motherfucker did it.” Pretty much zero jurors ever think “I totally think this motherfucker did it, but there’s some element of the crime that I think the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so I’m going to vote not guilty.”
Please don’t lump me in with pro-Zimmerman folks–I’ve been very consistent throughout that it’s stupid for someone to come up with their own personal version of what they think happened, and that our only option is to trust the criminal justice system. And you haven’t “taken me to task” on shit, as I’ve just explained to you.
Truth, though I gather their are competing theories on the subject. Tell me, did you think through each element of the sneak brag, or did you just decide “that motherfucker’s showing off”?
And if there’s a criminal trial and then a civil trial that reach different results?
Schizophrenic breakdown?
No, that’s not been my experience. Most jurors, in my experience, took it seriously. Granted, a non-trivial number were brain-dead, but by no means even a majority.
And I say this as someone who was quite often in the position of arguing reasonable doubt.
The only reason you asked the question is that you know the answer. Pity you don’t also know how much it matters.
No. In that case, a crime didn’t occur (as I said), but activity resulting in civil liability did occur. Easy peasy George and Wheezy.
I’m not saying their brain-dead, I’m just saying they aren’t doing what you think they are doing.
Just because you argued it doesn’t mean they seriously considered it. They just voted on whether they thought the motherfucker did it or not (except for maybe some really strange people (such as you and I) in really strange circumstances–and even then they still had a notion of whether the motherfucker did it or not, just maybe they still had to vote one way based on their ideas of whether an element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not).
What if Zimmerman was using force or threat of force?
I was being facetious.
And it may have been in self defense.
Then can you please explain your comment further? It seemed like you were referring to MLK’s comments that black people bring much of their misery on themselves. And that Treyvon similarly brought his fate onto himself.
And that’s not always a crime. Not if you are trying to disable someone with a gun.
Thats a big fucking “if”
On this particular point I think so.
How does that mean anything?
I took criminal law too but I didn’t know that Florida placed the burden of proving that it was NOT self defense on the prosecution. My crim law class taught self defense as an affirmative defense (I presume because it is the majority rule).
So if there is a civil trial that says otherwise because there is a lower threshhold of proof, does that mean that the civil trial result is wrong?
As a fellow tax lawyer, I just have to ask, How many juries have you practiced before? How many juries have you even served on? I served on a jury before law school and the notion of reasonable doubt was at the forefront because the prosecution had made a primae facie case and the defense had not proven their innocence, they had just created reasonable doubt.
Wait. You seriously think your opinion on this matter as a corporate tax lawyer makes you just as competent in on this question as someone who works in front of juries for a living?
Really?
Doesn’t that seem a teensy weensy bit arrogant to you?
Yes but the underlying facts would be the same wouldn’t they? They didn’t change between the criminal trial and the civil trial, right? Isn’t it really a matter of burdens of proof?
Jaded usually implies overexposure, As between a trial level criminal lawyer and a corporate tax lawyer, I’m not sure that he has the requisite experience to be jaded.
Since you have no problems quoting from Jeantel’s testimony, then I am assuming you take what she said as fact, yes? She also heard Trayvon say, “Get off, get off!” at the end of their phone conversation. That sounds to me like Zimmerman grabbed hold of Trayvon or started forcing his weight on top of him somehow, suggesting that Zimmerman was, indeed, the aggressor.
Whoa, hold up there, big horse! The trial is our imperfect and deeply flawed method for deciding things. Its not an engine of perfect truth, it does not make fiction fact. And often it is the means by which injustice is inflicted, like that great Japanese movie Kawasaki, where the lying bitch is trying to get Toshiro Mifune in trouble. That shit isn’t deep, that doesn’t even rise to Afterschool Special.
Besides, I don’t like the stuff you been saying about Bricker’s mom…
Objection, Counselor, I understand it perfectly. I just don’t have any. And I didn’t arrive to that state of doubtlessness by will or prejudice, because I have none. I did by examining what was examinable. As I have extensively outlined, I have no question in my mind that Zimmerman is lying about everything that matters because his story makes no sense in anything other than the grossest, least examined terms. Therefore, with the evidence of his words, his behavior, etc, I believe without any kind hesitation at all that he provoked Martin, making him the aggressor and losing his right to claim self-defense.
I further believe without any shadow of doubt that the voice screaming for help was Martin’s, not because I want to, but because I hear a degree of hysterical terror in it that is the next best thing to a photograph of the scene, and the picture is his face looking at his death because he’s looking at that gun and GZ has already expressed his intention to use it. I have heard lots of screams in my life, in real life, in documentary footage, in film. I’m also a pretty thick-skinned gal (I have a bit of a gore thing…I don’t get off on watching people die, even a little, but I am fascinated by post-death gore. Or I was, the internet did a spectacular job of slaking that thirst pretty early on) I don’t get the vapors over violence.
All to say, I was shocked by how deeply disturbing I found that scream, how loudly it told me exactly who was screaming, and why, and how much the rawness of it really shook me.
And I have never seen or heard anything from anyone in all these months that ever caused me the tiniest flicker of doubt regarding who that was screaming. The notion that it was Zimmerman is not simply laughable, it’s deeply insulting. I’m sure I’ll get demands to justify or explain how that might be, but I will tell you in advance all I can say is this: the lucid truth of exactly who that scream is and why he was screaming like that is so undeniable (and to many other people I know who have told me they had exactly the same reaction upon hearing it) that it really does add the most grotesque of insults to the fatal injury that Zimmerman did to Martin to pretend that terror was his. It genuinely offends me, and that’s very hard to do.
So I know very well what reasonable doubt is, and I know very well that I have none.
It is? How very unfortunate. I would have thought most people around here would have more sense of self than to let that kind of mindless sniping get under their skin.
I am so sick of this stupid fiction being tossed around. Witnesses confirm only the narrowest bits of his story, mostly that he was on the bottom, and not a whole lot more. And not even very much of that, since
[ul]
[li]no one actually watched what happened for more than a few moments, [/li][li]no one saw the moments directly prior to the shot, [/li][li]no one saw the shot, [/li][li]no one saw the moments immediately following the shot, [/li][li]no one saw the first blow,[/li][li]no one saw what happened between the T and the spot they were finally seen, [/li][li]no one saw Martin trying to smother him, [/li][li]no one saw Martin smashing his head into the ground, [/li][li]no one has even committed completely to seeing Martin punch him, just “arms up and down”, [/li][li]no one saw Zimmerman heading for his car[/li][li]No one saw Martin making it a point to confront him, [/li][li]no one saw the gun come out,[/li][li]no one except Jeantel heard any conversation between them[/li][li]no one saw Zimmerman doing the screaming[/li][li]no one saw or heard Martin tell Zimmerman he was going to die. [/li]
[/ul] So, outside of Zimmerman being seen on the bottom for a few seconds, exactly what parts of his story do you think are supported by witnesses? I don’t see anything, so please enlighten us. Or please stop flinging it around like it means something, because it doesn’t.
Do you think that matters to these Marxists on this site? Zimmerman defended himself legally with a firearm. Self defense is the cardinal sin to these people.