He means that, if there is any reason to doubt the guilt of the defendant, he is not guilty. The defendant must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, the benefit of it goes to the defendant, assuming (reasonably, I feel) that being found not guilty is a benefit.
Read your cite, it explains all this tolerably well.
Seeing as how I emphasized the phrase
it seems clear that you are pointing out your own behavior, which in this instance is ignoring the phrase “however short”.
I ignore nothing:
Act 1: staring from truck.
Act 2: getting out of truck and following on foot
A series of 2 acts over a period of a few minutes.
I’m sorry, but did you actually pay attention to what he was saying?
Martin “skipped”. Seriously? It smacks of a lie concocted to downplay Martin’s fear of him. It was gratuitously self-serving.
He said he ran over to RVC to meet the cops there. Again, a lie. This is him trying to salvage the silly address thing.
“Gods plan.” Would do it all again. No remorse whatsoever. Depraved mind, anyone? Forget about Martin losing his life. Why would God want anyone to be attacked so viciously that they’re forced to kill a teenager? He comes across as a narcissistic psycho here.
He said he never had heard of SYG before the shooting. Thus, opening the door to have that challenged by the prosecution. (It shouldn’t even matter whether he’d heard of SYG, that’s the crazy thing. But GZ’s repeated denials makes it seem like he thinks it does matter. So when it comes out that he did indeed know, that smacks of cunning not innocence.)
But you think the jury will be impressed because he was neatly dressed? Hopefully they aren’t that stupid and shallow.
Well, Martin claimed he wasn’t running, and wasn’t going to run, so why you’d find Zimmerman’s claim that he didn’t run a problem, I’ve no idea.
Yes, of course, that meets the legal definition of stalking :smack: There is nothing wrong with those two acts, and they do not form a pattern of harassment. Are we even talking about the same case here? Do you somehow think that Martin is Zimmerman’s ex-boyfriend or something, claiming that stalking is involved?
Do you even read what you write, and consider whether it’s even slightly relevant or sensible?
And when you’re done with that show that Zimmerman went in the direction Martin went. We know Martin went to his house and we know where the fight started which incidentally is consistent with Zimmerman’s account of the direction Martin went and from the direction he came from.
The State still has Gilbreath et al. on the list, so he better elicit the missing alibi from the FDLE investigators who decided GZ should be arrested.
No part.
I realize that the word “doubt” appears in both phrases, but that does not mean they have the same meaning, especially since one is a legal term and the other is not.
Finding someone "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt " is not the same thing as “benefit of the doubt is applied to defendant.” as you can readily see:
give somebody the benefit of the doubt
to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either
give somebody/something the benefit of the doubt
to decide you will believe someone or something
benefit of the doubt
a judgment in one’s favor when the evidence is neither for one nor against one.
When giving someone the benefit of the doubt, you are believing what they say and taking their word because you, yourself, have some doubt about what happened.
benefit of the doubt
noun
a favorable opinion or judgment adopted despite uncertainty.
I repeat, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
There is no such requirement for the jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt at all. Zimmerman claims X - the jury has the sole responsibility of deciding how credible they find him, and decide that they do not believe him, even though they cannot be certain. If they had to give him the benefit of the doubt, as you would have it, they would have to accept that what he said is true. They would have to, even thought they find him to be a raging liar, accept an “inference favorable to the defendant”.
But no, they don’t have to, at all. They have complete freedom to think he’s a total liar and not believe a word he says, giving him zero benefit of the doubt.
Which is not the same thing as convicting him because the case against him has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They are separate and distinct things, even though they sound similar.
You accused me of ignoring the words “period of time” - what you consider meeting the definition vs. what I or anyone else considers doing so is different, and we’ve had that discussion already.
no - as in quietly observing/tracking - while I can see how you can infer “hunting him down” or “intent to kill” - that was not my meaning - Zimmerman made it ‘clear’ that he did not want to confront Martin - but he was clearly following - I call that stalking - but not stalking in the ‘classic/legalistic/crime’ sense of stalking.
Hopefully that clarifies that - I am trying hard not to “decide” what Zimmerman was intending to do - I am trying very hard to stick with what is being introduced - His intent - as stated by him - was to ‘prevent’ ‘<expletive> punks from getting away with it’.
You were wrong, and your own cite proved you wrong. You’ve done that numerous times in this thread, let alone all the other times you’ve done it.
Do you never stop to think that, if your own cites are proving you wrong time and time again, there’s something lacking in your arguments?
Ok, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here… Maybe you didn’t see it in the other thread, but people did use the word stalking to express their belief that Zimmerman literally hunted Martin down with intent.
That’s not an accurate quote. He said “fucking punks, they always get away”, it was a statement of fact (or at least his opinion), not of intent. His intent, as shown by the fact that he called the police, was to have the police investigate the suspicious person he saw. By mischaracterising it as “getting away with it” you imply that he’d already judged Martin as guilty of something, not merely suspicious, and I don’t believe that’s warranted.
The ultimate point being, I do not believe there’s any evidence that Zimmerman intended to catch up with and confront Martin.
point taken - the only difference I have to infer his intent this time is that, as compared to the other incidents where he called NEN - he took a more active role in keeping track.
Zimmerman ‘clearly’ thougth Martin was ‘up to no good’ or he would not have taken the additional steps he did. This implies that he intended to make sure he did not get away with it.
I do not believe Zimmerman ‘hunted down’ Martin with the intent to ‘kill’ him - I do believe that Zimmerman escalated the situation by his actions, and that should come with some penalty.
(eta - I pretty much stayed away from the other thread - I did stalk it on occasion to see if anything ‘new’ was being brought up).
Do we actually know this? I’ve not seen any mention of what happened after his previous calls, and one could certainly interpret “they always get away” to mean he’s tried to follow them before.
I’m not sure if that’s either plausible or relevant, as I’ve only just thought of it.
Or that he intended to investigate, and have the police investigate, what he was doing.
It should come with some penalty if, and only if, he can be proven to have committed a crime. I believe that is a fundamental principle that is getting lost here.
If I’d have known last February that I’d still be arguing about it now, and over a quarter of my posts on this board would be about this case, I’d never have opened the damn thing. But now I have, duty calls.
so it’s down to adjectives now? Skipped versus ran? really? REALLY?
What silly address thing? He clearly doesn’t know the name of the street. He STATES it on the phone call. How is this silly, errant or remotely relevant? Zimmerman does not have a didactic memory.
what possible reason would he have to be remorseful for defending himself.
If it shouldn’t matter why are you bringing it up? His position has always been one of self defense in response to a struggle for the gun.
So based on your observations and analysis thus far, do you believe Zimmerman will be convicted?
No, no one.
The depraved mind element cannot be satisfied in this way.
That was the implication I took away from the playing of the other NEN calls at the beginning of the trial - that in all the other (played) incidents - Zimmerman had no other interaction(s). I may have missed something.
I assume relevance since the Prosecution was able to get them admitted - and that they are trying to establish a ‘difference’ in behavior this time.
He had no duty as an ‘investigator’ - as to what Martin was doing - at that point he was walking home, talking to his girl, enjoying his skittles. I have heard no testimony or evidence to suggest that Martin was doing anything that needed investigating.
Agreed - and thats the rub in a case like this - without the claim of “self defense” - it would clearly be “Murder” (not sure the way they would charge the degree) - and the claim of “self defense” rests ‘primarily’ on who the aggressor was, and less to how one ‘fares’ in a fight one started. (at least in my mind).
‘in a fight to the death, both sides lose’.
Thanks for the discussion - I’ve learned/rethought a few things wrt to this.
Steophan, you have your own personal reality that you relentless promote as being the One True Reality, and I understand why that is, I do, but it’s about you, not me. So as far as your announcements about What Is, well, they are your announcements, that’s all.