No, here I must step in and correct you. The pretend juror is entitled to believe or disbelieve any evidence he wishes. There is no mandate to believe Zimmerman’s claims.
You might think it amounts to the same thing, though, when I say that the juror must have evidence in front of him to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that includes the necessity to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. But it’s not the same. For one thing, self-defense can come into pay from any source. It’s not that it’s specifically Zimmerman, but ANY evidence can trigger the need to disprove self-defense.
So you start with the proposition that Zimmerman is innocent. That doesn’t mean you must believe even one word he says.
I’m not saying they have to believe anything he says. Without supporting evidence, they may either believe that what he says is true, or that they do not know the truth of the matter. They may not determine solely from his untrustworthiness that the opposite of his claims are true - and that is what Stoid was doing, and she was, and is, wrong to do so.
That will remain false no matter how many times you claim it. It was obvious to the investigators at the scene, who did not arrest him and recommended he not be charged. It’s been obvious ever since to anyone who actually bothers to investigate the evidence.
Your opinion of Zimmerman’s credibility is irrelevant. That you don’t believe him is irrelevant. You may not assume, simply because you find him untrustworthy, that his statements are false, you need actual evidence. Evidence you have not produced, and still refuse to produce.
All you have are your biases and your belief that he’s untrustworthy. That proves nothing.
Those rare cases would be those where the finder of fact erroneously infers something that cannot be inferred from the evidence. Such as inferring guilt solely from a lack of credibility.
In that instance, the judge should direct a not guilty verdict, and overrule a guilty verdict if it occurs. If not, the appeal court must.
The jury are supposed to find fact, not invent it. A distinction that still eludes you.
From Jeantel’s testimony, they can find that Martin said to Zimmerman, “Get off!” That alone is enough to infer that Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin before Martin touched Zimmerman.
Agreed? They don’t HAVE to find this; it’s likely that they actually found Jeantel unreliable. But they COULD. Right?
Thou speakest false, sir, methinks in a desperate attempt to not be as thoroughly, completely, unrelentingly wrong as you absolutely are.
Never, ever, anywhere ever, on any occasion, in relation to any subject of any kind, have I suggested, implied, thought or believed that if someone speaks falsely about a thing, that false statement in itself is the proof that an opposite thing is true, ( outside of the (extremely rare) situations where the thing being spoken of is binary by nature - if it is not a zero, then it must be a 1. This is vanishingly rare in human interaction and activities.)
My words specifically:
As all can readily see, there is no leap from “Z lies, so the opposite of what he says is true.” And there has never been. You are just…inventing. Again.
Of course. Deciding that someone is guilty merely and exclusively because they lie would be very wrong. And no one has suggested that. (Feel free to re-read item 2 if you are confused about this…and recall that I provided quite a bit of material explaining how consciousness of guilt works - bottom line: item 2. Evidence to add to other evidence. Not the only evidence.)
Stoid, you say that, because you find Zimmerman lacking in credibility, you may reject his claims as false. That is wrong. You may not do that. That makes your point 2 false as, because you have not shown his statements to be false, you have no evidence of a guilty mind.
Bricker - they may be able to infer that he touched Martin. Where is the evidence for assault?
Der…What exactly do you think a finding of not credible means? The jury finds him generally full of shit but they have to believe him anyway? Please clarify your understanding of this, because it isn’t making any sense so far.
Seriously?
Right here:
Acquaint yourself with the meaning of “assault”
And:
Probably ought to learn about battery at the same time:
It’s pretty clear that just about anything imaginable that would prompt Martin to say “Get off!” would rate as assault, as battery, or both.
Also, you are having more comprehension problems. It does not say “because he lacks credibility we find he has a guilty mind.” :rolleyes: (Jesus, you will say just about anything rather than “ooops”, won’t you?)
Really straightforward:
[ul]
[li]We find he’s full of shit. [/li][li]What’s he full of shit about? [/li][li]The exact things that make a difference in determining whether he killed Martin wrongfully. [/li][li]Therefore: he’s full of shit deliberately, he’s shoveling the shit to cover up his wrongful actions, indicating he knows exactly what he did wrong.[/li][/ul]
They can infer he touched Martin, and that the touch was unwanted. Yes? That’s a violation of Fla. Stat. 784.03(1)(a)(1) (criminalizing the act of any person who “Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other…”)
And they can certainly infer that Martin, who was not blind, saw the battery coming before it happened, which would mean assault, under 784.011(1). (Note that a person would only be charged under one of those two sections).
When discussing a Florida case, it’s probably simpler to refer to and quote Florida statutes and caselaw. You have correctly supplied a discussion of common-law battery, and it’s certainly accurate, but for all you know, Florida’s statutes may have modified or eliminated the common-law offense. Safer to go to the source: Statutes and the caselaw that construes them.
Stoid - that you find that he’s full of shit does not mean you can find any particular statement of his false. You are entitled to not believe him - that is, to consider that no statement he makes is true. That doesn’t mean you may consider them false without evidence. It remains undetermined whether or not they’re true.
Until you grasp this your entire argument is worthless. You simply may not go from disbelieving his claim of innocence to considering him guilty. That disbelief is in no way evidence of guilt, or evidence of anything. It simply means you have no evidence at all.
You’ve just done it again, below. Of course, it’s still wrong, as your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You are, as usual, assuming facts not in evidence - specifically, why he’s lying.
You: Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, maybe murder, but at least manslaughter.
Someone Sane: What evidence do you base that on? The jury heard a lot of evidence and came to an opposite conclusion.
You: Yes, but they assumed that there was a possibility that Zimmerman was innocent, and judged the evidence accordingly. If you assume he was guilty (which he of course is!!!) then you would know to discount any evidence that might point to his non-guilt and know that all the evidence, scant as it was, that suggested his guilt had a truthiness factor of 10 billion. Plus 1.
Someone Sane: So you really don’t have much real evidence to point to Zimmerman being guilty?
You: Sure I do. Just imagine a set of circumstances in which Zimmerman was guilty, imagine all that went down before he murdered Travy…THAT is my evidence! Now let’s see you try to argue against THAT!!!
But Stoid didn’t simply consider them false. I know she’s now sort of floating back and forth in her explanation, but the fact remains that she laid out a series of inferences which the jury would be permitted to make that allowed a finding of guilt for manslaughter.
None of them (except the ones I struck at the time) were flawed. This “consciousness of guilt” business is a red herring; consciousness of guilt does not support any element of the crime. It’s true that the jury is permitted to consider a lie as consciousness of guilt but that doesn’t address any particular element, and so it doesn’t enter into our analysis.
In Florida, manslaughter can be shown three ways: by act, by procurement, or by culpable negligence. By act, the language simply means that " … where one commits an act that results in death, and such an act is not lawfully justified or excusable, it is manslaughter." (State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252 (Fl. 2010).
You agree the state can prove that Zimmerman committed an act, and that act resulted in a death, correct?
So the only thing the state must prove, I assume, for which you question the presence of legally sufficient evidence, is where the state must prove that the act was not lawfully justified or excusable – right?
What i think Stoid is saying (or what she SHOULD be saying, anyway) is that there was evidence introduced that would have allowed the jury to find guilt.
How strong that evidence is, and whether a particular jury DID believe it, is a different issue.
Let me give you an example: a man is accused of robbery. The clerk testifies that he’s sure the defendant is the man that stuck a gun in his face and demanded the contents of the cash register. But the clerk admits that he’s suffered from delusions and hallucinations in the past – but not that day, he insists.
A Catholic archbishop, the Speaker of the House, Matt Lauer, and the chief of police all testify that the man was a hundred and fifty miles away at that exact moment, attending a meeting that they also attended.
I think it’s fair to say that virtually every jury in the known universe would acquit.
But from a legal standpoint, the jury is entitled to reject the testimony of the Catholic archbishop, the Speaker of the House, Matt Lauer, and the chief of police as not credible, and accept the clerk’s testimony.
It seems to me that you, magellen, are arguing about weight of the evidence; Stoid is (or should be) talking about sufficiency of the evidence.
Yes, the state can prove that. However, I know of no law, anywhere, that criminalises committing an act that kills someone. Killing someone is fine unless it happens in conjunction with other things that make it illegal. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Zimmerman killed either intentionally or negligently, so no crime.
Add to that self defence. That adds yet another layer - even if it would otherwise have been unlawful, if he was defending himself from a sufficiently serious attack, there was no crime.
The evidence makes it clear that this killing was both unintentional and in self defence, so there was no crime. Martin was lawfully killed.
To claim otherwise means relying on extremely dubious evidence whilst rejecting the plausible. Which is not reasonable.
At least I provide authoritative sources for my assertions. Steophan, on the other hand, provides…his opinion. Stridently expressed with astonishing certitude, so that some might mistake it for something more than that. But that’s all it is. Stuff he just thunk up in his own head and decided was true. So where’s your suggestion to Steophan that he provide, oh, something? You take the time and energy to suggest that my cites really oughta be pristine and specifically targeted (pointlessly, as we both know) while his strident posts full of his personal assessment of truth are cites that you see no need to suggest any improvement for? Hello?
Hell, Bricker, 80% of the time he doesn’t even explain his assertions, he just asserts! “It is so!” C’mon…:dubious:
Trying the ol’ BEWB routine again? (baffle 'em with bullshit) Just a few handwaves and some blather? Are you having that “everything before today was erased from my head” problem again?
And this makes Stephan look like he’s making sense. You’ve made it clear by your questions that you’re pretty new to these debates, so I suggest you go back a ways. Not too far, really, but, as our Counselor points out, I have made the case with the evidence. The evidence introduced at trial. So there’s that.
You know perfectly well that’s what I’ve been saying, Bricker, that’s exactly what you confirmed:
See?
For some reason it seems to drive Steophan nuts that I and so many others find Zimmerman’s story brimming with bullshit. He doesn’t view it that way, as he’s entitled, but he appears to conclude from that that it is therefore irrational, impossible, illegal, immoral…something that makes it unacceptable for others to view it that way. So he obsesses about it. Plus, as you’ve seen, it disturbs him so much that he ignores pretty much everything else I say and have said, and returns like a boomerang to some version of: “You just think he’s guilty because you think he’s lying and you can’t because he’s not so you’re wrong!” He’s pretty attached to that song.
Unintentional? You mean like the gun that was inadvertently holstered on his person accidentally ended up in his hands, when he reflexively pulled the trigger, which caused a bullet to coincidentally kill Martin. While he was unknowingly and unwittingly engaged in self-defense. OK. Got it.