babyfinland posted:why dont you post pictures of zimmerman's injuries now too, highly relevant things such facts as hey btw trayvon is a dead guy
here ya big babbye
babyfinland posted:jools posted:he's charged with murder in the second degree, what you said is covered if it involves firing a gun at someone duder
killing someone in self defense changes that. self defense cases normally don't even go to court. legally, it doesn't really matte whether he was right or wrong to follow trayvon or be suspicious if he shot him while trayvon was beating him up. trayvon could even have been doing it justifiably, the only thing that really matters is did zimmerman fire his weapon believing he was about to suffer death or severe bodily harm. it's going to be really difficult to demonstrate otherwise.
huh? it's an affirmative defense so the burden of proof is on zimmerman's lawyer here. the fact this was an obviously avoidable situation kind of precludes any self-defence claim, duder
tpaine posted:what happened on 2/18/01. i can't remember!
that's the day the other 9/11 hijackers kicked you out of the crew after you kept disrupting flight school classes by yelling seinfeld quotes.
jools posted:babyfinland posted:jools posted:he's charged with murder in the second degree, what you said is covered if it involves firing a gun at someone duder
killing someone in self defense changes that. self defense cases normally don't even go to court. legally, it doesn't really matte whether he was right or wrong to follow trayvon or be suspicious if he shot him while trayvon was beating him up. trayvon could even have been doing it justifiably, the only thing that really matters is did zimmerman fire his weapon believing he was about to suffer death or severe bodily harm. it's going to be really difficult to demonstrate otherwise.
huh? it's an affirmative defense so the burden of proof is on zimmerman's lawyer here. the fact this was an obviously avoidable situation kind of precludes any self-defence claim, duder
i don't think it works that way
babyfinland posted:jools posted:babyfinland posted:jools posted:he's charged with murder in the second degree, what you said is covered if it involves firing a gun at someone duder
killing someone in self defense changes that. self defense cases normally don't even go to court. legally, it doesn't really matte whether he was right or wrong to follow trayvon or be suspicious if he shot him while trayvon was beating him up. trayvon could even have been doing it justifiably, the only thing that really matters is did zimmerman fire his weapon believing he was about to suffer death or severe bodily harm. it's going to be really difficult to demonstrate otherwise.
huh? it's an affirmative defense so the burden of proof is on zimmerman's lawyer here. the fact this was an obviously avoidable situation kind of precludes any self-defence claim, duder
i don't think it works that way
how do you think it works?
babyfinland posted:jools posted:he's charged with murder in the second degree, what you said is covered if it involves firing a gun at someone duder
killing someone in self defense changes that. self defense cases normally don't even go to court. legally, it doesn't really matte whether he was right or wrong to follow trayvon or be suspicious if he shot him while trayvon was beating him up. trayvon could even have been doing it justifiably, the only thing that really matters is did zimmerman fire his weapon believing he was about to suffer death or severe bodily harm. it's going to be really difficult to demonstrate otherwise.
lol this is bullshit. in the sean bell case the judge ruled this was the standard for cops, but that's controversial in itself and was never applied to civilians anyway. do you really think you can just gun down anybody and then it's the prosecutor's job to prove you weren't afraid for your life when you did it, (a nearly impossible standard to meet)?
jools posted:babyfinland posted:jools posted:babyfinland posted:jools posted:he's charged with murder in the second degree, what you said is covered if it involves firing a gun at someone duder
killing someone in self defense changes that. self defense cases normally don't even go to court. legally, it doesn't really matte whether he was right or wrong to follow trayvon or be suspicious if he shot him while trayvon was beating him up. trayvon could even have been doing it justifiably, the only thing that really matters is did zimmerman fire his weapon believing he was about to suffer death or severe bodily harm. it's going to be really difficult to demonstrate otherwise.
huh? it's an affirmative defense so the burden of proof is on zimmerman's lawyer here. the fact this was an obviously avoidable situation kind of precludes any self-defence claim, duder
i don't think it works that way
how do you think it works?
uh i dunno but i dont think being in a inadvisable situation negates your right to self defense
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:jools posted:he's charged with murder in the second degree, what you said is covered if it involves firing a gun at someone duder
killing someone in self defense changes that. self defense cases normally don't even go to court. legally, it doesn't really matte whether he was right or wrong to follow trayvon or be suspicious if he shot him while trayvon was beating him up. trayvon could even have been doing it justifiably, the only thing that really matters is did zimmerman fire his weapon believing he was about to suffer death or severe bodily harm. it's going to be really difficult to demonstrate otherwise.
lol this is bullshit. in the sean bell case the judge ruled this was the standard for cops, but that's controversial in itself and was never applied to civilians anyway. do you really think you can just gun down anybody and then it's the prosecutor's job to prove you weren't afraid for your life when you did it, (a nearly impossible standard to meet)?
why yes of course i believe this for i am an idiot
it's why there's so much obsession over who is taller, who is heavier, whether or not zimmerman made himself fat intentionally while he was out on bond
In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in
these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case.
Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries
we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all
share.
Burden of proof or not, this court case is the Spectacle, by in large.
The right to self-defense in America is an illusion, we can't protect ourselves against this. Its virtually illegal to protect ourselves against the capitalist image, in most capacities.
This trial isn't about race, it is about the corruption of the judicial system, the mass hypnotism of the corporate media, and the collective sub-conscious struggle against the fascism of the spectacle.
ArsPoetica posted:I caught at least three people in my office watching the court case in my office yesterday.
Burden of proof or not, this court case is the Spectacle, by in large.
The right to self-defense in America is an illusion, we can't protect ourselves against this. Its virtually illegal to protect ourselves against the capitalist image, in most capacities.
This trial isn't about race, it is about the corruption of the judicial system, the mass hypnotism of the corporate media, and the collective sub-conscious struggle against the fascism of the spectacle.
p sure it's about race
of not contacting a florida state wildlife officer and getting the proper negro hunting tag for his harvest
YOU'LL CUT YOURSELF ON THAT EDGE
Edited by jools ()
slumlord posted:p sure it's about race
And the Iraq war was about terrorism, and Snowden is about whistleblowers, and the fat tax is about obesity, and the farm bill is about agriculture, and firetrucks are red.
orrrr its the percolating symptoms of greater systemic forces. The media and major news conglomerates gloss over with the dreary red varnish of capitalist system.
"What a rest to speak of bicycles and horns. Unfortunately it is not of them I have to speak, but of her who brought me into the world, through the hole in her arse if my memory is correct. First taste of the shit." Beckett'
daddyholes posted:preclusion -> degree of force, iirc
it's why there's so much obsession over who is taller, who is heavier, whether or not zimmerman made himself fat intentionally while he was out on bond
he got fat because he had to stop hoovering fat rails of adderall until the trial is over
slumlord posted:i was reading the jury instructions and lol @ the transparent attempt at the very end to stamp out any thoughts of jury nullification
Does it surprise you that the attempts are transparent? I put similar jury instructions in my cases. Juries serve a specific role in the courtroom and they are given plenty of instructions before deliberations begin.
If you're just trying to say that you like jury nullification and wished the court didn't give the jury instructions on following the law, then okay, but the instruction itself is commonplace and completely normal (if a little more strongly worded than the instruction I use).
Also, my jury came back last night as a guilty so if that trend continues over into Florida I think we can successfully predict the results of this case.
There are plenty of alternatives to a jury trial, to be sure. I am in favour of bench trials, compurgation, trial by combat or ordeal. Combat, for example, hasn't been found to be unconstitutional, and there's nothing in my state that explicitly says you can't do it, so...
slumlord posted:i was reading the jury instructions and lol @ the transparent attempt at the very end to stamp out any thoughts of jury nullification
In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in
these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case.
Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries
we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all
share.
is it legal for lawyers to lie and tell jurors that fury nullification is illegal because that is exactly what just happened
TG posted:judgments notwithstanding a verdict. although i guess thats functionally the same as getting rid of the jury
Yes, that's an idea, but you'd have to amend the federal and state constitutions first to do that. The change wouldn't go down well with many americans both in and out of the legal system, too.
It makes more sense to just instruct the jury on their role in the proceedings and impress upon them the importance of following those instructions. At any rate, jury instructions are the most boring part of any jury trial, and this post had to be edited because apparently I forgot how to type.
Edited by Lykourgos ()
from the states point of view i can understand not wanting nullification, but id also understand not wanting people to directly vote on referenda. itd be like telling people at the polls that they shouldnt really be doing it and just to stick to voting for candidates, and then when people outside the polling stations try to tell you to vote on the referenda, they get arrested
gyrofry posted:I like how juries can do whatever they want and it make you mad.
KilledInADuel posted:what the hell are you guys talking about, jury nullification should be the encouraged response to about 90% of all crimes brought to trial. possibly 100% because it's hard to believe that anybody deserves a fate as wretched as the inside of an american prison.
Not all crimes are punished by prison; I haven't always asked for it after a jury trial. It's really not for juries to decide what happens after the verdict is returned (unless it's a death penalty case where the jury is involved in determining whether death is suitable). They perform a certain role, nothing more nothing less. If someone shoots you in the head, though, I'm sure we can read your post out during sentencing and then your killer can get a void sentence of boot camp or something.
TG posted:generally speaking for self defense, the defendant must provide a scintilla of evidence of the affirmative defense, and then it is the prosecutor's burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. thats how affirmative defenses usually work, although some may place the burden on the defendant to prove it beyond a preponderance of the evidence. it is unconstitutional burden shifting to make a defendant prove or disprove something beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00634.htm
ArsPoetica posted:I caught at least three people in my office watching the court case in my office yesterday.
Burden of proof or not, this court case is the Spectacle, by in large.
The right to self-defense in America is an illusion, we can't protect ourselves against this. Its virtually illegal to protect ourselves against the capitalist image, in most capacities.
This trial isn't about race, it is about the corruption of the judicial system, the mass hypnotism of the corporate media, and the collective sub-conscious struggle against the fascism of the spectacle.
huh, im pretty sure corporate media isnt exactly hypnotism, and the struggle against the spectacular can be nothing but conscious
jools posted:like what you're posting is croissant 'n' cotes du rhone flavoured "wake up sheeple!!"
thanks for removing the scales from my eyes Julian. I now see this post for what it is. classic jools.
