Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago?

Posted by **Johnny D** on Jul 21, 2013 at 7:48:36 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 21, 2013 at 1:54:13 PM:

****
*******
*******There was also testimony to the contrary, but even granting what you say is true, that doesn't say anything about who started the fight, does it?
******
******Just some thoughts, and NOT directed at you or anyone:
******
******The Jury can not give a verdict based on who started the fight.
******
*****
*****What's your legal opinion based upon? The question of who started the fight seems very relevant to a claim of self-defense. Otherwise, we would have a situation where someone could start a fight, shoot the other person when he begins to lose, and have no responsibility legally. As far as I know, legally, if a person starts a fight, they usually can't claim self-defense.
*****
*****
****
****My non-legal opinion is that the jury had no witnesses to testify as to who started the fight. The evidence and the witnesses claimed only the action AFTER whoever started anything in some fight.
****
****For a legal view, it is "my understanding" that if it is proven that someone was "unlawful" in approaching or retaining someone, (as in some criminal act of any kind), then the self defense claim would, or should be, dismissed by the jury. So, with the jury not given any proof of a criminal restraint by Zimmerman, there was no way for them to give a verdict based on who started the fight. THEY or any of us don't really know. They and us only know who was the current aggressor right before the shot, proven by the witnesses and the evidence of the angle of the shot and the way it went through the sweatshirt, with a gap between it and Trayvon, (HIM leaning over at the time of the shot). The WHO started the fight is now only known by Zimmerman. The jury had nothing to go for that part of it, is my point. Thanks.
****
****
***The jury had the sworn testimony of George Zimmerman that Trayvon Martin threatened him with death("Tonight you die")then smashed and broke his nose knocking him to the ground.
***Testimony given under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth HAS to be accepted as just that UNLESS PROVEN not to be. Innocence is presumed and believed and does NOT have to be proven.
***
***
******
******That is just for others to debate, and be mad or not about who they THINK started the fight. For better or worse. The jury only heard and saw what was presented to them, not what was shown and heard on TV night after night. It might not be a factor anyway, given the actual fight is when the fear factor for one's life can happen, or even without a fight, one can claim fear for their life, and the goes Bang. The Who started anything doesn't seem to apply to the right to defend with deadly force. ???
******
***That is correct, but if it is KNOWN that Zimmerman actually started the physical fighting then Trayvon was acting in self defense and Zimmerman was the aggressor who could've stopped aggressing rather than escalate.
***It would be a much different case and at least manslaughter.
***
***
**
**Not just starting a fight in some way,,,,but in order for self defense to be valid in the eyes of the law, the "start" has to be proven to be an unlawful act. If a slight shove is not unlawful, but a hard one is,,,,then there are two examples of just a "shove" that would have just one being able to be self defense. "Unlawful start" is the key for any "start".
**
**Like if yelling at someone,,,which doesn't seem to be "unlawful", one can do that, and later claim self defense if shooting another IF the other person DID commit the FIRST Unlawful act.
**
**So, in the Zimmerman case, the jury was not given any proof that Zimmerman acted the first Unlawful act. And is why I think they had to go with not guilty, due also to the forensics of his injuries presumed to be before the shooting, and also of the shooting forensics of the sweatshirt and Trayvon's bullet entry.
**
**
**
**
**
*
*Self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning that when you claim it, it's up to you to provide evidence that your actions really were self-defense. That's because the act that the defendant has the presumption of innocence for, in this case, the shooting, has already been established. Otherwise, all shootings would be self-defense.
*
*The laws covering self-defense claims vary according to jurisdiction, but it seems that even in jurisdictions where it's not an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the question of how the incident started is relevant.
*


BUT, It is NOT known other then to Zimmerman,,,,and was NOT shown as to WHO did the first unlawful act of starting the fight! So, no, it is then NOT relevant in this case, for it is not even there in any shape or form as to the first UNLAWFUL act. If there was any evidence of a first punch by Zimmerman, the prosecution did not bring it up! So, to have something relevant in court, has to have it show up for the jury to see! SEE?

The defense, (with having ANY defense), did NOT have to say more than, "We call no witnesses, your honor". For self defense was NOT ruled out by the prosecution, for they had NO evidence to say otherwise. They ONLY had their speculation of what Zimmerman might have done. That is NOT relative. It was ONLY to try to reach the jury on some emotional level, for they had NOTHING else to go on to counter self defense. THAT is the only reason the jury gave a not guilty verdict. They basically had no choice after looking at all they were given. MOST of which was just a forced prosecution case through media pressure. THEY knew they had nothing, and is why Zimmerman was not arrested and charged for a while, (until said state pressure for not wanting to look like they don't care about a black family). Trayvon did not have punch marks, to even bring a reasonable doubt o the jury as to Zimmerman's self defense claim.

It's actually 2 plus 2, when going by the evidence or lack of it, on the prosecution's side. Even the lead investigator talked in the stand as if the whole case had NOTHING on Zimmerman, for any other act than a self defense one. (1. Following someone is NOT unlawful,,,self defense OK). 2. Asking, or even yelling at someone about anything is not unlawful, self defense still holds up. 3. NO marks on Trayvon to show getting assaulted first, as was NOT proven in court).

If you want someone to blame, blame the NONE evidence to show Zimmerman made the first unlawful act before shooting Trayvon, who was on top, according to the actual and provable evidense of that. (The 4 inch gap).

Otherwise, a lot of people on the streets are protesting against the wrong people, and just doing more harm than good.

THE system as is,,,is for the courts and the laws. Stopping traffic and harassing whites and Latinos is not addressing what actually took place in court. The Jurors were NOT shown first contact by Zimmerman. Just the opposite. So blame them for coming to the only conclusion they could,,,and after 13 hours of STILL trying to pin "something" on Zimmerman,,,for whatever reason. BUT not for evidence and the law reasons. NO,,,there, they merely reflected the NO case of the prosecution's. Blame them too I guess. For not having a camera at first contact, or someone standing ten feet away at first contact, to see WHO started the unlawful act of the beginning of the fight.

Thanks again!
John

Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 26, 2013