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 22, 2013 at 12:35:24 AM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 21, 2013 at 8:18:39 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?
**
*
*I don't think you see. If the question is relevant, it's relevant whether we know the answer or not. Saying "well, we don't know the answer, so it doesn't matter" is foolish.
*
*
**The defense, (with having ANY defense), did NOT have to say more than, "We call no witnesses, your honor".
*
*Untrue. Look up what an affirmative defense is. I gave the definition above, but since you're ignoring that, you might want to read it elsewhere.
*
*I'm not going to continue this because you're making assertions about the legal burden of proof without any legal basis behind them.


YES, I now understand it better, so a case "would" have to be presented by the defense to show he had "just cause" to shoot to kill, you are right. (I dip in here between working, so I did NOT carefully read your definition, and I apologize for that). I usually take more time before typing away).

I also looked it up. Here is one quote from a lawyer about such a defense in HIS case: "If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free". AND, the self defense law ONLY applies to those who do NOT commit an unlawful act to start a fight or any altercation. If proved to be an unlawful one? NO self defense then. Guilty.

So, what do we have? A court case with NO evidence to prove otherwise as to Zimmerman's self defense claim, including the all important WHO started the fight. So, it is not relevant now, for all else is just assuming and doubting, and going against the evidence of Zimmerman's, and the NON-evidence of the prosecution. How much more not-relevant can it get?

He is guilty of bad judgement, sure. BUT that doesn't affect the claim of self defense. IF anyone wants that put that condition in there too, (in addition to the first act of starting something having to be "unlawful"), then more power to them.

A while back, I first claimed Zimmerman to be guilty, (assuming like many people did), UNTIL I read all the evidence and timelines of the case, (thanks to OFT for giving me the site for that info). I know it must be tough for any black person to take a fair look at the whole case and what the jury got to deliberate with. It would seem to me that if many black people can;t do that,,,despite being tough,,,that they might be the ones with the racist assumptions now, in place of bad ole whities from decades ago, especially in the south.
The tides have changed? Reason for that, that would be natural and expected even? I don't know.

What I do know is the things being said by many blacks have little to do with the evidence the defense team proved, and the evidence the prosecution simply did NOT have to even try to prove. WHO started the fight WAS the burden of the defense team, you are right. And there it was, with NONE from the prosecution to counter that. They "speculated". Why? Their job to try to do something with the NONE case they were forced to take and charge Zimmerman with.

Zimmerman, despite bad judgement, (not illegal SO FAR), should sue the state for bringing a case to court without evidence to counter self defense.

Thanks again. Thanks for the conversation. Thanks for making me check the facts. Lesson learned. Again! (OFT got that same thing from me before, as I mentioned).

OK, back to work! (You should hear the music I am involved with), doing special "mastering" to present to investors a theater like experience for the 13 songs I helped record.
WOW! LUCKY me, for sure! Many others better than I, but NONE more passionate and dedicated to my craft. Many more schooled, but NONE more focused when I get to any project or task. Competitive to the max, which makes one learn, open minded, and able and willing to adapt to make things better, NO matter what it takes. Been near complete exhausting many times, and I seem to have built up stamina for that even, despite getting older, (60,,,but a YOUNG 60)!

LOL: Just excited about what I am working on, and with the WHO's, come to think of "that" relevant segway, so please excuse my boasting of my job and all). Not sure how I deserve it all, but I am trying. OFT, Murray, PYBC, Winston, and Duke might know some of it, I think.

All in all, peace to you and everyone! Despite everything!
Johnny

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