Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago?
Posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 26, 2013 at 10:27:38 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? posted by **Johnny D** on Jul 26, 2013 at 8:56:23 PM:
***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?
**Read what you wrote here: "If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free" and " A court case with NO evidence to prove otherwise as to Zimmerman's self defense claim, including the all important WHO started the fight." Do you see how you're contradicting yourself? You say that the defendant has to prove that he acted in self-defense, then you say that the onus is on the state to prove that he didn't act in self-defense.
*Yep,,,and is WHY BOTH SIDES present their case.
*1. Prosecution did NOT provide proof Zimmerman threw or acted in any UNLAWFUL way before the claimed self defending shot, which would override ANY defense claim of self defense.
Even if you don't read what I wrote, read what you wrote. It's up to the person claiming self-defense to prove that he acted in self-defense. It's not up to the state to "override" the claim.
*2. The defense presented witnesses and other evidence to support the claimed lawful ACT of the shooting.
There was also evidence to the contrary, which I note you've ignored.
*So? My statement covers them BOTH. Maybe lawyers can help you out more than I can. Ask them! I'm a musician!
- no followups have been posted yet...
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