I don’t understand these tribute songs, they are acting like he’s some kind of martyr and completely missing the point. I thought all the outrage was because Zimmerman wasn’t arrested. These songs are acting like Trayvon’s death is somehow more tragic than the thousands and thousands of other black kids are shot and killed by their own race every day.
My favorite line is “he could have been president.”
NO_LIMIT_NIGGA for President, 2066!
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Another Tribute video, this one by an artist I like! Wyclef Jean Fugee-la!!![/quote]
How long until comments/ratings become disabled due to a landslide of negative feedback?[/quote]
That’s all youtube is known for so why would that matter? Hell, posting a picture of a bodybuilder alone will get you negative feedback. It seems to be the last public stronghold for dumbass racist comments so why would anyone be surprised by anonymous postings?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Another Tribute video, this one by an artist I like! Wyclef Jean Fugee-la!!![/quote]
How long until comments/ratings become disabled due to a landslide of negative feedback?[/quote]
That’s all youtube is known for so why would that matter? Hell, posting a picture of a bodybuilder alone will get you negative feedback. It seems to be the last public stronghold for dumbass racist comments so why would anyone be surprised by anonymous postings?[/quote]
You’re just chapped people saw your bad form.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Some are confused on how things work . You have to prove guilt, not innocence .[/quote]
Stand your Ground immunity is decided in a pre-trial hearing and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that it applies. If the judge finds in favour of the motion he dismisses the charges. If not, the charges go ahead and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - a higher standard than “a preponderance of evidence” - and the defendant can still use Stand your Ground as part of his defense. Someone correct me if I got any of that wrong.[/quote]
The prosecution has to prove guilt, but he has to prove it was self defense.[/quote]
Depends what you’re talking about. If you’re talking about a Stand Your Ground immunity motion to dismiss the charges then yes, he has to prove by “a preponderance of evidence” that it applies. If the charges aren’t dismissed he doesn’t have to prove anything. The prosecution has prove their case “beyond reasonable doubt.” However, Zimmerman can still use Stand Your Ground as part of his defense - and that part that applies to Stand Your Ground will require proof that it applies via “a preponderance of evidence” - but regardless, even if it doesn’t apply, the prosecution still has prove their case and Zimmerman has to prove nothing. Any burden of proof on Zimmerman only applies to his use of Stand Your Ground which isn’t necessary for a not guilty verdict of course.
Maybe this is off topic, but are people really calling for “justice for Trayvon” or “punishment for Zimmerman”? There is a big difference between the two.
I’ve been calling for justice since day 1: indictment and trial. If, in a competent court with impartial jury, Zimmerman is acquitted, then justice is served. This would never satisfy the masses calling for justice, so why not just keep it real like DN and call for Zimmerman’s head? I mean, that’s what they really mean.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Maybe this is off topic, but are people really calling for “justice for Trayvon” or “punishment for Zimmerman”? There is a big difference between the two.
I’ve been calling for justice since day 1: indictment and trial. If, in a competent court with impartial jury, Zimmerman is acquitted, then justice is served. This would never satisfy the masses calling for justice, so why not just keep it real like DN and call for Zimmerman’s head? I mean, that’s what they really mean.[/quote]
Because if the black panthers actually started a war they’d be dead or arrested in a week and they know it.
Vigilantism is a funny thing though… Hell, DN should have Zimmerman on a pedestal. According to her, Zim is the actualization of her belief.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Maybe this is off topic, but are people really calling for “justice for Trayvon” or “punishment for Zimmerman”? There is a big difference between the two.
I’ve been calling for justice since day 1: indictment and trial. If, in a competent court with impartial jury, Zimmerman is acquitted, then justice is served. This would never satisfy the masses calling for justice, so why not just keep it real like DN and call for Zimmerman’s head? I mean, that’s what they really mean.[/quote]
I agree with you, but it sounds so much better when you say “Justice for someone” then to just come out and say “I have already decided this is what happened despite not knowing all the facts and want this man’s head no matter what the jury says.” It fits on a T-shirt better too.
[quote]anonym wrote:
I guess not everyone agreed that Zimmerman looked “white enough”.[/quote]
What is interesting about this series of pictures is not just how his color has been changed but also the shape of his head. In the CBS picture they’ve altered the shape of his head to make it shorter and wider, it makes him look like a Samoan line backer.
It certainly gives the impression they are trying to manipulate our perception of Zimmerman.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
As far as being a criminal mastermind, the guy I described was dumb as a brick but it didn’t stop him with coming up with it in about ten seconds. I guess if this passes for brilliance to you I can see where it may be hard for you to grasp.[/quote]
So your contention is that, in trial, Zimmerman will have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]
readings not your strong suit is it?
[/quote]
Translation: “I misread your original post, and in response I will pretend I’m smart and be dismissive.”
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
As far as being a criminal mastermind, the guy I described was dumb as a brick but it didn’t stop him with coming up with it in about ten seconds. I guess if this passes for brilliance to you I can see where it may be hard for you to grasp.[/quote]
So your contention is that, in trial, Zimmerman will have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]
readings not your strong suit is it?
[/quote]
You are not exactly correct on the burden of proof. Because of the nature of this case, it shifts from the prosecutor, to Zimmerman, then back to the prosecutor.
Here:
The first 1 and 2 are “gimmes” under the known facts, so this trial is going to be about whether Zimmerman “unlawfully provoked” Martin into jumping him.
For example, if someone runs up punches you in the face, you beat them, then he shoots you, he can’t rely on self-defense because he “unlawfully provoked” you.
This whole trial is going to be about the Prosecution proving Zimmerman started the physical altercation.
That’s going to be very hard to prove; in fact, the lead investigator admitted (during the bail hearing) the prosecution has no evidence to dispute Zimmerman’s story that Martin jumped him while he (Zimmerman) was walking back to the car.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Any burden of proof on Zimmerman only applies to his use of Stand Your Ground which isn’t necessary for a not guilty verdict of course.[/quote]
Not exactly correct, either. See post above.
This is just plain old self-defense. It is an affirmative defense that the Defendant has the burden to prove he felt he was about to be on the receiving end of “grevious bodily harm.”
The prosecution can defeat the self-defense with a “unlawful provocation” claim.
But the prosecution has the burden to prove the exception to the affirmative defense.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
As far as being a criminal mastermind, the guy I described was dumb as a brick but it didn’t stop him with coming up with it in about ten seconds. I guess if this passes for brilliance to you I can see where it may be hard for you to grasp.[/quote]
So your contention is that, in trial, Zimmerman will have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]
readings not your strong suit is it?
[/quote]
Translation: “I misread your original post, and in response I will pretend I’m smart and be dismissive.”[/quote]
Please show me where I said he had to prove his innocence. I said he had to prove it was self defense if that is his claim. I’m not trying to pretend I’m smart and apparently neither should. I was dismissive because you implied I was lying with your dumbass post.
That’s how I understand it. I’m referring to the prosecution proving it is murder .
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Some are confused on how things work . You have to prove guilt, not innocence .[/quote]
Stand your Ground immunity is decided in a pre-trial hearing and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that it applies. If the judge finds in favour of the motion he dismisses the charges. If not, the charges go ahead and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - a higher standard than “a preponderance of evidence” - and the defendant can still use Stand your Ground as part of his defense. Someone correct me if I got any of that wrong.[/quote]
[quote]overstand wrote:
I don’t understand these tribute songs, they are acting like he’s some kind of martyr and completely missing the point. I thought all the outrage was because Zimmerman wasn’t arrested. These songs are acting like Trayvon’s death is somehow more tragic than the thousands and thousands of other black kids are shot and killed by their own race every day.
My favorite line is “he could have been president.”
NO_LIMIT_NIGGA for President, 2066![/quote]
I think this video sums up the answer to this.
That’s how I understand it. I’m referring to the prosecution proving it is murder .
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
[/quote]
If stand your ground immunity is rejected at pre-trial the prosecution still has to prove their case (which I have outlined) beyond reasonable doubt.[/quote]
Some are confused on how things work . You have to prove guilt, not innocence .[/quote]
Stand your Ground immunity is decided in a pre-trial hearing and the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that it applies. If the judge finds in favour of the motion he dismisses the charges. If not, the charges go ahead and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt - a higher standard than “a preponderance of evidence” - and the defendant can still use Stand your Ground as part of his defense. Someone correct me if I got any of that wrong.[/quote]
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
As far as being a criminal mastermind, the guy I described was dumb as a brick but it didn’t stop him with coming up with it in about ten seconds. I guess if this passes for brilliance to you I can see where it may be hard for you to grasp.[/quote]
So your contention is that, in trial, Zimmerman will have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]
readings not your strong suit is it?
[/quote]
Translation: “I misread your original post, and in response I will pretend I’m smart and be dismissive.”[/quote]
Please show me where I said he had to prove his innocence. I said he had to prove it was self defense if that is his claim. I’m not trying to pretend I’m smart and apparently neither should. I was dismissive because you implied I was lying with your dumbass post.[/quote]
Exactly what about anything I said implied you were lying?
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Any burden of proof on Zimmerman only applies to his use of Stand Your Ground which isn’t necessary for a not guilty verdict of course.[/quote]
Not exactly correct, either. See post above.
This is just plain old self-defense. It is an affirmative defense that the Defendant has the burden to prove he felt he was about to be on the receiving end of “grevious bodily harm.”
The prosecution can defeat the self-defense with a “unlawful provocation” claim.
But the prosecution has the burden to prove the exception to the affirmative defense.
[/quote]
How does the murder 2 charge come into play here? Does the “unlawful provocation” play into the murder 2 charges?
[quote]waldo21212 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Any burden of proof on Zimmerman only applies to his use of Stand Your Ground which isn’t necessary for a not guilty verdict of course.[/quote]
Not exactly correct, either. See post above.
This is just plain old self-defense. It is an affirmative defense that the Defendant has the burden to prove he felt he was about to be on the receiving end of “grevious bodily harm.”
The prosecution can defeat the self-defense with a “unlawful provocation” claim.
But the prosecution has the burden to prove the exception to the affirmative defense.
[/quote]
How does the murder 2 charge come into play here? Does the “unlawful provocation” play into the murder 2 charges?[/quote]
I’m curious too. Seems like the opening comments would kind of kill that charge.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
You are wrong the Burden is on Zimmerman to prove it was self defense. It has already been determined that stand your ground most likely will not apply.
As far as being a criminal mastermind, the guy I described was dumb as a brick but it didn’t stop him with coming up with it in about ten seconds. I guess if this passes for brilliance to you I can see where it may be hard for you to grasp.[/quote]
So your contention is that, in trial, Zimmerman will have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]
readings not your strong suit is it?
[/quote]
You are not exactly correct on the burden of proof. Because of the nature of this case, it shifts from the prosecutor, to Zimmerman, then back to the prosecutor.
Here:
The first 1 and 2 are “gimmes” under the known facts, so this trial is going to be about whether Zimmerman “unlawfully provoked” Martin into jumping him.
For example, if someone runs up punches you in the face, you beat them, then he shoots you, he can’t rely on self-defense because he “unlawfully provoked” you.
This whole trial is going to be about the Prosecution proving Zimmerman started the physical altercation.
That’s going to be very hard to prove; in fact, the lead investigator admitted (during the bail hearing) the prosecution has no evidence to dispute Zimmerman’s story that Martin jumped him while he (Zimmerman) was walking back to the car.
[/quote]
I sincerely doubt that Zimmerman threw the first punch and I don’t think it would be hard to convince an unbiased jury that this is the case.
That being said, finding an unbiased jury will not be easy given the way the media has portrayed both Zimmerman and Martin. This case will be decided before it starts.
He’s out on bail