iamshack

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 05:25 PM) At the end of the day its all about compromise, understanding and honesty. Once any of those things starts to take a hit so does the relationship. Women are horrible at being honest, men are horrible at compromise. If she can tell you honestly when things upset her you'll probably do a better job trying to alleviate those things. Of course you need your time to yourself as well and working out for an hour a day should be pretty reasonable IMO. It doesn't sound to me that she has any problem with him working out. It seems as though their problem is they don't particularly even like each other very much. If that's the case, the rest doesn't matter much. If it were me, I'd be spending my time trying to figure out how to spare the kid of this disaster somehow.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) But he was lawfully allowed to be where he was. Both of them were. It's possible that his actions leading up to the shooting could have crossed the line to unlawful, but he had every right to be where he was while carrying a gun. Ahh, I guess you are right. I was thinking if you could say he was "stalking" Martin he wouldn't be allowed to be there lawfully, but that doesn't really work either. It was just a s***ty case.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) I don't think they could have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt either. Barring something like video of the shooting being found, this was a very difficult case to make. Yeah, but at least then they could say "If we prove that Zimmerman was not in a place he was lawfully allowed to be, it cannot be self defense." Under their theory, there really wasn't any way they could possibly win.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) Burden does not shift. The reason being what burden would be on the defendant? Beyond reasonable doubt standard is supposed to protect defendant, so if that was self defense standard youd basically be convicting almost every person who raised self defense. It may make more sense to relax the burden on the prosecution (does it really make sense that its beyond reasonable doubt), but that would turn into some rather complex jury instructions. Ultimately the law is created so that in a situation like this the defendant should walk more times than they are convicted. Which is why its more important to discuss what actions got here and how can they be prevented in the future. Whether that is by changing the law or just using common sense, who knows. I think common sense would go along way. Ahh, you are correct...self defense is usually an affirmative defense, but if it is raised, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim of self defense is not justified. The more and more I think about this, the less I think about the job the Prosecution did. They should have at least come at this from the angle that Zimmerman's actions prior to the altercation were not lawful.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) To the best of my understanding this is not how it works. I believe the burden is on the prosecution. I guess that might be the case with murder, but at least with manslaughter, it seems like the burden would be on Zimmerman. But what do I know...this is why I decided not to practice

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) SB I think you're wrong. The NG verdict is not a finding that Zimmerman shot in self-defense, it's a finding that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not shoot in self defense. That's where my comparison to OJ's trial comes in. If what you're saying is true, OJ should have been able to say "ok, they found me innocent, as a factual matter I did not kill those people" and he could never have been sued in a civil case. But he was, because the NG verdict is not a finding of fact. I think Zimmerman will have to prove as an affirmative matter that he shot Zimmerman in self defense. He can't rely on his NG verdict to do that. Yeah, I agree...but that is where it does not make a whole lot of sense. I don't know why the prosecution should have to prove it wasn't self defense. They proved that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. The burden of proving self defense, which would seem to be an affirmative defense, should have then been on Zimmerman's lawyers, as I always understood it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) Not being a criminal lawyer i'm not 100% sure on this, but I really doubt they'd consider the NG verdict a finding of fact as to self defense. If that were the case, there would never be a civil trial after a criminal trial finds someone innocent. OJ for example would have argued that the NG verdict in his case was a finding of fact that he was not the killer. But he obviously didn't make that argument since he was found guilty in the civil case. I think Zimmerman will have to do this whole song and dance over again. Well that is obvious. The confusion comes when you have an affirmative defense that the court makes a finding of fact on versus a verdict which really doesn't make it clear what exactly the jury is saying. In this case, I think the jury is saying "We don't know if it was self defense, but we're not positive that it wasn't, either. Therefore, we can't say that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Whereas if the court had ruled as a matter of fact that Zimmerman was acting in self defense, that might insulate him from a civil action. It gets really confusing because a lot of times the jury is just saying "we're not sure what the f*** happened, so we can't convict him" and not "we believe he was acting in self defense, and therefore, the killing was not unlawful." Honestly, I think the only way he is insulated from a civil action is if the judge makes a ruling that it was self defense, which he did nothing of the sort here. My guess is, if that was the case, it would have been dismissed in summary judgment and then the Martin family would have been barred from bringing him to civil court.

Was incredibly poised beyond his years in the interview after the win too. Color me impressed.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) Yeah I'm getting confused in general, because who knows at this point what's actually true and what's just been repeated 1000 times at this point. Somewhere way back in this thread G&T (who I think is/was a prosecutor) said that the burden was on the state to prove that it was not self-defense. Must only be an affirmative defense in civil actions? Or, it's an affirmative defense in a criminal trial in the sense that the defendant has to raise it, but it's the prosecution that must prove that it wasn't self-defense? Yeah, a lot of this procedural crap is so much semantics that it gets incredibly confusing. I remember having these discussions in law school where even the professor seemed unsure of what the law was saying.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) This is where I get confused. Since Zimmerman was acquitted, it had to be because of self-defense, otherwise he'd be guilty of manslaughter by default, would he not? The only way around getting convicted of manslaughter would be in self-defense. And so, since a higher court than a civil court essentially ruled he's innocent by self-defense, wouldn't that supersede the civil in that he's now granted immunity as the law is written? This is the problem with laws...they're written so complex that you need 50 people dissecting them in order to figure out what's what. Yes, it is very confusing. I don't think they ever made a finding of fact that he acted in self-defense though.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:04 AM) But doesn't the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't in self-defense? Proving it wasn't in self-defense might not have been possible with a reasonable doubt burden, but it could be with preponderance of the evidence. Though in a civil trial I would think it would be on Zimmerman to prove (by preponderance) that it was in self-defense? Yes, that's what I think...I guess I am confused because of the whole SYG thing that never really happened... Did Zimmerman's attorneys actually plead self defense as an affirmative defense? Or did they not have to do so?

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) Not sure. If they didn't, don't see how that could possibly immunize Zimmerman from a civil suit. Yeah, it would seem as though they had to, since we know Zimmerman killed Martin. If they didn't find as a matter of fact that it was in self defense, than it would seem to be the wrong verdict. I guess I should actually read the details of the verdict a bit more thoroughly.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:41 AM) I think it means if there's a specific finding of fact in a criminal trial that the actions at issue were in self-defense, then that finding suffices (for the purposes of this statute) for immunizing Zimmerman from civil liability for those actions. Even with the different thresholds for guilt? Did they make that finding that the actions were in self-defense? Or just that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't a result of self defense?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:03 AM) They way I interpret the statute is that: is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. So without digging deeper id say that Zimmerman has a pretty strong defense to any civil charge. So is this saying if the police believe you were using deadly force under those circumstances, then you are immune from having a criminal prosecution or a civil action brought against you? I just don't understand how this could be proven in any other way than in a criminal prosecution or in a civil action...

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 08:53 AM) ...and this is where the issue of self-defense will come into play in a civil suit. I may be mistaken or misinterpreting the law as written in Florida, but I believe it grants complete immunity against civil cases in cases of self-defense. Being that Zimmerman was found to have killed Martin out of self-defense, wouldn't that grant him immunity to a civil case? As the law is written: 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement office 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. This is all true, however, the threshold for proving guilt in a criminal trial is greater than in a civil trial. Usually in a criminal trial, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In a civil trial, you have to prove that the person is guilty by a "preponderance of the evidence." Therefore, he could be acquitted in a criminal trial because it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, but still be convicted in a civil trial by a preponderance of the evidence.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 08:50 AM) It could be male machismo, but I have to believe the reasonable person if they're scared will at least say something to the friend about being uncomfortable. She made it sound like he was more angry/annoyed. That, and you have the near 20 minutes of being followed and he doesn't really do anything other than try to lose the guy. He's not going to a house, he's not screaming for help, he's not calling the cops himself. And on Zimmerman's side I still think it's important to remember he didn't really "chase" or run after Martin until he went in between or around a building and he lost him. He stayed in his car the majority of the time. That to me doesn't sound like someone who wants to start a fight. If he really wanted to confront Martin why wait? Just go up to him right away and ask him what he's up to. I think "trying to lose him" is doing quite a bit, honestly...but we could go back and forth on this forever. I guess it doesn't sit with me that Zimmerman's right to kill Martin seems to be predicated on the fact that he was losing a fight that I blame him for initiating. I think we'll all just agree to disagree at this point.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 08:42 AM) Except we have plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest Martin didn't feel threatened at all and that Zimmerman's actions while creepy probably wouldn't be considered threatening either. I feel like you keep ignoring that. As far as your scenario, does Martin still attack Zimmerman? What is that evidence? Because he was on the phone with his friend girl telling her he wasn't scurred? That's teenage male machismo. Maybe I am ignoring it. Maybe I need to consider more that maybe he was just a stupid teenage who thought he was a hardass and engaged Zimmerman because he wanted to "show him" and smoke his ass. There certainly are plenty of teenagers these days like that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 08:06 AM) What's the mistake here? It's either self-defense or it's not. He didn't use the weapon improperly or irresponsibly, he felt compelled to use it and a jury agreed. If he had a knife on him and he stabbed Martin and killed him it would have been the same decision. Nor do I believe that the gun played any role in Zimmerman's thinking about whether to tail Martin. I don't think he ever wanted to confront him. He stayed in his car for 20 minutes. That doesn't sound like someone who was itching for a fight. The mistake is that the self defense laws, as far as I understand them, were never intended to benefit someone who was encouraging an altercation by threatening an innocent party. That is the huge distinction here that cannot be proven because the other party to this altercation is dead. Say Zimmerman had not killed Martin, but had only seriously wounded him, and he testified that Zimmerman initiated the altercation by repeatedly following him, eventually addressing him verbally and then brandishing his weapon. What is the outcome then? To Lost's question earlier, you're damn right if this is a black guy carrying a weapon and following a white kid around and they come to blows and the black guy eventually shoots and kills the white kid, this is an entirely different animal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 08:40 PM) Which kind of proves his point... Yes...which I have conceded numerous times...but honestly, the law covers Facebook stalking...how is this not worse?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 08:01 PM) Seeing as this was a legal case, I would call that relevant. But he wasn't charged for stalking.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 06:20 PM) Good grief - what a silly comment. Who talks about ANY 19 year-old as being a "sure fire major league superstar", no matter what round they were drafted? You can certainly like their chances, given when they were drafted, and I continue to expect great things of Courtney at some point given the ability he universally is said to possess. But why you would feel otherwise with him being all of 19 years old and without the benefit of a full year in professional ball under his belt is beyond me, other than an incessant need to be negative around here all the time. It's so disappointing to read comments like this one, and luckily it's very much the exception rather than the rule on this otherwise well-informed site. What he said.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 06:00 PM) And you probably think Courtney Hawkins is a sure fire major league superstar in the making, worthy of top 5 prospect ranking. Wow.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 05:35 PM) I think you're getting wrapped in the technical, legal definition of stalking and not as a colloquial description of what Zimmerman was doing. In Milk's defense, I argued earlier that one could "make a case" for stalking against Zimmerman, and thus, we were debating the statute. And I agree with Y2h...some of the insults need to stop, and SS, you're better than the back and forth you've been going on about with Zen... Lets all take a step back and breathe a deep breath. No reason to insult anyone here. Jake, I do agree with you that the focus of many is what the law needs to address. I think one of the biggest lessons to be learned here is that the law needs to discourage someone from taking things as far as Zimmerman did prior to the altercation even occurring.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) Sox were 33-48 in the first 81 games. 4-7 since. They might be able to go 30-40 after the break, but probably not. We went through that horrible 8-23 stretch or whatever...all it takes is a little winning streak and avoiding a stretch like that. I'll bet we play .500 or close to it from here on out.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 14, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) Disagree, as you're going to see more AAA/AAAA caliber players on the roster taking the spot of the veterans (ie: Troncoso and Purcey for Thornton) I still think our luck will change enough to stack up more wins than we saw in the first half.