Zimmerman in Hiding

It's pretty disturbing you are fantasizing about seeing a couple of old fat dudes in speedos.

 

That's not the portion of my post I'm "fantasizing" about.

 

Yes it does matter and she has no idea, as the investigator said they have NO EVIDENCE to determine who started the fight.

So you statement that the investigator said he lied was fallacious. As I thought from the beginning.

Walked "around" which is not necessarily "circling", the 911 call and Zimmerman's statements which will be admitted as evidence. 48 seconds between the time that Martin turned and walked towards him and then he ran. Doesn't sound like Martin felt too threatened or fearful for his life. Then the 2 minute gap between him running and disappearing and his reappearance, when he could have gone on to the apartment and enjoyed his Skittles.

 

The law has been cited over and over, at a pre-trial hearing Zimmerman can try to convince the judge by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE that it was self defense and get the case dismissed. Then if it still goes to trial the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT it was not self defense.

 

T was just another gang banger in training. He rolled the dice with Z and lost. So what. Unless some one comes forward and testifies that they actually saw Z chasing T and then jumped him then shot T then Z will walk at the SYG hearing. I wonder how many Korean convenience store owners own AK47's? I'm guessing the next Korean convenience store you go into has a couple stashed.

 

Is having your head beat against a concrete sidewalk?

 

No it does not and I have cited the law to you several times, why do you keep posting this lie?

 

They have a very tight grasp upon their ignorance.

 

Wrong and the law has been cited to you over and over. Why do you keep repeating that lie?

'The second element in that list will likely be the most difficult to prove, and it is part of the reason the State will likely have a difficult time securing a conviction. Of course, most of the speculation surrounding this case is whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was justified in killing Travon Martin. The legal analysis, however, has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was really "justified."

Instead, Mr. Zimmerman has a very low burden of proof in order to show self-defense. He must show enough evidence for a reasonable juror the simply possibility of believing Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense. As one court stated, if a defendant on trial for Murder in the Second Degree can raise enough evidence that a reasonable juror could believe he acted in justifiable self-defense, "the state had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." This language comes from Mosansky v. Florida, a case decided only two years ago in 2010.

In other words, Mr. Zimmerman must produce this minimal level of evidence to support a reasonable juror's belief in his defense. Once that is done, the state will have the burden to show that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense."
http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2012/04/jacksonville-criminal-defense-11.html

 

The burden of proof remains with the prosecution it does NOT shift to the defendent as Margot fallacious claims.

"One unusual aspect of Florida's law that will be apparent in this case is that Zimmerman has a right to pretrial hearing at which he can try to convince Judge Kenneth Lester, by "a preponderance of the evidence," that he acted in self-defense. If he can meet that standard of proof, which requires showing it is more likely than not that his use of force was appropriate, the charge against him will be dismissed. But even if he went to trial, he would be (or at least should be) acquitted with that much evidence in his favor, since the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense—which, as Northern Kentucky University law professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer has pointed out, would be true "in virtually every state.""
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/25/self-defense-under-attack

 

Thank you!!

 

Tell us the name of the
close friend who said Z's nose was broken?

(ignoring it again will only ensure the question will be repeated until you answer it)

 

Can Z say nothing at the trial and be acquitted?

 

" Then we'll get to see photos of Al and Jesses the day after sunning themselves
on a beach in S. France in their 'speedos."

lol......

 

He can or his attorney can. His attorney can bring it into trial during his opening and closing statements or during cross of the prosecution witnesses. More than likely Zimmerman will take the stand and tell his story. The burden of proof still remains with the prosecution NOT as Margot and others have tried to claim, they will have to prove it was not self-defense and do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

So have you posted the evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt yet?

 

Did Casey Anthony testify? How about OJ? LOL. Seriously?

And you know the friends name has not been released and you know it. Weird to pretend stuff when you know deep down, the proof will come to light.

 

This thread has now gone well over 500 posts/50 pages, and has therefore been closed.

If you would like to continue the discussion, please start a new thread.

If you do continue the discussion, please continue it without violating the rules.

thank you,

Cenydd
Site Moderator