The Zimmerman Trial

and don't think I have forgotten you storming out like the child you were so many months ago swearing to never come back. And I told you to your face it wouldn't last. Welcome home. How does it feel to come crawling back with your head bowed and humbled, admitting that this board is awesome and you can't resist it? How does it feel having zero principle and zero willpower....you left this board out of principle, I guess principle only gets you so far poet :)
 
Zimmerman is doing life!
80 percent get found guilty, and we already know this gun crazed NRAZI boy did it!
 
"Fire and Blood" said:
i believe in convicting someone beyond all reasonable doubt. You don't have that. Thus zimmerman should be found not guilty.

It all comes down to who made first physical contact, and there is no evidence suggesting this either way.

It's pretty sad that you are so shortsighted and hateful that no one can have a different opinion than you on a murder case which should have a very high standard of evidence without you kneejerking into crybaby mode.

Lastly, JPP is not the library of congress. It's a small messageboard. I became mod because I am awesome.
Click to expand...

Right. But whatever will you do or say, when he is convicted? "Curses, spoiled again"???? If you or any other misfit was stalking me, I'd find the nearest tree branch, and bring it down on your head, and ask questions later...which is what Trayvon should have done. Hateful??? In defense of a teenager who was murdered by an adult, who shouldn't have been following anyone, with his "wanna be a policeman-neighborhood watch" ass. I predict he'll be convicted, in short order. And you'll be the one "crying".
JPP is not even high ranking in the annals of political debate forums. You're a mod, because you sucked somebody's dick, metaphorically.
 
"Fire and Blood" said:
and don't think I have forgotten you storming out like the child you were so many months ago swearing to never come back. And I told you to your face it wouldn't last. Welcome home. How does it feel to come crawling back with your head bowed and humbled, admitting that this board is awesome and you can't resist it? How does it feel having zero principle and zero willpower....you left this board out of principle, I guess principle only gets you so far poet :)
Click to expand...

Darling, you're just "something to do". I'm currently on two other political debate forums, letting the righties have it, as I do and have done here. You get banned from one, you go to another. No biggie. You're still a worthless piece of shit. Is that going to get me banned again? Says more about your impotence than it does about my whims. I am banned, mostly, because I am feared.
 
poet said:
Right. But whatever will you do or say, when he is convicted? "Curses, spoiled again"????
Click to expand...

lol as opposed to starting a riot and breaking shit belonging to hard working americans? That's what you siad you would do if he is acquitted. Can't wait for that to happen.
 
"Fire and Blood" said:
lol as opposed to starting a riot and breaking shit belonging to hard working americans? That's what you siad you would do if he is acquitted. Can't wait for that to happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Like the only hard working Americans are "white, conservative, and anti-Obama". And excuse me, but Americans is always capitalized. I said it, knowing that he wouldn't be acquitted, as "hyperbole", dumbass. Wait and watch. The backlash would be as unprecedented as the "stand your ground" law is asinine. I can't wait either. He who laughs last, laughs "best". LOL
 
poet said:
Oh, please. Like the only hard working Americans are "white, conservative, and anti-Obama". And excuse me, but Americans is always capitalized. I said it, knowing that he wouldn't be acquitted, as "hyperbole", dumbass. Wait and watch. The backlash would be as unprecedented as the "stand your ground" law is asinine. I can't wait either. He who laughs last, laughs "best". LOL
Click to expand...

Translation:
Poet suggests that if Zimmerman isn't convicted, then people will riot and more then likely other people will be killed in retaliation.
/translation
 
poet said:
Oh, please. I am not impressed by "the military", less "the Marines". Your common sense and identity were repressed, in order for you to become "selfless", loyal, and obedient, necessary for combat, and no place else.You're arguing "semantics". I'm not buying.

P.s. And your "duty" and preoccupation with firearms went to your head, as you are a advocate of the NRA, and its' insanity.
Click to expand...
your ignorance is showing. making assumptions when all evidence in my posts is to the contrary. you're dismissed until you get some knowledge.
 
As the defendant, Zimmerman only needs to prevent the prosecution from meeting its burden of proof. In this case, prosecutors must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman is guilty. When the defense presents its case, their goal will be to cast doubt on the prosecution's arguments and make it impossible for them to meet that burden.

AND

Burden of proof
From lawbrain.com
A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.

Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.

Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judges explain the reasonable doubt standard to jurors in a number of ways. Federal jury instructions provide that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is "proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to act upon it in the most important of his own affairs." State judges typically describe the standard by telling jurors that they possess a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt if, based on all the evidence in the case, they would be uncomfortable with a criminal conviction. In giving the reasonable doubt instruction, judges regularly remind jurors that a criminal conviction imposes a variety of hardships on a defendant, including public humiliation, incarceration, fines, and occasionally the forfeiture of property. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in any judicial proceeding.

Reasonable doubt is also a constitutionally mandated burden of proof in criminal proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution prohibit criminal defendants from being convicted on any quantum of evidence less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 23 L. Ed. 2D 368 (1970). Although the reasonable doubt standard is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, the Court observed that the standard is so deeply rooted in the nation's history as to reflect the fundamental value that "it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

AND

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
From lawbrain.com
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no REASONABLE DOUBT is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
 
poet said:
This just in : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/trayvon-martin-voice-audio-abc_n_3403994.html

Now it will be so much easier to identify the pleas for help as Martin's, than the ridiculous notion that they belonged to Zimmerman. He's good as "toast.
Click to expand...

You're such an idiot.
You link an article from a site that caters to Black's and in the article it says:

ABC News sent the audio of Martin's voice to a forensic analyst who said the screams on the 911 call are more likely Zimmerman. He added, however, that because the sound is so muffled with only two seconds of unobscured audio, there could be no definitive identification of "the screamer."


RESONABLE DOUBT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top