Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2013, 10:27 PM   #871
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!

Last edited by saden1; 07-10-2013 at 10:35 PM.
saden1 is offline  

Advertisements
Old 07-10-2013, 10:29 PM   #872
Playmaker
 
724Skinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 3,508
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.
__________________
"I hope I'm getting better. I hope you haven't seen my best." - Jim Zorn
724Skinsfan is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 10:33 PM   #873
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,282
So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:43 PM   #874
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,282
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!
Go back to your holiday Inn. Take a few courses. Talk to me when you have a clue and aren't talking out your ass about shit of which you clearly are ignorant.

The Smith case relates only to Federal law and, within that body of law, only tothe RICO Act. In Smith, the Court found that, while Congress could have assigned the burden to disprove specific affirmative defenses to the prosecution, it did not do so for the RICO Act and, more specifically, was under no obligation to do so for the specific affirmative defense alleged. At the same time, the SC made clear that Congress was certainly within its authority to do so.

Quote:
Of course, Congress may choose to assign the Government the burden of proving the nonexistence of withdrawal, even if that is not constitutionally required. It did not do so here. “[T]he common-law rule was that affirmative defenses . . . were matters for the defendant to prove.” Martin, supra, at 235; see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 201 (1769). Because Congress did not address in 21 U. S. C. §846 or 18 U. S. C. §1962(d) the burden of proof for withdrawal, we presume that Congress intended to preserve the common-law rule. Dixon, 548 U. S., at 13–14.
In Florida, for Florida State crimes, guess what law applies --- HINT: It's Florida's. Guess who interprets Florida law? Hint: Their courts and they are located in Florida. Apparently, Florida has modified the common law rule referenced by the Supreme Court:

Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007)
Quote:
In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.
Show me were Sipple has been overturned.

You want to quote cases at me, you better start bringing the A game and not some dumbass google search. Why don't you go google "heart surgery" and volunteer at Johns Hopkins tomorrow.

You are approaching G84C levels of ignorance.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:16 AM   #875
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses

Quote:
Florida Affirmative Defenses - Justification and Excuse
*
Under Florida law, an Affirmative Defense is a defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a criminal act, which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (the act forming the basis of the prosecutor’s allegations), but justifies or excuses the act so as to avoid being subjected to criminal punishment. *In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the act. However, I am not subject to criminal liability because, under the facts and circumstances of my case, the act was justifiable or excusable.”
*
For affirmative defenses raised in the course of a Florida jury trial, the defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations. **
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:24 AM   #876
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,282
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

One, you're quoting from an attorney website not the Court itself. The website cites no cases and is saying exactly what I have said.

Your Florida lawyer's website:
Quote:
The defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations.
The Florida Court:
Quote:
In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient.
If there is any conflict, guess which wins. Here, GZ's statement to the police is in evidence and it clearly establishes prima facia claim of self-defense such that the jury will be instructed as previously stated.

Admit it, you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.

Last edited by JoeRedskin; 07-11-2013 at 12:50 AM. Reason: B/c RR corrected me.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:32 AM   #877
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
...... The website sites no cases<SNIP>
'Cites'

The only fault I can find. So far ahead on points you're a lap in front.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:49 AM   #878
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,282
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan View Post
Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.
That certainly is saden1's approach.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:50 AM   #879
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 01:23 AM   #880
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,061
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.
FRPLG is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 01:36 AM   #881
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,282
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.
Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):
Quote:
In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.
Where oh where is there one single, on-point Florida case that says "the defendant's statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim."? Because the Sipple case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the Peterka cite means the Supremes had a chance to reverse but didn't, just an FYI for you next Holiday Inn stay]. Bring the law b/c so far all you've brought is bullshit.

As to your claim "you didn't seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along". There isn't a "burden" as you seem to be defining it. Rather, what I have consistently said was that, in this case, GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a prima facia showing of the self-defense claim has been made by the prosecution. That is an absolutely correct statement of the law and you have yet to cite one relevant case or statute to dispute it. I have conceded that, if the prosecution's case had not provided the prima facia evidence for such his claim, GZ would have the "burden" of the making a minimal showing. Even then, and contrary to your continuous assertions, however, it is not his burden to prove a reasonable doubt but, rather, simply to create a question of fact as to the existence of reasonable doubt. That's the f'ing law and nothing - NOTHING - you have brought to the table contradicts that except your whiny cries of "nuh -uhhh".

I do this for a living and will beat on you all day just b/c it's fun to show your bias and intentional ignorance. Quote an on point Florida case, statute or regulation that supports you assertion and overturns Sipple, Jenkins and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 01:56 AM   #882
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,282
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.
Close, but, in light of Sipple, I don't think your step 2 is necessary - GZ's statement to the police is all that's needed. Bottom line, a "prima facia" showing requires only a very, very minimal production - for all practical purposes, it's the lowest standard of evidence out there.

Also, it's not that GZ has to present certain evidence, it's that the evidence actually submitted - regardless of its origin, "when seen only favorably for GZ ... adds up to self-defense". The "regardless of origin" is apparently a huge stumbling block for saden1.

Finally, under Sipple, the cases cited therein and subsequent case law citing Sipple, the instruction to the jury requires them "to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim" such that they must find that the prosecution has eliminated all reasonable doubt on one or more of the requisite elements of self-defense. If they do not believe the State has done so, they must acquit.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 06:33 AM   #883
Gamebreaker
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 13,517
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.
There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.
__________________
“Nobody’s going to be handed a job; not my standpoint, and I know Jay feels that way and I know Bruce feels the same way. You have to earn it. That’s what the NFL is about. Prove to me that you deserve to be on the field,’ and that’s the way it has to be in the NFL.”- McC

Last edited by Chico23231; 07-11-2013 at 06:39 AM.
Chico23231 is online now  
Old 07-11-2013, 06:42 AM   #884
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,110
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!
LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses
OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.


Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden.

Last edited by HailGreen28; 07-11-2013 at 08:25 AM.
HailGreen28 is offline  
Old 07-11-2013, 06:49 AM   #885
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,110
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.
You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

You seem to ascribe all kind of bad thoughts to Zimmerman with little evidence, while saying you're positive the guy talking about "the creepy ass cracker" did nothing.

Last edited by HailGreen28; 07-11-2013 at 07:01 AM.
HailGreen28 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.40966 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25