Thread: George Zimmerman prosecutors file list of witnesses, evidence in Trayvon Martin shoot

Originally Posted by dixon76710

NONSENSE. There is no preponderance of the evidence standard in a criminal conviction. The STATE must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman DID NOT act in self defense. Zimmermans burden on self defense is identical to every other element of the crime. He only need create a resonable doubt that he did act in self defense.

Wrong... Zimmerman must offer evidence that he did act in self defense.. that's why its called Affirmative Defense... as in I did it but here's why.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

NONSENSE. There is no preponderance of the evidence standard in a criminal conviction. The STATE must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman DID NOT act in self defense. Zimmermans burden on self defense is identical to every other element of the crime. He only need create a resonable doubt that he did act in self defense.

You really should research affirmative defense, because you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Mac-7

We have an eyewitness who says that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Margot

There is NO such witness.

Isn't it funny how all of the Zimmerman defenders are ALSO liars?

Originally Posted by Dasein

Isn't it funny how all of the Zimmerman defenders are ALSO liars?

In Mac's case he doesn't comprehend the law or the charges.......

Originally Posted by Margot

With an Affirmtive Defense the defendant has the burden of pleading and proving all affirmative defenses by producing actual evidence through testimony or physical proof. An affirmative defense does not attack an element of the crime but provide either justification for the conduct to undermine the charge.

You dont have a clue. You didnt grasp te meaning of this court case the first time I posted it. I doubt posting it again will help you any, but for the others.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a â��burden of proofâ�� identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/a...-self-defense/

Originally Posted by johnnymo

You really should research affirmative defense, because you're wrong.

I have a law degree. You dont have a clue, only your ideology. Typical. No amount of education can penetrate your indoctrination. But you feel free to copy and paste anything other than your own uninformed, uneducated ideological views to support your claims. .

Originally Posted by dixon76710

I have a law degree. You dont have a clue, only your ideology. Typical. No amount of education can penetrate your indoctrination. But you feel free to copy and paste anything other than your own uninformed, uneducated ideological views to support your claims. .

Sure you do.......... LMAO

I am not say beyond reasonable doubt.. I am saying that GZ has to prove that he was justified..

Originally Posted by dixon76710

You dont have a clue. You didnt grasp te meaning of this court case the first time I posted it. I doubt posting it again will help you any, but for the others.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a â��burden of proofâ�� identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/a...-self-defense/

Originally Posted by Margot

I am not say beyond reasonable doubt.. I am saying that GZ has to prove that he was justified..

It's also jurisdiction dependent.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

Willful and intentional self defense.

That is only if you believe Trayvon and no right to defend himself.