Z's First Court Appearance: He Lied Under Oath

Its actually shocking Trayvons parents actually want to take this to trial, knowing whats going to come out. Now I get why they didn't want her at the Grand Jury, they would have been like, why did it take you so long to report what you heard? You man was killed, and you just kept silent? It all makes sense now. Huge hoax!!

 

You are only partially correct. He says he is going to meet the police at the mailboxes. The mailboxes are west of his location on twin trees in front of the clubhouse. His car parked on twin trees about a football field east of the mailboxes. In going to the mailboxes he is going to his car.

Although we know quite well by this time that you cant read a map.

 

LOL! Good.

Then stop making things up. If the Martin kid was hiding how is it that he hit and continued to hit Zimmerman. I guess he failed at hide and seek. He should have followed his girl friend's advice and ran home. He would be alive today to father kids out of wedlock and move up in the criminal world of Miami gangs.

 

Fine I'll show you where you are wrong.

#1 There really is no such thing as a stand your ground law. All a "stand your ground law" is really an amendment to existing criminal code that removes the duty to retreat. Many states that have stand your ground never had to pass a "stand your ground law" because their statues never had a duty to retreat.

#2 The duty to retreat doesn't even apply in this case. Gun control advocates have latched onto this horrible event to push against stand your ground. Martin had Zimmerman mounted. All eye witness testimony confirms this. There was no avenue of retreat. Zimmerman could safely argue self defense under any state's existing self defense statute duty to retreat or not because there was no avenue of retreat when he chose to use lethal force.

#3 Moving to the meat and potatoes of your argument. The affirmative defense has multiple standards of proof. To claim self defense requires the lowest standard of proof "evidential burden". Evidential burden is the lowest because all you have to do is show that there is evidence supporting the claim substantial enough to potentially raise reasonable doubt. If the judge agrees that such evidence exists the claim is let in and it is then up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant didn't act in self defense. The shifting of the burden of proof in the affirmative defense is often wrongly used in argument as you have used it here because people confuse it with the standard of proof.

 

No Iam not "partially" correct. Z NEVER planned to meet the cops at his truck. PERIOD. You trying to justify the obvious contradiction in Z's statement is par. And pathetic.

What is your source for where Z's truck was parked? You clearly have failed to understand the wagist map and those that have copied it, are completely wrong.

 

He had so much of a head start on Zimmerman, it wasn't even funny. If he had wanted to put even more distance between him and someone he was supposedly "afraid of," he could have. It would have been more than physically possible based on all maps (even a map from a liberal source which is advocating Zimmerman's guilt) for him to run all the way around the south side of the townhouse building at which the town house he was staying was located and gotten safely inside without Zimmerman even seeing him. He was so far ahead of Zimmerman down the path that there was no possible way for Zimmerman to catch up. But then, for some reason, Martin backtracked to the location of the altercation, which points toward the blatantly obvious fact that he wasn't actually intending to avoid confrontation with Zimmerman and probably wasn't actually "afraid" of him, like DeeDee claimed three weeks after the incident. This will all be brought up in the trial and I have no doubt that the defense will have a lot of fun ripping DeeDee's testimony apart.

 

rotfl!!! "Martin had Zimmerman mounted"

Z is so toast at trial......if his lawyer doesn't convince him to take a plea deal. I would not be surprised if Hal dropped him like his first lawyers did. They realized Z lied and couldn't defend him so they publicly dropped him. Z had a hard time finding a lawyer even with his connections through his parents.

 

OK you can call the law by whatever you want. I was merely responding to a poster who was making the point that the burden of proof was on the prosecution. All I was pointing out was that in the self defense aspect of this that the burden of proof shifts to the defense. And you come back with..... I'm not sure what your point is. Do you agree that in Z's plead of self defense that the burden of proof rests with the defense or do you agree with Rose Head that the burden is with the prosecution?

 

This has been repeatedly explained. He was trying to lose the freaky dude following him so he wouldn't lead the stranger to where he was sleeping.

The SA spent almost three hours with Dee Dee and found it all credible so you can fantasize about the trial going in Z's direction.

 

If you are so sure Sky why wont you bet me with 100 bucks to this site? Running your mouth is easy. Putting up something tangible isn't.

Zimmerman will never EVER be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

 

This is such horsecrap. Your telling me a 17 year old couldn't lose Zimmerman running behind the townhouses? Give me a break - what a load. Nobody with half a brain would ever believe that this 17 year old who was already ahead of Zimmerman couldn't have lost him if he had wanted to.

 

For the TWENTIETH time:

If this goes to trial Z will be convicted of M2 and I accepted the bet long ago on the condition it goes to trial. If Z takes a plea deal for a lesser charge the bet is void as has been explained. From your posts, I don't think this site will ever see a penny when you lose the bet if this goes to trial.

 

LOL Too bad I never bet you on the charge which means NOTHING.

Can't say I'm shocked you don't have the courage to put anything real on the line.

 

So your argument is the Zimmerman had Martin in the guard then???

We keep getting in these stupid arguments where you cant understand that you are in an either or situation. First you didn't understand that the lacerations on Zimmerman's head were either caused by concrete or soft wet ground there are no other options. Now you cant understand that when you are on top of someone you either have them mounted or you are in their guard.

So we are once again back to another asinine argument. Did martin have Zimmerman mounted or was he in Zimmerman's guard??? Choose one!

P.S. either or there is still no avenue of escape.

 

He didn't know the neighborhood and Z lived there. He did briefly lose Z but Z continued to chase him after getting off the phone with dispatch. He was trying to lose Z before going back to where he was staying because from his pov Z was just some freaky dude stalking him for no reason.

 

For the TWENTIETH time:
If this goes to trial Z will be convicted of M2 and I accepted the bet long ago on the
condition it goes to trial. If Z takes a plea deal for a lesser charge the bet is void as has been
explained. From your posts, I don't think this site will ever see a penny when you lose the
bet if this goes to trial.

 

Your false dilemmas are really very boring. When you guys get embarrassed when it is shown at trial how bad Z lied you only have yourselves to blame.

 

Nothing "baffling" at all. No dishonesty needed. All that's needed is the lack of ANY evidence that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. So far, no one (including in this idiotic thread) has presented one shred of evidence that it wasn't self-defense. If anybody thinks they have any REAL evidence (as opposed to the poppycock mentioned in this thread), let's hear it.

 

You don't get it because you don't understand the difference between burden of proof and standard of proof. Some quick examples to help.

When an arrest is made the burden of proof is on the arresting officer and the standard of proof is probable cause, which means the officer doesn't even show by a preponderance that the person did it just that they may have.

In a civil case the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not.

In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of proof and standard of proof are two different things and they change depending on circumstance.

When you make the affirmative argument of self defense there is a separate hearing with the judge where the judge decides if the argument can be made. The burden of proof in this hearing is on the defendant and the standard of proof is evidential burden meaning you just have to provide evidence that it is possible that reasonable doubt can be established at trial. This is an extremely low standard of proof far less than the 51/49 we know as a preponderance of the evidence it doesn't even have to be more likely than not. If the judge agrees that the evidential burden is satisfied and allows the defense to make the self defense argument at trial then at trial the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

 

False dilemma only exists when there is actually a 3rd option. When there is no 3rd option its simply called a dilemma.

 

All crime requires criminal intent. If you break a window, will the cop arrest you for that ?

 

A false dilemma is when you claimed Z's head scratches either had to come from soft wet ground or a concrete sidewalk.......at this point debating Zagendas is as laughable as debating creationists. You simply move the goalposts, ignore known facts, employ double standards on a regular basis, etc........

 

Your third option is? With no third option it isn't a false dilemma. Its simply called a dilemma.

 

Not really. Ever heard of manslaughter?

 

Lol....I didn't even click on the cth link......what a freaking joke. Yeah....there are only two ways in the world Z got scratches on his head....a wet ground or a concrete sidewalk........no possible third option....lol.....