Is the account given by eyewitness "John" in Zimmerman's case reliable?

whysoserious · Jun 15, 2012

Goshin said:
Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.

Which is exactly what is wrong with the law - if that is the correct interpretation. It takes the victim - the ****ing dead guy - and puts him on trial instead of the shooter.

sharon · Jun 15, 2012

Excon said:
Not exactly.
He only recanted a potion of his story.
The portion that he knew it was Zimmerman yelling for help. That is all.

He still places Zimmerman on the bottom and Trayvon on top.

In addition, his earlier recollections will still be considered to be more accurate.

Experts in the field, however, have noted that later recollections — which could be impacted by external factors such as publicity, for example — are thought to be less reliable than earlier memories. And the addition of post-event information into the memory reconstruction process, normally unbeknownst to the person, is one reason why psychologists believe that eyewitness testimony can often be unreliable.
Experts Weigh in After Four Witnesses in Trayvon Martin Case Change Story

The information you have is inaccurate.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor.

The defense only has to make a "showing" to generate the self-defense jury instruction.

BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)

It was a fist fight...........

GhostlyJoe · Jun 15, 2012

whysoserious said:
Which is exactly what is wrong with the law - if that is the correct interpretation. It takes the victim - the ****ing dead guy - and puts him on trial instead of the shooter.

Yeah, whatever the law, my sense of justice tells me the burden should be on the defendant in a self-defense case. We know Zimmerman shot Martin. Now Zimmerman should have to prove the shooting was justified, as Martin is indisputably dead at his hand.

ric27 · Jun 15, 2012

whysoserious said:
Which is exactly what is wrong with the law - if that is the correct interpretation. It takes the victim - the ****ing dead guy - and puts him on trial instead of the shooter.

Nothing wrong with law...

The issue is with people who fail to check their state law on some of these issues. AFTER the fact is too late.

sharon · Jun 15, 2012

ric27 said:
Nothing wrong with law...

The issue is with people who fail to check their state law on some of these issues. AFTER the fact is too late.

How many can actually READ the law?

For goodness sake.. look at the birthers.

whysoserious · Jun 15, 2012

ric27 said:
Nothing wrong with law...

The issue is with people who fail to check their state law on some of these issues. AFTER the fact is too late.

You mean checking with the state law on whether it is legal to walk home? Or whether it is legal to defend yourself with your fists?

No one ever knows what you are talking about or what your arguments are. Please, try to make sense, ric.

sharon said:
How many can actually READ the law?

For goodness sake.. look at the birthers.

Reading has nothing to do with it. I could follow you, pick a fight, and then after you react, I can shoot you. Then, when you are dead, you go on trial for getting shot.

That's ****ing stupid.

ric27 · Jun 15, 2012

whysoserious said:
You mean checking with the state law on whether it is legal to walk home? Or whether it is legal to defend yourself with your fists?

The point is to have people at least consider their own state laws when formulating their personal rules of engagement. (Knowledge is good. Ignorance is ****ed up.)

For example - If you live in a state that allows use of deadly force vs someone outside your house trying to gain forcible entry, that might help you decide when you would use deadly force. A person might think they could not use deadly force in such a situation, base their rules of engagement on such misinformation, and actually give up a valuable advantage.

No one ever knows what you are talking about or what your arguments are. Please, try to make sense, ric.

If you want to remain ignorant of the law, its your choice.

whysoserious · Jun 15, 2012

ric27 said:
The point is to have people at least consider their own state laws when formulating their personal rules of engagement. (Knowledge is good. Ignorance is ****ed up.)

For example - If you live in a state that allows use of deadly force vs someone outside your house trying to gain forcible entry, that might help you decide when you would use deadly force. A person might think they could not use deadly force in such a situation, base their rules of engagement on such misinformation, and actually give up a valuable advantage.

That doesn't apply to this case. I guess, in this case, you are saying you should know that if someone follows/chases you and picks a fight, you can get shot if you win. That is a good piece of info to know.

Does it also say int he law that republicans will hang you and your family out to dry? Does it say that republicans will make up stories about you, post fake pictures of you, call you names, make claims that you deal drugs, and pretty much slander your entire name? Is that in the law?

ric27 · Jun 15, 2012

whysoserious said:
That doesn't apply to this case.

Reason why, I said "as an example" in general terms

I guess, in this case, you are saying you should know that if someone follows/chases you and picks a fight, you can get shot if you win.

Wrong

That is a good piece of info to know.

Wrong. That nonsense is coming from you

Does it also say int he law that republicans will hang you and your family out to dry?

More nonsense

Does it say that republicans will make up stories about you, post fake pictures of you, call you names, make claims that you deal drugs, and pretty much slander your entire name?

Republicans????.....again with this complete and utter idiocy of yours

Is that in the law?

WTF are you even talking about???

Excon · Jun 15, 2012

sharon said:
BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)

It was a fist fight...........

Why are you trying to insult our intelligence? It was an assault.
An assault where one party (Trayvon), knocked the other party (Zimmerman), to the ground with a punch to the face breaking the nose. At which point, instead of retreating, jumped on-top of that party that had been knocked down, and began slamming their head into the ground.

That by no definition is a fist fight.

Secondly.

Why in the world are you citing law applicable to civil cases in a discussion of criminal law?

Florida Criminal case-law was provided long ago in a thread that you even participated in.

All the defense must do in this case is make a showing to generate the jury instruction.

It is like you think you can fool people.
Or maybe it is that you do not know how to read the law. You know - like birthers.
But way to keep up with inserting irrelevant bs into the topic.

And just in case anybody is interested about the material sharon provided.
You can go to floridadebtor.com to find the info exactly as she cited.
It is a damn forum.
And what she cited is applicable to civil law.

...

PARTY ON WHOM BURDEN RESTS

Civil Cases, in general

s. 82 Generally

In civil litigation, the burden of proof is discharged by the production of a preponderance of the evidence and does not shift during the course of the trial.
In re Ziy’s Estate, 233 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1969)

As a rule, the burden of proof is, in the first instance, with the party who initiates the action or proceeding, and remains with that party so long as it continues to establish material facts essential to recovery.
Smith’s Bakery, Inc. v. Jernigan, 134 So.2d 519 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1961)

Where one party has peculiar knowledge or control of evidence on a material matter, then burden rests on that party to produce such evidence.
Metropolitan Dade County v. Hernandez, 708 So.2d 1008 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1998)
Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1991)

Where a general or specific denial is pleaded, the burden is cast on the plaintiff to prove every material allegation of the complaint. The same rule applies in equity.
Mach v. Mayo, 80 Fla. 372, 86 So. 222 (Fla. 1920)
Smith’s Bakery, Inc. v. Jernigan, 134 So.2d 519 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1961)
Townsend v. Giles, 133 So.2d 451 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1961)

Material allegations of the complaint that are denied by the answer are to be proved by the complainant.
Russell v. Stickney, 62 Fla. 569, 56 So. 691 (1911)
Griffith v. Henderson, 55 Fla. 625, 45 So. 1003 (1908)
Mayo v. Hughes, 51 Fla. 495, 40 So. 499 (1906)

Even if the court is in error in holding that the burden is upon the defendant, no harm can result to him or her if as a matter of fact the plaintiff assumes the burden and meets it.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 60 Fla. 82, 53 So. 838 (1910)

While the “preponderance of the evidence” is the generally accepted burden of proof in civil matters,
Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates, 780 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2001)

n some civil proceedings where the individual interests at stake are both particularly important and more substantial than the mere loss of money, due process places a higher burden on the state.
Pullen v. State, 802 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 915, 122 S.Ct. 2381, 153 L. Ed.2d 199 (2002) (involuntary civil commitment proceeding)

s. 83 As to matters raised in defense

The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)

BURDEN OF PROOF

Excon · Jun 15, 2012

whysoserious said:
Reading has nothing to do with it. I could follow you, pick a fight, and then after you react, I can shoot you. Then, when you are dead, you go on trial for getting shot.

That's ****ing stupid.

I agree with your sentiment, as applied to your statement.
Nothing you said is true or factual.
It is nothing more than hyperbole.

whysoserious · Jun 15, 2012

Excon said:
I agree with your sentiment, as applied to your statement.
Nothing you said is true or factual.
It is nothing more than hyperbole.

I didn't say that happened... but it could have. That's the problem with the law.

Excon · Jun 15, 2012

whysoserious said:
I didn't say that happened... but it could have. That's the problem with the law.

What you said was hyperbole.
There is no problem with the law.

whysoserious · Jun 16, 2012

Excon said:
What you said was hyperbole.
There is no problem with the law.

You made a statement, not an argument. Now would be a good time to make your argument.

"What you said was hyperbole because..." and "There is no problem with the law due to...".

So, go on...?

SheWolf · Jun 16, 2012

Goshin said:
Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.

Yet it's fine to assume Zimmerman isn't telling the whole truth either. I don't believe Casey Anthony was actually innocent, but I understand that the prosecution had a weak case against her and that is why she got away.

Excon · Jun 16, 2012

whysoserious said:
You made a statement, not an argument. Now would be a good time to make your argument.

"What you said was hyperbole because..." and "There is no problem with the law due to...".

So, go on...?

lol
There is nothing wrong with the law.

You think you presented an argument?
All you presented was hyperbole.

Hyperbole isn't worthy of a counter argument, but does deserve to be pointed out.

whysoserious · Jun 16, 2012

Excon said:
lol
There is nothing wrong with the law.

You think you presented an argument?
All you presented was hyperbole.

Hyperbole isn't worthy of a counter argument, but does deserve to be pointed out.

Why is it hyperbole? LOL

ric27 · Jun 16, 2012

whysoserious said:
Why is it hyperbole? LOL

I guess, you should do more homework as ignorance isn't a defense right.

Redbeard · Jun 17, 2012

Believe the "eyewitness" John's version is much more reliable than the Ops version.

sharon · Jun 17, 2012

whysoserious said:
Why is it hyperbole? LOL

Police chiefs and Sherrif's across the US hate SYG..

Justifiable homicides nearly triple after Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law passed - News

sharon · Jun 17, 2012

To understand why these laws are insane, I'll yield the floor to John Timoney, the former Philadelphia police commissioner and former Miami police chief, who addressed it last week in a New York Times guest column. Cops and prosecutors hate Stand Your Ground; that fact alone should give pause to anyone who might be tempted to jerk his knee for the NRA.

Here's Timoney: "Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task. Laws like 'stand your ground' give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster."

Timoney, as Miami chief, lobbied against the Florida law prior to passage. As he wrote last week, "I pointed out at the time that even a police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges. So why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force?...The only thing that is worse than a bad law is an unnecessary law."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html?_r=1

dontworrybehappy · Jun 17, 2012

sharon said:
To understand why these laws are insane, I'll yield the floor to John Timoney, the former Philadelphia police commissioner and former Miami police chief, who addressed it last week in a New York Times guest column. Cops and prosecutors hate Stand Your Ground; that fact alone should give pause to anyone who might be tempted to jerk his knee for the NRA.

Here's Timoney: "Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task. Laws like 'stand your ground' give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster."

Timoney, as Miami chief, lobbied against the Florida law prior to passage. As he wrote last week, "I pointed out at the time that even a police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges. So why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force?...The only thing that is worse than a bad law is an unnecessary law."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html?_r=1

And I can easily find someone in favor of the SYG law. Now, what did this accomplish?

Poll: Floridians support 'stand your ground' law | TBO.com

sharon · Jun 17, 2012

dontworrybehappy said:
And I can easily find someone in favor of the SYG law. Now, what did this accomplish?

Poll: Floridians support 'stand your ground' law | TBO.com

A well run PD has well trained police officers who are accountable for every single bullet fired.. How can you make civilians accountable?

Do you remember to the bond hearing when George had told his father that the reason he got physical with the undercover DEA guy in 2005 was because he FAILED to identify himself as a police officer?

Excon · Jun 17, 2012

dontworrybehappy said:
And I can easily find someone in favor of the SYG law. Now, what did this accomplish?

Absolutely correct.

And frankly those of Law enforcement, the control freaks, that want to prohibit the free exercise of a right to defend one's self should be removed from their jobs.

sharon · Jun 17, 2012

Excon said:
Absolutely correct.

And frankly those of Law enforcement, the control freaks, that want to prohibit the free exercise of a right to defend one's self should be removed from their jobs.

You may find this interesting. The officer failed to identify himself and assaulted GZ first..

Is the account given by eyewitness "John" in Zimmerman's case reliable?

Do you still believe this witness' account before being thoroughly cross-examined?

Yes, as Zimmerman supporter I still do.

No, as Zimmerman supporter I changed my mind.

Yes, being neutral I still believe this eyewitness.

No, I never believe anything other than in 911 tape only.

whysoserious

sharon

GhostlyJoe

ric27

sharon

whysoserious

ric27

whysoserious

ric27

Excon

Excon

whysoserious

Excon

whysoserious

SheWolf

Excon

whysoserious

ric27

Redbeard

sharon

sharon

dontworrybehappy

sharon

Excon

sharon