Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Innocent until proven guilty" perhaps?

Not when you're pleading self defense.

If it was done in self-defense, then he is innocent of wrong doing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Innocent until proven guilty" perhaps?

Not when you're pleading self defense.

He's being charged with 2nd degree murder... right?

So why wouldn't he be innocent until proven guilty? Aint you a lawyer? <--- serious question.

I too am interested in this explaination. Does the law remove the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode if you plead a certain way?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I too am interested in this explaination. Does the law remove the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode if you plead a certain way?

Pleading self defense means that you say "I did it, but I had a good reason for it". You admit your guilt, but claim that there are circumstances which should allow you to go free. Once you make that plea the burden of proof is on you to justify that it really was self defense and not murder.

Which is still way different from a guilty plea.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I too am interested in this explaination. Does the law remove the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode if you plead a certain way?

Pleading self defense means that you say "I did it, but I had a good reason for it". You admit your guilt, but claim that there are circumstances which should allow you to go free. Once you make that plea the burden of proof is on you to justify that it really was self defense and not murder.

Are you sure?

Do you have citations? My google-fu ain't working... wiki didn't satisfy on this either... o.O

 whembly wrote:
Do you have citations? My google-fu ain't working... wiki didn't satisfy on this either... o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6]

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Do you have citations? My google-fu ain't working... wiki didn't satisfy on this either... o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6]

aha... thanks brother! "Affermative Defense.

EDIT: I'd be curious what the law is in the state of Florida... (doing research).

I do believe the Prosecution still has to prove you are guilty, and IIRC Self-defense can be ruled based on evidence alone. IE: a defendent could be completely gagmouthed during the whole affair, never enter a plea, and have the case be ruled self-defense.

I could be wrong on that though.

I'm a bit rusty, but I believe Self Defense is an Affirmative Defense, so that actually would have to be offered up, as opposed to just a standard Not Guilty in which the defendant (or his attorney) wouldn't have to say anything.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I do believe the Prosecution still has to prove you are guilty, and IIRC Self-defense can be ruled based on evidence alone. IE: a defendent could be completely gagmouthed during the whole affair, never enter a plea, and have the case be ruled self-defense.

Maybe in that rare case it could, but this is just a conventional case: the defendant admits that they did it, but attempts to justify it. If they fail to meet the burden of proof of their affirmative defense, their "yes I did it" plea is proof of guilt just like any other (legitimate) confession would be.

You mean it's not like a "who's on first" routine?

"You'r honor, I didn't do it. But if I, it would have been because I was scared. Not that I'm saying I did it, just that I would have done it for a good reason if I did...."

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Hmm, well I think it depends on the ferocity of the attacker. What do you do, wait until you're knocked unconscious to start fighting back?

If one is not conscious, one cannot fight back.

 LoneLictor wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Because the trial is coming.

oh... duh.

Just saw his picture... dang, Zimmerman took a beating.

You should see the other guy. The teenager going to get skittles than he stalked and then killed.

The whole controversy seems over, to me at least. The controversy was about the fact that the Police didn't arrest Zimmerman or charge him with anything. They heard this story about a kid getting stalked and then shot, and they barely even bothered to investigate it. Then the media picked the story, and then all of the sudden the Police decided to stop being idiots and charge Zimmerman. Most people decide to stop being idiots when they realize their under scrutiny.

You forget to used the word 'allegedly' in the above.

Zimmerman gets his fair trial, perhaps this kid was just out for skittles and was unfortunate to run into a trigger happy bigoot. Perhaps he was out looking for trouble and ran into a trigger happy panicy type.
We shouldnt jump to conclusions,

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Do you have citations? My google-fu ain't working... wiki didn't satisfy on this either... o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6]

aha... thanks brother! "Affermative Defense.

EDIT: I'd be curious what the law is in the state of Florida... (doing research).

The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.

 dogma wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Hmm, well I think it depends on the ferocity of the attacker. What do you do, wait until you're knocked unconscious to start fighting back?

If one is not conscious, one cannot fight back.

Well yes, I was implying that. I think my point is pretty clear now

He'll walk whatever the facts IMO. Unless theres stong evidence I've not heard about, it's largely his word against a dead man, you'll never prove he didn't feel threatened and the law allows for self defence. I suppose given that he had a gun and the boy was unarmed then you could argue his use of force was disproportionate but I don't think that's enough for a second degree murder charge.

Can the judge or jury consider other charges and reduce them down to manslaughter or anything like that?

I think going for a murder charge appeased the crowds, but makes it more likely he will be found not-guilty.

 d-usa wrote:
Can the judge or jury consider other charges and reduce them down to manslaughter or anything like that?

I think going for a murder charge appeased the crowds, but makes it more likely he will be found not-guilty.

I don't know. That's a good question, actually, because a lot of casewatchers have suggested the prosecution blew its chances of conviction when they rolled out the second degree murder charge.

 d-usa wrote:
Can the judge or jury consider other charges and reduce them down to manslaughter or anything like that?

I think going for a murder charge appeased the crowds, but makes it more likely he will be found not-guilty.

That could be a pint, I once heard an attorney say the reason they like the death penalty is not as a punishment but as a threat which they can then bring down to a lower charge on a with the accused bargain

 Seaward wrote:
I don't know. That's a good question, actually, because a lot of casewatchers have suggested the prosecution blew its chances of conviction when they rolled out the second degree murder charge.

Yes, this is allowable in Florida. cut to page 676. If you'd prefer plain english, here is an analysis.

 AustonT wrote:
The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.

With an Affirmative Defense the defense also has a burden to prove their claim; if you claim self-defense you have to back up that argument. If they are going that route the Prosecutor has to prove it meets all the elements of Second Degree Murder while the defense has to prove that he isn't guilty because he was legally defending himself. If they chose to just go with "not guilty" they could just sit on their hands and then just say that the Prosecutor didn't make his case.

 Ahtman wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.

With an Affirmative Defense the defense also has a burden to prove their claim; if you claim self-defense you have to back up that argument. If they are going that route the Prosecutor has to prove it meets all the elements of Second Degree Murder while the defense has to prove that he isn't guilty because he was legally defending himself. If they chose to just go with "not guilty" they could just sit on their hands and then just say that the Prosecutor didn't make his case.

Does that apply universally?
 Karin Moore, who is one of the assistant professors of law at Florida A&M University, says that the law “puts a tremendous burden on the state to prove that it wasn’t self-defense.”  From the evidence that we have seen in the public, this is going to be next to impossible to do.

Well in order for it to be murder it can't have been self-defense, so you do have to prove that it was not done in self-defense to get it to be murder.

Especially in this case where the evidence does support the accused's testimony.

Ahtman wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.

With an Affirmative Defense the defense also has a burden to prove their claim; if you claim self-defense you have to back up that argument. If they are going that route the Prosecutor has to prove it meets all the elements of Second Degree Murder while the defense has to prove that he isn't guilty because he was legally defending himself. If they chose to just go with "not guilty" they could just sit on their hands and then just say that the Prosecutor didn't make his case.

The Defense has almost no burden at all to prove their claim to receive a jury instruction for self defense. Emphasis added, even his own testimony is enough

Vila v State of Florida wrote: Vila v. State (2011):

According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be)

Which was summed up by someone else and stolen by me: Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
all of which is blatantly lifted from this site.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873

 AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

Especially in this case where the evidence does support the accused's testimony.

That's an interesting tack, as most of what I have seen reported indicates that the more evidence is produced the more it reenforces Zimmerman's narrative.

Isn't that what I said?

I have no idea why but I repeatedly read "doesn't" Like I read it, closed the thread came back, read it again, quoted, read it again...
I must really not like you.
My bad that's exactly what you said.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

Especially in this case where the evidence does support the accused's testimony.

That's an interesting tack, as most of what I have seen reported indicates that the more evidence is produced the more it reenforces Zimmerman's narrative.

Isn't that what I said?

LOL... you two are going the same direction, but on different wavelengths.

Must be

 AustonT wrote:
The Defense has almost no burden at all to prove their claim to receive a jury instruction for self defense. Emphasis added, even his own testimony is enough

Vila v State of Florida wrote: Vila v. State (2011):

According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be)

Which was summed up by someone else and stolen by me: Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
all of which is blatantly lifted from this site.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873

That's just talking about jury instructions, not burdens of proof. IOW, the case only says that if the defendant makes a claim of self defense the judge must inform the jury that self defense can be a valid reason for a "not guitly" verdict and explain how it works. The judge isn't allowed to just arbitrarily declare that the self defense justification wasn't good enough and deny it, that's the jury's job. However, that does NOT mean that even the flimsiest claim of self defense is a successful justification. It just means that the judge is obligated to say something like:

"The defense has offered a claim of self defense. If you feel that the defense has met the required burden of proof, you may find the defendant not guilty by reason of self defense".