Predict the Zimmerman verdict

It's all just some legal semantics which is confusing us, seaoat.
I've benefitted from this conversation because it's made me aware of stuff I would not have learned about otherwise. And I appreciate how you don't sink down to the name calling and insulting. You're a true gentleman.
And I apologize for using the word "bullcaca" to describe something you said.
That was uncalled for.

you've been nothing but an ass about it.


Not even close. I reported what was said by Omara, and that the talking heads declared it confusing. I agreed. When I posted that an affirmative defense has a lesser standard of proof, bob said I was full of caca. You chirped in and said you read the transcript(3 hours) and you did not see this confusing paragraph. Now you say that he did not say self defense and that what the experts and I have talked about as being confusing to a jury.....it was an affirmative defense case.....you want to rationally explain his words in the closing......I did not say it was the biggest mistake on closing the talking heads said that, I simply agreed that it was confusing and could lead people on a jury to think that he was talking about beyond a reasonable doubt on an affirmative defense case.....it is not.

Splitting hairs hardly, but I never said you were lying when you said you read a three hour transcript......I just doubt you did, but if you are going to say something was not there and imply I am a liar, don't you think you owe me the courtesy of looking at your transcript and show me those words were not in the closing. You made me find the words......now how about being honest and you find the words......reading a three hour transcript which you said those confusing words were not said.

I just heard the news, seaoat, the verdict is in. Not Guilty.

Sal wrote:This has peeled back the scab the Obama presidency put on racism in this country, and showed all the puss that remains.

Why was Rachel Jeantel's testimony thrown under the bus.

Burn the mission down.

Exactly how will that justify your feelings on the issue or help your cause?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09l_zXCQpik

 

And I apologize for using the word "bullcaca" to describe something you said.
That was uncalled for

Bob,
that is insincere. If you were sincere you would read right in the jury instruction for the affirmative defense which I have highlighted in red where it clearly says.......reasonable doubt. You flat out told me this was untrue, and you posted the very instruction I highlighted. Why waste my time trying to be informative, if you will not even read the instruction and acknowledge what I posted was true and accurate. The highlighted area is clear. If you are sincere you will acknowledge that the time I took to explain these concepts were always right on the face of the instruction.

Exactly how will that justify your feelings on the issue or help your cause?


Some people believe justice failed today. Sal and Tex are probably two of the smartest posters on this forum, and although I argue with both, their sense of justice has always had my full respect. I feel like justice was done. I do not think Travon died in vain. I believe every person who has a concealed weapon must think about the consequences of their decision to use that weapon. They have seen that Mr. Zimmerman had to justify his killing of Travon. I have no problem with concealed weapons. I have problem with folks like zimmerman having concealed weapons. So there will be a societal debate on this subject.

All the predicted riots, and that this case was brought without justification, or female jurors are suspect, or that the judge was unfair.....they all fell to the wayside. This was a fair trial, and even if Zimmerman had been convicted.....it would not bring Travon back.

2seaoat wrote:And I apologize for using the word "bullcaca" to describe something you said.
That was uncalled for

Bob,
that is insincere.  If you were sincere you would read right in the jury instruction for the affirmative defense which I have highlighted in red where it clearly says.......reasonable doubt.  You flat out told me this was untrue, and you posted the very instruction I highlighted.  Why waste my time trying to be informative, if you will not even read the instruction and acknowledge what I posted was true and accurate.   The highlighted area is clear.  If you are sincere you will acknowledge that the time I took to explain these concepts were always right on the face of the instruction.

With all due respect, and I do have great respect for you and everyone else who participates here because without you and everyone else being here this place could not exist.

You posted this....

rather than attempting to understand that an affirmative defense does not have to meet the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but has clear language that the defense only has to show reasonable doubt,

And then I found the link which says....

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

So please help me understand how this is saying the same thing you were. And I'm not being argumentative. I realize you have a better grasp of this stuff than I do and I would like you to help me understand it.
You say "the affirmative defense does not have to meet the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt".
And that webpage says "Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
So help me reconcile those two things.

Now I really do have to go to sleep. It's 3:10 AM in Pensacola.
I'll talk to you again tomorrow (or actually today). lol

2seaoat wrote:you've been nothing but an ass about it.  


Not even close.  I reported what was said by Omara, and that the talking heads declared it confusing.  I agreed.  When I posted that an affirmative defense has a lesser standard of proof, bob said I was full of caca.   You chirped in and said you read the transcript(3 hours) and you did not see this confusing paragraph.   Now you say that he did not say self defense and that what the experts and I have talked about as being confusing to a jury.....it was an affirmative defense case.....you want to rationally explain his words in the closing......I did not say it was the biggest mistake on closing the talking heads said that, I simply agreed that it was confusing and could lead people on a jury to think that he was talking about beyond a reasonable doubt on an affirmative defense case.....it is not.

Splitting hairs hardly, but I never said you were lying when you said you read a three hour transcript......I just doubt you did, but if you are going to say something was not there and imply I am a liar, don't you think you owe me the courtesy of looking at your transcript and show me those words were not in the closing.  You made me find the words......now how about being honest and you find the words......reading a three hour transcript which you said those confusing words were not said.

Here is exactly what I said:  I looked through the transcript and couldn't find this. Do you have a link to him using the term beyond a reasonable doubt?

I didn't call you a liar.  I said I looked through the transcript.  I did look through the only transcript that I am aware of online and the only one I could find.   I acknowledged that the transcript I was referring to is a blog transcript of the closing argument.   When I could find nothing showing where O'mara said he would prove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, I  asked you very nicely several times if you had a link so I could review it for myself.   I really did think you could show me where he said that.  I never assumed you were lying about it.  But then you kept failing to come up with it.  

And so now you've come up with a phrase from O'mara  where he was obviously talking about what "good prosecutors" must prove and not what he claimed to prove.  I guess there isn't much more to say about this.  I don't know what your problem is here, but I just wanted honest information.

2seaoat wrote:Some people believe justice failed today.

Which makes them part of the problem.

2seaoat wrote:Sal and Tex are probably two of the smartest posters on this forum, and although I argue with both, their sense of justice has always had my full respect..

You are free to feel that way.

2seaoat wrote:I feel like justice was done.

Good... And since the state lost they should pick up all of the expenses for bringing this case forward... including Zimmerman's.

2seaoat wrote:I do not think Travon died in vain.  I believe every person who has a concealed weapon must think about the consequences of their decision to use that weapon.   They have seen that Mr. Zimmerman had to justify his killing of Travon.

I agree that this is a good thing.

2seaoat wrote:I have no problem with concealed weapons. .

 

Good!

2seaoat wrote:I have problem with folks like zimmerman having concealed weapons..

And which 'folks' would those be?

2seaoat wrote:So there will be a societal debate on this subject.

 

I thought that's what this was all about.

2seaoat wrote:All the predicted riots, and that this case was brought without justification, or female jurors are suspect, or that the judge was unfair.....they all fell to the wayside.

 

Have they?

2seaoat wrote:This was a fair trial, and even if Zimmerman had been convicted.....it would not bring Travon back.

On this we can both agree.



*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09l_zXCQpik

 

Here is an article with the quote Seaoat posted...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57593461-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-in-closing-arguments-defense-attorney-asks-jury-not-to-fill-in-gaps-in-states-case/

"How many 'coulda beens' have you heard from the state in this case? How many what ifs have you heard from the state in this case. I don't think they get to ask any of this. I don't think they get to say to you, 'What do you think?' " asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "No no no. No no no. 'What have I proved to you?' 'What have I convinced you of beyond a reasonable doubt?' These are the words and the phrases of good prosecutors.'"

Giving his closing arguments Friday morning, O'Mara said he would take on the burden of proving Zimmerman's innocence, even though he said the state has the burden of proving the 29-year-old's guilt.

Zimmerman, he said, is "factually innocent."

*********************

O'mara was very clearly talking about the prosecution's burden when he made these  comments about convincing jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no mention here about O'mara's intent or attempt to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

The reality is we were only able to watch the trial and evidence presented in between commercials. The six jurors charged with determining the real facts and truth watched the trial and evidence presented, observed the unfolding of what really happened moment to moment.

One thing's for certain.  Mark O'Mara will now be a fixture on Talking Headovision.  
He just joined the ranks of Johnny Cochrane and the lawyer in the coon skin jacket (Spence I think was his name).

2seaoat wrote:Everybody went to bed......the talking heads talk about how confusing Omara's closing was when he talked about beyond a reasonable doubt in a self defense affirmative defense case, and Neko said she read the transcript and he did not use the beyond a reasonable doubt in the quote I gave.  Now she will argue.....but you said he said self defense......no, his case is self defense, and the experts said by bringing the standard of the prosecution at that point in closing, it confused the jury.  I thought the same thing the experts were talking about when he said it.   As I said at the end of his closing, it was very good, but when I began to explain an affirmative defense as a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt......I am full of caca.....or in dreams case beyond a reasonable doubt is not a standard.........I cannot wait to see the transcript Sunday where I have made up these words, and I have made up what the talking heads were talking about........fun fun fun, in the end it is not surprising the confusion of the jury on the manslaughter instruction.........

WTF? I never said that! Why are you making up stuff?

SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE

The attitude toward the court jury system mirrors the attitude toward the judge determination system.
That is if a judgement is in accordance with ones views and beliefs, the system is correct and in accordance with our Constitution and it's laws.
However if the court's decision is not in agreement with one's wishes or beliefs. It's a flawed system and should be changed.

Slicef18 wrote:SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE

The attitude toward the court jury system mirrors the attitude toward the judge determination system.
That is if a judgement is in accordance with ones views and beliefs, the system is correct and in accordance with our Constitution and it's laws.
However if the court's decision is not in agreement with one's wishes or beliefs. It's a flawed system and should be changed.

 

Could this be the record number of posts in any thread ever done on this forum?