Juror B29 - Zimmerman Got Away with Murder

2seaoat wrote:

Sorry, Bob.....if the level of your integrity is to have you and Neko creating this shorthand legal concept and imputing the same as my argument.  That is dishonest.  It may be incorrect, but it is first and foremost dishonest.

We didn't create a legal concept,  shorthand or not.  You created the legal concept and it's a legal concept which does not exist.

So tell you what.  From now on whatever words you use to convey that it was legally established that Zimmerman (or any other defendant) committed manslaughter and was then exonerated because of an affirmative defense,  we will use ONLY THOSE EXACT WORDS in reply.  No more brevity.  If you take a paragraph to state that concept we will repeat that whole paragraph verbatim and unedited.  
Does that satisfy you?  lol

p.s.  as I told you already,  you're not going to slide out of this stuff anymore.  lol

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Now because Bob has been a good student and actually did not link totally nonsense, he has a teachers apple, and now he gets the the Jury instruction which conceptualizes the discussion on an Affirmative defense.

Sal can take any student who is still lagging out into the hall for one on one tutoring, and maybe Bob really understands this now, but we will have to verify if he has absorbed the concepts, or like a blind squirrel.....did Bob just happen upon that acorn?  we will see.

Well here are your own words...

I don't know why this has continued...but this is the relevant statement from Sal's post:

"Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense."

If Sal or you are going to tutor anyone on this,  don't you think you and he should know what you're talking about before you do?  Because I just provided a clear explanation to you and Sal both that the burden of "preponderance of evidence" has no relevance to any criminal proceeding in Florida including the burden a defendant is required to meet when making an affirmative defense claim.  lol

That's correct,Bob. Preponderance of evidence is a lesser burden which is used in a civil proceeding which is why OJ was convicted. Seaoat can say all the baloney he wants but I had a double major on college and we learned that in the basic courses in criminal justice.

Bob you are a patient person but at what point does it become senseless ?

Not that I don't respect your dogged determination...I bailed out long ago....kudos.

Besides 911 was an inside job....

Seaoat, you kept saying that manslaughter was proven and that self defense to manslaughter would make the manslaughter justified.   So it might have been me who coined the term "justifiable manslaughter" because you kept using the two words in the same sentence.  I don't see any law that uses those terms together.  But again, I am not going to argue about it any more. Some points I just disagree with you about and if that makes me stupid and unable to comprehend in the higher way that you and Sal understand things, then so be it.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Bob you are a patient person but at what point does it become senseless ?

Not that I don't respect your dogged determination...I bailed out long ago....kudos.

Besides 911 was an inside job....

Same here... The hyperloop is where facts and reason go to die.

2seaoat wrote:"Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense."

If Sal or you are going to tutor anyone on this, don't you think you and he should know what you're talking about before you do? Because I just provided a clear explanation to you and Sal both that the burden of "preponderance of evidence" has no relevance to any criminal proceeding in Florida including the burden a defendant is required to meet when making an affirmative defense claim. lol


Actually Bob you are not being very honest.  You argued with me the standard of proof on an affirmative defense was beyond a reasonable doubt, and I correctly tried to let you know that the burden was something less a reasonable doubt, but as I told Tex, the only tweek to Sal's simple cliff notes explanation was the burden remained with the defendant, not the state.  This was about 10 days ago, do you not remember your incorrect argument?

So now Bob comes on and argues that the concept of preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not, has no place in a criminal trial.   Well actually, not Bob.........in the end reasonable doubt may in fact be a preponderance of the evidence or more likely than not, but reasonable doubt may not even make that threshold.   However, the range and standard of proof is purposely not quantified as a percentage, but allows a juror to weigh the evidence and then put probative value on that evidence, and in the end, the standard of preponderance is the closest descriptive term which is the standard.   Is the proof enough that a juror believes that the defendant was acting in self defense.   Now Dreams continues to make the very same argument you made 10 days ago about beyond a reasonable doubt, as I tried to explain the lesser standard, but now for the first time on these forums I think I have caught you in a whopper.........have you forgotten the other thread.......have you forgotten your argument.  

Bottom line is Sal is correct, except for the tweek that the burden remains with the defendant on an affirmative defense.

You're wrong,Seaoat. Preponderance is never the standard in a criminal trial.

Since seaoat brought up the insanity defense,  I have what is probably a very unpopular opinion about that which is unrelated to this discussion.  

I really have a problem when someone slaughters an innocent human being and then tries to excuse it by saying "I was insane".

The biggest problem I have with it is that the vast majority of people who actually are insane,  including full blown schizophrenia,  do not slaughter innocent human beings.  

The innocent human being is fucking dead.  His/her life is fucking over.  And it's over because someone committed a senseless fucking murder.  And excusing that act by saying "I was insane" just does not cut it for me.

You can say I'm heartless and crude and whatever you want to say.
But my heart lies with the innocent victim of it who is fucking dead and whose life is fucking over.  And with the loved ones of the innocent victim whose life is over and have to suffer that sometimes for the rest of their lives.
My heart doesn't lie with the sorry motherfucking son of a bitch who excuses what he or she did with that "insanity" bullshit.

p.s.  and by the way,  my college degree is in psychology (with a special interest in "abnormal psychology") so I do know something about what insanity is. So if seaoat is gonna tell me I don't that's not gonna work.

You're wrong,Seaoat. Preponderance is never the standard in a criminal trial.

Then what is the burden of a defendant in a self defense affirmative defense Dreams?

Bob, has correctly shown that in the affirmative defense of insanity, Florida has raised it to the next level of proof which is clear and convincing, but they did not do this with self defense. It is a simple standard of reasonable doubt which is a range from possibly something less than preponderance to something short of beyond a reasonable doubt. That range is intentional, and more probable than not which is the language to describe the preponderance standard is the bottom line of the light switch going on or off.

Bob,
Rather than analytically breaking down what I think is incorrect in your discussion of insanity and its role as an affirmative defense, let me ask you a simple question, can a person intentionally through his act or acts kill a person if he is insane? We will continue after you answer that simple question.

I really have a problem when someone slaughters an innocent human being and then tries to excuse it by saying "I was insane".


Hmmm did you really say this after your analysis of the insanity affirmative defense?

That's correct,Bob. Preponderance of evidence is a lesser burden which is used in a civil proceeding which is why OJ was convicted. Seaoat can say all the baloney he wants but I had a double major on college and we learned that in the basic courses in criminal justice.


Dreams, I was not being a smart asz when I thought you had only graduated from high school, and if defense of the same is making the argument that a preponderance standard does not apply to the burden of a Defendant to shift the presumption in an affirmative defense, you fail to recognize the range of the standard as clearly set forth in the statute when it uses reasonable doubt(not beyond a reasonable doubt which you believe must be shown in a criminal case.....you just do not get it). I had this discussion with Bob a week, ago, he continues to deny the same with his silence, and you just continue to blubber about beyond a reasonable doubt, and your double major.....again this is not a golf game, and there are no more strokes to hand out.

So it might have been me who coined the term "justifiable manslaughter" because you kept using the two words in the same sentence.

Thank you for being honest. I await the apology from Bob for the same accusation. I would not use the adjective because it changes the underlying manslaughter. Justify, excuse, and exonerate are action words which change the proven crime to a not guilty.

Frustration in ability to communication is reaching critical mass...!!

This post was made by 2seaoat who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

This post was made by 2seaoat who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

This post was made by 2seaoat who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

This post was made by 2seaoat who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

This post was made by 2seaoat who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

2seaoat wrote:Bob,
Rather than analytically breaking down what I think is incorrect in your discussion of insanity and its role as an affirmative defense, let me ask you a simple question, can a person intentionally through his act or acts kill a person if he is insane?  We will continue after you answer that simple question.

I'll first answer it this way.  By providing your "two elements" of what constitutes a crime.

1.  Is the victim dead?  Yes

2.  Did the nut kill him?  Yes

and I'll add a few more of my own elements...

3.  Do the victim's survivors have to suffer with losing a loved one and suffer from it often for the rest of their lives?  Yes
Should this nut be excused for making 1, 2, and 3, happen,  when most all other nuts don't do what he or she did?  No not in my opinion.

4.  Should this nut be allowed the affirmative defense (excuse) of saying "not guilty because of inanity"?  No not in my opinion.

And finally,  and this is the most important "element" of all for me...

5.  If I was insane and I slaughtered an innocent human being,  would I want that to be excused because I was insane?  Not just no,  but HELL NO.

And now to answer your question directly.

Yes,  a person can be excused for a murder because of the legal term "insanity" (and it is only a legal term,  it is not a term used in psychology or psychiatry),  and sometimes be aware that he was intentionally committing the act of murder.
Of course you will now tell me that "if he had intent he will not be judged legally insane".  And if there was a reliable way to determine intent in a trial,  I might start to buy into that.  But making the claim that a defendant who is described to be "insane" will have no intent,   is a very subjective judgement.  
However,  and this is the part you are REALLY going to object to.  But it's not something I popped out of mind just tonight.  I've been thinking about this for a very long time.  And what I've finally decided is this.  I really don't give a shit if a person who is legally insane intended to slaughter someone and end their lives or not.  I want them punished for it anyway.
And I am telling you that if I ever do find my own damned self in that position,  I am telling you that intent or no intent I do not want to be excused because of that.

We didn't create a legal concept, shorthand or not. You created the legal concept and it's a legal concept which does not exist.


OOOppps, it looks like Bob still thinks I am the one who is moving words around. Too much time on the beach.....an adjective and a verb.......as markle says.....just mumbo jumbo. So I guess Bob's integrity is zero.....still unable to show where I used the adjective to create an incorrect concept, but still telling me I created justifiable homicide to describe the concepts in affirmative defenses.......wow......

2seaoat wrote:"Prosecution could not prove with a preponderance of evidence that the killing was not in self defense."

If Sal or you are going to tutor anyone on this, don't you think you and he should know what you're talking about before you do? Because I just provided a clear explanation to you and Sal both that the burden of "preponderance of evidence" has no relevance to any criminal proceeding in Florida including the burden a defendant is required to meet when making an affirmative defense claim. lol


Actually Bob you are not being very honest.  You argued with me the standard of proof on an affirmative defense was beyond a reasonable doubt, and I correctly tried to let you know that the burden was something less a reasonable doubt, but as I told Tex, the only tweek to Sal's simple cliff notes explanation was the burden remained with the defendant, not the state.  This was about 10 days ago, do you not remember your incorrect argument?

So now Bob comes on and argues that the concept of preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not, has no place in a criminal trial.   Well actually, not Bob.........in the end reasonable doubt may in fact be a preponderance of the evidence or more likely than not, but reasonable doubt may not even make that threshold.   However, the range and standard of proof is purposely not quantified as a percentage, but allows a juror to weigh the evidence and then put probative value on that evidence, and in the end, the standard of preponderance is the closest descriptive term which is the standard.   Is the proof enough that a juror believes that the defendant was acting in self defense.   Now Dreams continues to make the very same argument you made 10 days ago about beyond a reasonable doubt, as I tried to explain the lesser standard, but now for the first time on these forums I think I have caught you in a whopper.........have you forgotten the other thread.......have you forgotten your argument.  

Bottom line is Sal is correct, except for the tweek that the burden remains with the defendant on an affirmative defense.

Burden of proof

Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove its allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses (claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)), for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.

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] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.
Governing rules.

So does this say the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the self defense claim? Hmmm?

But it's not something I popped out of mind just tonight. I've been thinking about this for a very long time.

Well what has been pooping out has not been coming from your mind. However, understand that some states share your beliefs on insanity.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

Please note the link gets the standard wrong in Florida, but there are a growing number of states which are making the insanity an element of the crime which allows for the guilty but insane.

2seaoat wrote:Bob....  Too much time on the beach.....

No, not actually. Once you spend $15 grand on a melanoma caused by sunburn, you no longer spend "too much time on the beach". lol

So does this say the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the self defense claim? Hmmm?

Are you drinking tonight. Please tell me you are. You just proved that your double major did not work and post the correct range of proof standard in an affirmative defense, and then you ask....I hope the rhetorical question where does it say the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt.....YOUR EARLIER CLAIM.......I wish I could still drink....I might be able to understand your logic......That would be some hard drinking.......but do you now understand why a preponderance can be used as a standard in a criminal case? cheers.

2seaoat wrote:But it's not something I popped out of mind just tonight.  I've been thinking about this for a very long time.

Well what has been pooping out has not been coming from your mind.  However, understand that some states share your beliefs on insanity.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

Please note the link gets the standard wrong in Florida, but there are a growing number of states which are making the insanity an element of the crime which allows for the guilty but insane.

Wrong, it did come from my mind. Because I was unaware that any other were minds were popping it out too. It popped out of my mind independently from that. lol

Just to be clear, Seaoat...I was not apologizing! You kept using the words manslaughter and justifiable very close together!

So instead of saying the same thing with two words in the interests of brevity, I will copy and paste it exactly verbatim as you state it. lol


Now we are moving up the evolutionary chain......we are becoming civilized where words have meanings, and concepts matter, and mumbo jumbo is left for Mr. Markle to cut and paste. Not much of an apology for saying I said that, but when I have everybody's dander up......doubt that will happen.

2seaoat wrote:That's correct,Bob. Preponderance of evidence is a lesser burden which is used in a civil proceeding which is why OJ was convicted. Seaoat can say all the baloney he wants but I had a double major on college and we learned that in the basic courses in criminal justice.


Dreams, I was not being a smart asz when I thought you had only graduated from high school, and if defense of the same is making the argument that a preponderance standard does not apply to the burden of a Defendant to shift the presumption in an affirmative defense, you fail to recognize the range of the standard as clearly set forth in the statute when it uses reasonable doubt(not beyond a reasonable doubt which you believe must be shown in a criminal case.....you just do not get it).   I had this discussion with Bob a week, ago, he continues to deny the same with his silence, and you just continue to blubber about beyond a reasonable doubt, and your double major.....again this is not a golf game, and there are no more strokes to hand out.

I wasn't talking about affirmative defenses. You are correct on that. I was talking about the burden on a criminal case in general.

2seaoat wrote: a preponderance can be used as a standard in a criminal case

This post was not addressed to me.  But I have a question for you anyway.
Can you provide us the text (and that's the verbatim text,  not your opinion of what the statute says) of a Florida Statute which specifies "preponderance of evidence" is a burden of proof applied in a criminal case?

And please,  let's not repeat what happened last night when you answered by telling me "I already did".  I can't go back and reread all of the posts in this thread again.  If you posted it once you can post it again.  lol

just to be clear, Seaoat...I was not apologizing! You kept using the words manslaughter and justifiable very close together!


That car which has all its parts spread across the floor may have the steering wheel near the four tires, but that does not make the steering wheel interchangeable with the tires. I use the words correctly. For two weeks folks have tried to impute new concepts and new meanings into my words, by looking at the floor and randomly creating something I have not described. So do you understand tonight the sequence of proofs, the standards of proof, and how they interact with the instruction when in the State of Florida we are dealing with the affirmative defense of self defense?