Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

[Guisslapp]

It needs to be said because far too many of our own are out there talking nonsense.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest standard of proof in the court of law and is central to the American ideals of due process. Before the government locks someone up, they are supposed to prove they are guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that it is very much likely that they are guilty. Where self defense is claimed, the government has not met its burden when, based on all the evidence, there is at least some reaonable possibility that they acted in self defense. A defendant doesn't have to prove self defense; the government must disprove it. If after all the evidence is presented, the defendant's account is at least reasonably plausible, acquittal is the correct conclusion.

In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution horribly failed to meet it's burden. After all the evidence was presented, one could not help but conclude that it was at least reasonably possible that Z feared imminent bodily harm when he pulled the trigger, and there was simply no evidence that Z threw the first punch.

This was the only reasonable conclusion a jury could have made. Frankly, the state never had the evidence to disprove self defense. Personally, I was disgusted by the state's tactics in this trial. It is offensive to the ideal that the government is supposed to conduct itself above board (they represent the interests of the state, not the self interest of an individual). Here, they overcharged, failed to be up front with discovery, and essentially encouraged the jury to nullify - to speculate and impose moral justice. The state should hold itself to a higher standard.

While it is possible that Martin didn't do anything wrong (we don't know, he wasn't on trial), Z was not PROVEN guilty. It was a tragic loss of life. But you can't claim positively that Martin committed no crime (as most people seem to be doing). It is quite possible that he threw the first punch (seems likely based on the evidence), and he may not have done so without adequate (legally justifiable) provocation. Based on Ms. Jeantel's testimony, this very well could have been a hate crime (since he thought Z was a creepy ass cracker). Again, Martin wasn't on trial, but it is misleading to proclaim his absolute innocence. Maybe he was, but it is quite possible he wasn't.

While Z has not been proven to be a hero, he was unfairly treated by the media and his government. This attack on Z was motivated by reverse racism, and it was quite disturbing. I think the defense's post verdict press conference was right on point (in so many ways). We still need to discuss how black Americans do not always receive equal treatment in our criminal justice system, but this case had nothing to do with that discussion. This all-woman jury correctly applied the laws to the evidence in a race-neutral manner in the face of emotional deception by the prosecution and reached the correct conclusion.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Great post.

Now let's hope crap like this goes away quick.

New Black Panthers: Zimmerman verdict means 'war'

Urge followers to 'take to the streets' and 'stay there'

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/new-black...ict-means-war/

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Great post.

Now let's hope crap like this goes away quick.

New Black Panthers: Zimmerman verdict means 'war'

Urge followers to 'take to the streets' and 'stay there'



http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/new-black...ict-means-war/

And more attention by the media, politicians and our society should be focused on the murders mentioned in this article.

Modern-day 'lynching': Is this justice for all?

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow demands fair investigation for 400 black men killed in Chicago



http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/modern-da...stice-for-all/

[T1]

This "outrage" over the verdict reminds me of the presidential election. The low information crowd is at it again. I bet most of them have no idea that Trayvon was kicking Zimmerman's @$$ when he got shot. I get the impression that they believe Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was a black kid.

[dhussdawg]

2nd degree murder was a tall order for this given the evidence around the altercation. Zimmerman would have had to start the fight (not the following of Martin) for it to be considered 2nd degree murder, in my mind. From all accounts, Martin started the actual physical confrontation even though Zimmerman's following him provoked him. However, it seems that Zimmerman told him he had no problem when approached, but Martin punched him in the face anyway. I think involuntary manslaughter should have been the charge tried from what I read. Of course, the political and societal pressure made the prosecutor swing for the fence, and they came up short.

It seems like a bad combo of two guys being a little too sensitive to the situation. This could have been avoided if Zimmerman had not been so on edge from teh recent robberies in the area by black men or if Trayvon Martin hadnt felt the need to use his fist because a guy was following him. If they had just talked it out, this would not have happened. I know I would be pissed/extremely annoyed by someone following me, but I would never punch someone unless I felt physically threatened. From eyewitness accounts, it seemed that Zimmerman did not want a confrontation, but Martin brought one anyway. This relieves Zimmerman of a Murder 2 charge, IMO.

[Guisslapp]

I think many people have different opinions as to what they think actually happened that night, i.e., opinions on the "truth". That is why people get so emotional about it. But it is unreasonable to expect a jury to convict under such circumstances. A jury is not asked to determine what they THINK (except the state promoted this line of judgment in this case) happened. If the evidence points to or leaves open multiple (reasonable) possibilities, and even a single one of those possibilities is lawful, then a jury is supposed to render a not guilty verdict - that is their charge.

Z made a few questionable/bad decisions that night, but the only bad decisions that the state actually proved were not crimes in and of themselves.

This case always turned on the issue of whether Z reasonably feared significant bodily injury at the time he pulled the trigger. Whether he profiled or otherwise was motivated by hate was not particularly relevant to his self defense claim, but was necessary to support a conviction for murder 2 over manslaughter. The state never had the evidence to carry their burden on self defense. That is why the local PD and prosecutors had not arrested/charged him.

[dhussdawg]

Given Zimmerman's history, I dont see how they can say it was motivated by hate. I feel like the race thing was something created by the media and piled on by some political/social figures. I think it is pretty well documented that Zimmerman had many black friends and did not hate black people. The media also did an outstanding job of making Zimmerman an Anglo Saxon white guy, when we know he is half latino (just embarrassing). I think Zimmerman profiled because it was specifically believed that black men were robbing homes in the neighborhood. It did seem that Martin was just walking in the road, so Zimmerman was probably being oversensitive.

In the end, it just seems like a sad chain of events that could have been avoided by less aggressive behavior on both ends. Sometimes that just leads to a tragic ending where there was no real crime. I still think that Zimmerman might be guilty of something, but Murder 2 is just too tall.

[Dixonfor6]

?Last night re-watching the Z interview with Hannity he says when Martin approached him and asked what his problem was, he reached in his jean pocket to get his phone and that is when he got hit. Why didn't the prosecution say that was why Trayvon punched him? He thought he was going for a weapon..that HE acted in self defense?

[Guisslapp]

The fact that he was black may have influenced Z to suspect him. I don't think there was ever any evidence to support that theory, but, it is certainly possible. Walking slowly in the rain is atypical behavior where I live. Probably was in Z's community too. It doesn't seem like TM was in a hurry to get home despite the rain. With the type of break-ins they had experienced (particularly the testimony of the woman that Z assisted, who locked herself in her room with her kid), his general sensitivity to suspicious activity is a little more understandable. We don't really know what he saw - only have his version of the story, which was not contradicted by any other evidence.

[Dirtydawg]

Someone of Facebook said the argument could be made that Zimmerman assaulted Martin just by exiting the vehicle. The other part I have issue with is people saying GZ was told by 911 not to follow TM. Well, as far as I know, 911 advice is not legally binding. Guisslap, I'm glad you posted what you did because I made similar comments on my FB page as I was tired of hearing everybody, particularly t.v. personalities (ex-lawyers even), claiming that the defense didn't do a good enough job proving self defense for GZ to have been acquitted. I kept saying they didn't have to prove anything other than a reasonable doubt.

I will say that I think this case was hurt by all of those who applied pressure to have charges brought against GZ. Who knows how this case could have turned out had the state been allowed to take its time and let circumstances unfold. I liken it to many cold cases that are solved 10 years or more later because one of the guilty parties have gotten over confident and start talking. Had GZ been led to believe that the state felt he was within his rights and they weren't focusing on prosecuting him, who knows that a year later, confident that he was safe, he wouldn't have started talking and "bragging" about what he did with a story that would have implicated him. The outcome of this case, in my opinion, can be attributed to the social engineers and the President who were too quick to let their emotions rule the day.

[Guisslapp]

?Last night re-watching the Z interview with Hannity he says when Martin approached him and asked what his problem was, he reached in his jean pocket to get his phone and that is when he got hit. Why didn't the prosecution say that was why Trayvon punched him? He thought he was going for a weapon..that HE acted in self defense?

It is possible that they both acted in self defense. If Z didn't pull a gun, but Martin reasonably thought he was, then Martin probably did act in self defense to throw the first punch. But once Martin was on top of Z (and even as Martin threw the first punch) Z would have had the right to defend himself. And once he was getting his tail kicked and he reasonably feared great bodily injury, Z had the right to use deadly force in self defense. Just because one of them had the right to self defense doesn't mean the other didnt also have a right of self defense. But this situation typically only arises where there is either a retreat or where one party legally but mistakenly believes they need to defend themselves (such as the situation you identified).

[JuBru]

I think many people have different opinions as to what they think actually happened that night, i.e., opinions on the "truth". That is why people get so emotional about it. But it is unreasonable to expect a jury to convict under such circumstances. A jury is not asked to determine what they THINK (except the state promoted this line of judgment in this case) happened. If the evidence points to or leaves open multiple (reasonable) possibilities, and even a single one of those possibilities is lawful, then a jury is supposed to render a not guilty verdict - that is their charge.

I've agreed with everything you've said, and thank you for the break from the utter crap spewing around about this, but I disagree with this part. The "think" part is a bit ambiguous, but the part about multiple possibilities is all wrong. If the law followed that, there would be almost no convictions of any crime, no matter how egregious. It opens a very wide door to the worst offenders freely getting away. You have to think of the jury pool, most people with the flimsiest of excuses can seed doubt with them.

?Last night re-watching the Z interview with Hannity he says when Martin approached him and asked what his problem was, he reached in his jean pocket to get his phone and that is when he got hit. Why didn't the prosecution say that was why Trayvon punched him? He thought he was going for a weapon..that HE acted in self defense?

Because the prosecution was acting off political pressure and couldn't tell you their left hand from their right.

[dawg80]

Gee, Guiss, this is your best contribution ever to this forum. (must be that blind squirrel-nut theory).

[Woof!]

We haven't heard the last from GZ. My bet is that, like O.J., he'll commit a crime with a gun and will end up in prison within a few years.

[Guisslapp]

JuBru, if the evidence equally supports 10 REASONABLE versions of events regarding what happened, and 1 of those is lawful, how could you not have reasonable doubt? The law doesn't require scientific proof, but there can't be a reasonable doubt. I would agree that juries sometimes have a hard time holding the state to this very high standard, but that is their charge. The key word in this is "reasonableness" and I agree that it requires more than consistency with the evidence - it must also be consistent with reasonable plausibility.