Here's where you are mistaken. You are thinking of this as a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove you did something.
In this case, Zimmerman can't rely on the benefit of the doubt. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman was the person who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Yes, the prosecutor is presenting that information, but that's a matter of court record, not because it's actually in dispute. Zimmerman is not going to argue he didn't do it. He would be a fool if he did. He has to make an affirmative defense. The jury should not be looking for evidence to convict him, the action he conducted is not denied by Zimmerman. He's looking to present evidence to exculpate his actions.
You should not be looking for doubt. You need to believe his story is true and genuine. Were he denying that he shot Trayvon Martin, that would be an issue for doubt.
This is a case of certainty. You need to be certain you believe his story enough that you excuse him. Otherwise you are saying that Trayvon Martin's life is of no merit to you.
That you're trying to reason things the wrong way only shows how you don't understand what is really happening, but are falling back on principles you've been taught in the past, which for their purposes are valid enough, but not applicable here.
Seriously you need to reverse your attitude towards this case. It's not innocent until proven guilty when your defense is affirmative, it's guilty unless you can show you are absolved within the boundaries of the law. For example, in regards your auto theft case, perhaps the alleged thief admitted having the car, but says they confused it for their own, or perhaps they had some emergency and had to get somewhere very quickly, so they took the car.
Do Trayvon the courtesy of respecting and valuing his life, make the person who undoubtedly shot and killed him prove that his actions were justifiable.
But while I think you are too racially biased to do that(due to your support for the grandparent), that is it a waste of time, still I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're merely ignorant of the legal duty of the juror here.
You really don't understand that whole "presumption of innocence, the burden is on the state to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt" thing, do you?
Whether you like it or not, that's how our system works.
This is a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove he did something.
That something is to have done what he did for a reason or reasons that make it murder and not self-defense.
The issue in dispute here is not whether Zimmerman fired the shot that killed Martin--everybody agrees there was a homicide (that's where a human ends the life of a human--if you kill yourself, it's still a homicide, if you get killed by a grizzly bear he may get shot but he doesn't get arrested and put on trial).
The question is whether the homicide was 2nd degree murder (or the lesser included charge of manslaughter), or whether Zimmerman engaged in a justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.
Determining that is why a jury is hearing the evidence.
The defendent says self-defense.
The state says murder 2.
The burden is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are right and the defendent is wrong.
If Zimmerman's use of deadly force was self-defense under various parts of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force act, then he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and until the state convinces the jury otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the presumption to which he is entitled, which is why the burden of proof is on the state and not the defendent.
It is interesting that all the people defending Martin are posting as an Anonymous Coward, and those that aren't actually put their name to their posts.
It seems more that, for the most part, and with exceptions, those who are more familiar with the known facts in the case are not posting AC, which in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of "taking a side".
Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
Even if Martin did start the fight if Zimmerman was winning the fight (and it was Martin who was yelling for Zimmerman to get off of him) wouldn't that also negate the self-defense plea?
If Martin started the fight, and Zimmerman was winning, and Martin attempted to withdraw, then Martin would have justification for using force, even deadly force, under Florida 776.041, which is a portion of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law (but NOT the SYG portion, 776.013 (3), or the immunity portion, 776.032), but it would probably take a few Supreme Court rulings to sort out whether, in that hypothetical, Zimmerman could keep on fighting and claim he felt that Martin's attempt to disengage was just a ruse.
But at some point Zimmerman would have to go from winning the fight to losing it to justify pulling out his gun and firing.
"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. It's a pure case of self-defense.
You sure about that? From the Wikipedia article on "Stand Your Ground"....
In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat firs
Though you have been been awarded a +5 "informative" and speak from a point of authority, you seem to have a few facts incorrect.
In fact, what the trial here is about how to interpret "stand your ground". If one initiates a confrontation against and innocent individual who may himself feel threatened, are you standing your ground or are you starting a fight?
"Stand Your Ground" has to do with one not having a duty to retreat first, which they did under the previous wording of the law.
But according to Zimmerman's version, duty to retreat or lack thereof doesn't matter because he was unable to retreat.
776.032 is the immunity part.
That is the part which meant that the police were legally prohibited from arresting him if they could not offer any evidence to disprove his self-defense claim, and to begin with they could not. They were free to keep investigating, which they did.
776.041 deals with the exceptions that allow someone who was the initial aggressor or instigator to still use force in self-defense.
Basically if you're trying to withdraw from the fight and the other person won't let you, and you fear great injury or death, you can use force, including deadly force, to defend yourself against them regardless of who started it.
The only application of SYG here would be if Martin had survived and was being charged with something.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots who refer to the entirety of Fla. 776 as SYG, or the SYG law, and this creates confusion and makes people think Zimmerman was claiming to be "standing his ground" when all he was doing was claiming regular old self defense.
... Maybe even walls that allow not just sound to pass through, but people and light and everything else as well. They might call that last one "there is no wall here." How crazy would that be?
The theater already has one of those, they call it the fourth wall.
... 3) Integrate the "tuning adapter" for switched digital video to inside the Tivo. The fact that I need such a thing in the first place is ridiculous.... 5) What's the deal with CableCard, anyway?... 6) Don't get me started on copy-protection......
Thanks, Me
The tuning adapter has to be the same brand as the cable company's equipment at the head end 'cause they're proprietary (blame the cable companies, not TiVo), so they wouldn't know which kind to build into the TiVo.
The cable card is made necessary by the cable companies wanting some way to control whether you have permission to receive particular channels which they place on their cable.
A cable company supplied cable box has the cable card built in or installed internally, but it's still there, and it wasn't TiVo's idea.
Copy protection wasn't TiVo's idea, either, but they have to deal with it to have a machine that works with cable.
And one of the reasons the monthly or lifetime is so high is that it subsidizes the TiVo receirvers being underpriced for what you get.
Their "custom wi-fi adapter" (the G model, anyway) is an excellent piece of hardware, incorporating as it does its own little processor that most "intended to be used on a PC" USB-wi-fi adapters don't have--said processor taking some of the load off of the TiVo's CPU.
The reason they came out with their own was that the models made for PCs were too unpredictable as to whether they'd work with a TiVo or not, since manufacturers tend to change the guts but not the model numbers.
But yes, wired is even better--just like with PCs.
I've got an original S3 (the OLED model) and an S3 HD, and on analog cable the UI seems about the same, response-wise, as my S2 DT.
My single tuner S2 TCD540040 (the nightlight model) is kind of laggy, in comparison to, and even though running pretty much the same software as, my S2 DT and my 240 and 140 S2s, and my Philips and Sony S1s, so I figure they skimped just a little too much on the CPU on the 540s.
...When I wanted to get an antenna DVR a few years ago, I was surprised to find that Tivo had effectively gone cable-only....
A few years ago TiVo was just bringing out the first of the Series 4s, the 320GB Premiere (and 1TB Premiere XL) which could do analog cable, digital cable with a cable card, and digital OTA.
Before that they had the 3 Series 3 models that could do analog cable (and maybe even analog broadcast), digital cable with a cable card, and digital OTA.
Before that, the last of the Series 2s (and first dual tuner model) got around the then new tuner rules mandating both NTSC and ATSC OTA capability by offering an analog cable only, no OTA tuner, so that's the only model that can be said to be "cable only" until very recently with a later 4 tuner Series 4.
And those of us still on analog cable with money tied up in devices which work just fine on analog cable are in no hurry to be forced to spend a bunch of money upgrading unnecessarily.
I'm sure the cable companies will screw analog customers soon enough as it is.
From the write-up of that script, I don't really see the connection.
Ellison's time travel was accidental, and neither soldier was deliberately sent back to eliminate a present problem by killing off that problem's ancestors and preventing his or her birth.
It's kind of like saying that if you make a movie about people rebuilding after losing a war you have to pay royalties to Margret Mitchell because she wrote "Gone With The Wind".
I think Ellison just got some "go away" money out of the movie company.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally! Official confirmation.
Says the guy who doesn't even know that Zimmerman called the non-emergency number that night, and not 911.
Who does not know that there was no need for Martin to jump a wall to enter the neighborhood if he didn't utilize either of the gates.
Assuming you're the same AC as the one to which I responded.
Which much improved the story.
Shhh!
You're giving away the plot of "Terminator 5".
If "The Powers That Be" had a son, he'd look a lot more like Romney's kids than either Martin or Zimmerman.
And if Trayvon had been white, Zimmerman would have been Hispanic a lot sooner.
Here's where you are mistaken. You are thinking of this as a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove you did something.
In this case, Zimmerman can't rely on the benefit of the doubt. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman was the person who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Yes, the prosecutor is presenting that information, but that's a matter of court record, not because it's actually in dispute. Zimmerman is not going to argue he didn't do it. He would be a fool if he did. He has to make an affirmative defense. The jury should not be looking for evidence to convict him, the action he conducted is not denied by Zimmerman. He's looking to present evidence to exculpate his actions.
You should not be looking for doubt. You need to believe his story is true and genuine. Were he denying that he shot Trayvon Martin, that would be an issue for doubt.
This is a case of certainty. You need to be certain you believe his story enough that you excuse him. Otherwise you are saying that Trayvon Martin's life is of no merit to you.
That you're trying to reason things the wrong way only shows how you don't understand what is really happening, but are falling back on principles you've been taught in the past, which for their purposes are valid enough, but not applicable here.
Seriously you need to reverse your attitude towards this case. It's not innocent until proven guilty when your defense is affirmative, it's guilty unless you can show you are absolved within the boundaries of the law. For example, in regards your auto theft case, perhaps the alleged thief admitted having the car, but says they confused it for their own, or perhaps they had some emergency and had to get somewhere very quickly, so they took the car.
Do Trayvon the courtesy of respecting and valuing his life, make the person who undoubtedly shot and killed him prove that his actions were justifiable.
But while I think you are too racially biased to do that(due to your support for the grandparent), that is it a waste of time, still I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're merely ignorant of the legal duty of the juror here.
You really don't understand that whole "presumption of innocence, the burden is on the state to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt" thing, do you?
Whether you like it or not, that's how our system works.
This is a conventional criminal case where the state has to prove he did something.
That something is to have done what he did for a reason or reasons that make it murder and not self-defense.
The issue in dispute here is not whether Zimmerman fired the shot that killed Martin--everybody agrees there was a homicide (that's where a human ends the life of a human--if you kill yourself, it's still a homicide, if you get killed by a grizzly bear he may get shot but he doesn't get arrested and put on trial).
The question is whether the homicide was 2nd degree murder (or the lesser included charge of manslaughter), or whether Zimmerman engaged in a justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.
Determining that is why a jury is hearing the evidence.
The defendent says self-defense.
The state says murder 2.
The burden is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are right and the defendent is wrong.
If Zimmerman's use of deadly force was self-defense under various parts of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force act, then he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and until the state convinces the jury otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, that is the presumption to which he is entitled, which is why the burden of proof is on the state and not the defendent.
Don't like it?
Leave the country or get the law changed.
It is interesting that all the people defending Martin are posting as an Anonymous Coward, and those that aren't actually put their name to their posts.
It seems more that, for the most part, and with exceptions, those who are more familiar with the known facts in the case are not posting AC, which in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of "taking a side".
Yes, the skittles and iced tea he dropped off at his Dad's place before beating down the crazy-ass-cracker.
Leaving aside that it wasn't actually tea in that can, did the can and the bag of Skittles magically teleport themselves back into Martin's pocket?
Because that's where they were found by the authorities long before they had any clue that he was staying in the neighborhood.
Congratulations, at least 10% of that wasn't in error.
But a whole bunch was.
From what I've read, it corresponds to the 911 transcript. The operator tried to get him to back off.
Then you've read the wrong thing, as Zimmerman did not call 911.
Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.
Even if Martin did start the fight if Zimmerman was winning the fight (and it was Martin who was yelling for Zimmerman to get off of him) wouldn't that also negate the self-defense plea?
If Martin started the fight, and Zimmerman was winning, and Martin attempted to withdraw, then Martin would have justification for using force, even deadly force, under Florida 776.041, which is a portion of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law (but NOT the SYG portion, 776.013 (3), or the immunity portion, 776.032), but it would probably take a few Supreme Court rulings to sort out whether, in that hypothetical, Zimmerman could keep on fighting and claim he felt that Martin's attempt to disengage was just a ruse.
But at some point Zimmerman would have to go from winning the fight to losing it to justify pulling out his gun and firing.
"Stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. It's a pure case of self-defense.
You sure about that? From the Wikipedia article on "Stand Your Ground"....
Though you have been been awarded a +5 "informative" and speak from a point of authority, you seem to have a few facts incorrect.
In fact, what the trial here is about how to interpret "stand your ground". If one initiates a confrontation against and innocent individual who may himself feel threatened, are you standing your ground or are you starting a fight?
"Stand Your Ground" has to do with one not having a duty to retreat first, which they did under the previous wording of the law.
Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law is here.
776.013 (3) is the SYG part
But according to Zimmerman's version, duty to retreat or lack thereof doesn't matter because he was unable to retreat.
776.032 is the immunity part.
That is the part which meant that the police were legally prohibited from arresting him if they could not offer any evidence to disprove his self-defense claim, and to begin with they could not. They were free to keep investigating, which they did.
776.041 deals with the exceptions that allow someone who was the initial aggressor or instigator to still use force in self-defense.
Basically if you're trying to withdraw from the fight and the other person won't let you, and you fear great injury or death, you can use force, including deadly force, to defend yourself against them regardless of who started it.
The only application of SYG here would be if Martin had survived and was being charged with something.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots who refer to the entirety of Fla. 776 as SYG, or the SYG law, and this creates confusion and makes people think Zimmerman was claiming to be "standing his ground" when all he was doing was claiming regular old self defense.
... Maybe even walls that allow not just sound to pass through, but people and light and everything else as well. They might call that last one "there is no wall here." How crazy would that be?
The theater already has one of those, they call it the fourth wall.
... ... ... ...
3) Integrate the "tuning adapter" for switched digital video to inside the Tivo. The fact that I need such a thing in the first place is ridiculous.
5) What's the deal with CableCard, anyway?
6) Don't get me started on copy-protection...
Thanks,
Me
The tuning adapter has to be the same brand as the cable company's equipment at the head end 'cause they're proprietary (blame the cable companies, not TiVo), so they wouldn't know which kind to build into the TiVo.
The cable card is made necessary by the cable companies wanting some way to control whether you have permission to receive particular channels which they place on their cable.
A cable company supplied cable box has the cable card built in or installed internally, but it's still there, and it wasn't TiVo's idea.
Copy protection wasn't TiVo's idea, either, but they have to deal with it to have a machine that works with cable.
And one of the reasons the monthly or lifetime is so high is that it subsidizes the TiVo receirvers being underpriced for what you get.
Their "custom wi-fi adapter" (the G model, anyway) is an excellent piece of hardware, incorporating as it does its own little processor that most "intended to be used on a PC" USB-wi-fi adapters don't have--said processor taking some of the load off of the TiVo's CPU.
The reason they came out with their own was that the models made for PCs were too unpredictable as to whether they'd work with a TiVo or not, since manufacturers tend to change the guts but not the model numbers.
But yes, wired is even better--just like with PCs.
I've got an original S3 (the OLED model) and an S3 HD, and on analog cable the UI seems about the same, response-wise, as my S2 DT.
My single tuner S2 TCD540040 (the nightlight model) is kind of laggy, in comparison to, and even though running pretty much the same software as, my S2 DT and my 240 and 140 S2s, and my Philips and Sony S1s, so I figure they skimped just a little too much on the CPU on the 540s.
I don't think they can legally do that (or even copy once) on their retransmission of OTA channels.
...When I wanted to get an antenna DVR a few years ago, I was surprised to find that Tivo had effectively gone cable-only....
A few years ago TiVo was just bringing out the first of the Series 4s, the 320GB Premiere (and 1TB Premiere XL) which could do analog cable, digital cable with a cable card, and digital OTA.
Before that they had the 3 Series 3 models that could do analog cable (and maybe even analog broadcast), digital cable with a cable card, and digital OTA.
Before that, the last of the Series 2s (and first dual tuner model) got around the then new tuner rules mandating both NTSC and ATSC OTA capability by offering an analog cable only, no OTA tuner, so that's the only model that can be said to be "cable only" until very recently with a later 4 tuner Series 4.
And those of us still on analog cable with money tied up in devices which work just fine on analog cable are in no hurry to be forced to spend a bunch of money upgrading unnecessarily.
I'm sure the cable companies will screw analog customers soon enough as it is.
I imagine that cable companies have no intention of making CableCards easier to obtain or use....
Of course not, they're cable companies.
However, it turns out the FCC says they have to even if they don't want to.
If you buy a new TiVo be sure to get them to let you have lifetime on the S3 for $99 if it isn't lifetimed already.
Who are you on tivocommunity.com?
You can PM me there if you don't want to say here.
I'm too bashful to go play with these guys. Now what do I do?
Start your own company catering to those with your problem. Get stinking rich.
These days it seems you're not a full-fledged member of society until you've chosen your particular brand of victimhood.
I feel normal. That makes me anxious that I'm different from everyone else.
You are.
Everyone else would have incorrectly said "different than".
"But MAYBE if they have so much trouble socializing as part of a highly social species, they should be ignored and allowed to die out."
Yeah, it's not like they'll cause any trouble before that or take any of us with them when they go.
Of course your idea about him being a "Servant of Skynet" would let him play the villain (let's not spoil him by having him develop a conscience)
His conscience is what drives him... to be a servant of skynet. Figure out that one and you have the basis for a show.
Show, as in TV show, as in series?
Or did you mean single movie?
i.e. the source material is the movie.
Actually the source material is "Soldier" by Harlan Ellison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_(The_Outer_Limits)
From the write-up of that script, I don't really see the connection.
Ellison's time travel was accidental, and neither soldier was deliberately sent back to eliminate a present problem by killing off that problem's ancestors and preventing his or her birth.
It's kind of like saying that if you make a movie about people rebuilding after losing a war you have to pay royalties to Margret Mitchell because she wrote "Gone With The Wind".
I think Ellison just got some "go away" money out of the movie company.