Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A preponderance of the evidence is NOT the standard of proof in a criminal trial. In criminal trials it's beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard.
AND I totally disagree with you regarding the "preponderance of evidence" shows Zimmerman on his back, "losing a fight" (IMO, the evidence indicates that Martin was NOT punching Zimmerman, but rather holding him down) trying to prevent Zimmerman from using that gun, and Martin failed to hold down the man who weighed 40 lbs more than he did.
Btw, I'm guessing that you are older than 17 and 28, and you may be just a tad more sophisticated. Also, ACTIONS TAKEN as a result of a lack of common sense very often lead to doing things that are indeed a crime/illegal.
Please, when the preponderance supports the innocence of the accused it does much more than support reasonable doubt.
The preponderance of the evidence shows Z acted in self-defense. That is a higher level of evidence required than simple reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not even have the preponderance of the evidence in their favor and the defense has just started their case.
I've watched the trial exclusively on HLN - much easier for me to tape the entire day then watch.
The commentary though is nuts ... they pick and choose the snippets that fit with their narrative. For example, they played the crap out of Serino saying "he's a pathological liar". Just those 4 words ... not in context AT ALL.
Add the crazies that call in with their own theories - I don't know how the talking heads can answer with a straight face.
Plus the "expert" attorneys. I've taken to googling their names when they come on ... so far I've found one "attorney" who's never practiced law at all, but who earned her degree, was a SAHM then went right into show biz as an "expert commentator". And another Chicago attorney who bills herself as a former prosecutor but had her license suspended.
The media sucks.
Wow. Interesting findings of the commentators to say the least.
My own experience with courts and proceedings has led me to my own sort of expertise. Self described mind you and I'm completely joking about having expertise even in the slightest sense.
There are certain sticking points to every trial that no amount of spin can undo.
Those are the ones that these so called experts try to discard no matter what side they take. Thankfully the jurors are sequestered.
Off topic, with OJ, the direction of the cuts stood out to me as to it needing to be a left handed suspect. Small detail but I couldn't get past it. Jodi Arias was arguing the religion thing yet everything she did and how she lived was against it. Little Caley Anthony had no cause of death determined. This one it's the cop telling GZ there's a video and him saying "thank God".
Little sticking points like these are the things that either give reasonable doubt or rule it out.
I would rather come on here and listen to everyone else's thoughts and interpretations than those being paid to provide them.
Most on here are pretty good about sticking to facts while some are leading with emotion. It's all ok though. I like to see the views and where regular people are coming from.
You can tell those who watch from those who just listen to analysts.
Personally, I think anyone who puts themselves in a position to be involved in a potentially violent situation is stupid... Both of these young men did just that....
Some are. Some aren't. Death Row is a good example. Many have IQs far below average, and some have high IQs far above average and even above Mensa level.
Emotions are involved in such a situation as following someone on a dark, rainy night and CANNOT be disregarded. If you have ever met a person who has no emotions, you should be very, very afraid of them! Fear is an EMOTION. Zimmerman certainly provoked fear in Martin. He indicated fear when he was talking to his friend Rachel on the phone. NO, I do not discount her testimony. IMO, having watched and participated in LOTS of trials, she was genuine and believable. Not everybody's "cup of tea" I understand, yet she was, IMO, believable. And Zimmerman even claims as his defense FEAR.
The ME also clarified that Trayvon could have been alive in the sense that his brain may have still been working; not that he could have made any gross movements.
I don't know what you mean by 'gross' movements.
Bao did not know if tm could sit up, move his legs, or pull his hands on.
We agree. What would you have done to not gotten yourself into the pickle Z did. I bet you would have identified yourself as the neighborhood watch guy to Martin and waited until the police came so they could determine he was walking home from the 7-11 to his Dad's house. How I wish Zimmerman had done that. I don't think there's one person on this list who does not think Zimmerman did the wrong thing in calling the police given the break ins that had been occurring. The crime occurred when he, in his arrogance took it way too far, took matters into his own hands, because "they" had been getting away.
Remember, and I am sure you will agree, Martin had as much right to defend himself as Zimmerman had. Martin didn't know who was following and confronting him.
Nothing before the physical altercation was a crime under Florida law . Most likely Martin initiated the physical altercation. The result was Zimmerman on his back, possibly screaming for help, with a weapon within Martin's reach. Fear for your life is not unreasonable in this situation.
I'm kinda surprised this topic has made it through the night without wholesale deletions and a closing. Congrats to all the posters. But if you allow this topic to de-rail into a debate on race I can see cause for the mods to close it for being off topic. Sure some, even myself believe that Jessie and Fat Al, along with Crump introduced the 'race card' in this case, but that isn't what the case is about, in court anyway.
Ah, yes, ol' Crump.
Way back in the beginning, Crump was a guest on O'Reilly. O thanked him for being on and called him a "stand up guy". That's when I knew O was hitting the bong. Crump has been nothing but a slobbering fool from the beginning.
Every legitimate question asked is not about the Race Card. When are we going to stop getting hamstrung by political correctness? It was a legitimate question considering this trial is about race.
Some are. Some aren't. Death Row is a good example. Many have IQs far below average, and some have high IQs far above average and even above Mensa level.
Emotions are involved in such a situation as following someone on a dark, rainy night and CANNOT be disregarded. If you have ever met a person who has no emotions, you should be very, very afraid of them! Fear is an EMOTION. Zimmerman certainly provoked fear in Martin. He indicated fear when he was talking to his friend Rachel on the phone. NO, I do not discount her testimony. IMO, having watched and participated in LOTS of trials, she was genuine and believable. Not everybody's "cup of tea" I understand, yet she was, IMO, believable. And Zimmerman even claims as his defense FEAR.
Stupidity and IQ are not alway synonymous with one another.. Have you ever known an idiot savant? In this situation, both men had the opportunity to escape, before any of it escalated.. Neither did.. In my mind that is a prime example of stupidity..
Every legitimate question asked is not about the Race Card. When are we going to stop getting hamstrung by political correctness? It was a legitimate question considering this trial is about race.
Yes, how many black on black crimes get this attention?
All I will add is anyone who has watched this trial and still thinks there should be a conviction is blinded by something.
Please, when the preponderance supports the innocence of the accused it does much more than support reasonable doubt.
The preponderance of the evidence shows Z acted in self-defense. That is a higher level of evidence required than simple reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not even have the preponderance of the evidence in their favor and the defense has just started their case.
Whogo, you need to do some legal research. A preponderance of evidence is the standard of proof in civil case, which involve MONEY as punishment, that's why it's a lower standard (they meaning the U.S. Rules of Court) of proof.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a much higher standard because in criminal cases if convicted you LOSE YOUR FREEDOM. Much bigger deal than losing money.
"The rules of civil procedure used by all U.S. Courts require that a plaintiff prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. This roughly means a greater than 50% chance, based on all the reasonable evidence, that the defendant did the wrong that caused the damage.
The defendant doesn't have to do anything to defend their case if the plaintiff fails to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
However, in criminal law there is a much higher burden. The prosecutor must prove that the accused did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This roughly means that there is a great likelihood the accused committed the crime.
Most courts refuse to attach any numbers to the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but some people believe it means 90%, 95%, or even 99% sure."
"This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings.
It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.
If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
