Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!

Go back to your holiday Inn. Take a few courses. Talk to me when you have a clue and aren't talking out your ass about shit of which you clearly are ignorant.

The Smith case relates only to Federal law and, within that body of law, only tothe RICO Act. In Smith, the Court found that, while Congress could have assigned the burden to disprove specific affirmative defenses to the prosecution, it did not do so for the RICO Act and, more specifically, was under no obligation to do so for the specific affirmative defense alleged. At the same time, the SC made clear that Congress was certainly within its authority to do so.

Of course, Congress may choose to assign the Government the burden of proving the nonexistence of withdrawal, even if that is not constitutionally required. It did not do so here. “[T]he common-law rule was that affirmative defenses . . . were matters for the defendant to prove.” Martin, supra, at 235; see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 201 (1769). Because Congress did not address in 21 U. S. C. §846 or 18 U. S. C. §1962(d) the burden of proof for withdrawal, we presume that Congress intended to preserve the common-law rule. Dixon, 548 U. S., at 13–14.

In Florida, for Florida State crimes, guess what law applies --- HINT: It's Florida's. Guess who interprets Florida law? Hint: Their courts and they are located in Florida. Apparently, Florida has modified the common law rule referenced by the Supreme Court:

Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007)

In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.

Show me were Sipple has been overturned.

You want to quote cases at me, you better start bringing the A game and not some dumbass google search. Why don't you go google "heart surgery" and volunteer at Johns Hopkins tomorrow.

You are approaching G84C levels of ignorance.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!

LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses

OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.


Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

... Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you're made in this thread, saden.

Objective analysis, critical thinking and knowledge of the law have not been saden1's strong suits at any point in this thread.

Bias, demagoguery and ignorance, however ...

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.


Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden.

I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.

Let me simplify ... everything you have cited in support of your argument demonstrates your ignorance b/c they say the exact opposite of what you are asserting AND this is apparent to everyone here but you (and maybe G84C).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let me simplify ... everything you have cited in support of your argument demonstrates your ignorance b/c they say the exact opposite of what you are asserting AND this is apparent to everyone here but you (and maybe G84C).

You should consult your supervising associate/partner on this matter...perhaps they will be able to enlighten you.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.

lol, I'm just quoting websites you brought up yourself, thinking they would support your side. Guess what, they don't.

[724Skinsfan]

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.

That certainly is saden1's approach.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.

The most clear and concise statement of the case against Zimmerman.

[JoeRedskin]

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

You seem to ascribe all kind of bad thoughts to Zimmerman with little evidence, while saying you're positive the guy talking about "the creepy ass cracker" did nothing.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.