17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[griffin]

In the words of Inigo Montoya:

" 'Evidence', 'Proven' You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean".

You deny Trayvon was caught with women's jewelry? That he vandalized property? That he fought? Etc.

 

[Fargo]

You deny Trayvon was caught with women's jewelry? That he vandalized property? That he fought? Etc.

That you can't tell the difference between denying something and saying it is unproven just highlights the catastrophe this thread is.

There is a not-so-subtle difference between saying:

1. That didn't happen.

and

2. Its not proven if that happened or not.

As I said, based upon your idea of "proven," George should be really sweating bullets.

I ask you once again: What burden of proof are you using and what rules of evidence in claiming that these things are "proven"?


Joe

 

[BigMatt]

What burden of proof are you using and what rules of evidence in claiming that these things are "proven"? Joe

Some of those items are on his school record. Is this not proof enough?

 

[Fargo]

Some of those items are on his school record. Is this not proof enough?

What standard of proof does the word of some florida school administrator acting as police/judge/jury/executioner with no oversight, no due process, no rules of evidence, and zero-tolerance policies meet?

Its not like we we ever see unreasonable/unjust school discipline ever.

I ask, just what burden of proof does the prima facia hearsay that is his school record meet?

Honest question.

Best,

Joe

 

[griffin]

We are all looking at the available evidence we have: Trayvon's record, video evidence, Zimmerman's testimony, physical evidence, timelines, reconstruction maps, audio recordings, witness testimonies, inter alia.

Are you confusing what we conclude based upon available evidence we have been presented with, with a court of law?

 

[Hornett]

I have mostly just been trolling in this thread, to keep up on developments.

But, in response to Fargo, there is no burden of proof or rules of evidence that will stand up to your line of logic.
You say that school administrators are untrustworthy based on the actions of a few based on internet articles.
Any profession, from judges, to pastors, priests, police... have bad representatives that would cloud any testimony.
I would like to turn the question around, what proof could possibly be provided that meets your rules of evidence?
I would say not even video evidence would be convincing enough.

 

[terrehautian]

Since the trial was supposed to start yesterday and there hasn't been a post saying it has, I take it has been continued?

 

[Expat]

Since the trial was supposed to start yesterday and there hasn't been a post saying it has, I take it has been continued?

jury selection i believe... along with general legal wrangling...

 

[DragonGunner]

Defense has video that T took himself of 2 homeless men fighting...T's voice can be heard, they are going to try and prove his voice on that video isn't the voice on the cell phone yelling for help. Don't know what the prosecuter is thinking on this case....its going to go badly for them...maybe all this is to tell Al Sharpton they tried.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have mostly just been trolling in this thread, to keep up on developments.

But, in response to Fargo, there is no burden of proof or rules of evidence that will stand up to your line of logic.
You say that school administrators are untrustworthy based on the actions of a few based on internet articles.
Any profession, from judges, to pastors, priests, police... have bad representatives that would cloud any testimony.
I would like to turn the question around, what proof could possibly be provided that meets your rules of evidence?
I would say not even video evidence would be convincing enough.

Don't be so hard on Joe. He has a valid point that what happens at school is established at the discretion of a school administrator without any requirement like being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court to the satisfaction of a judge and/or jury. Also significant is that while this is relevant to the situation in the court of public opinion as manipulated by the media, the fact that T is not an angelic middle school student who walks around with a halo hovering over his head is largely irrelevant to the trial. The point at issue is that Z claims self-defense. The monkey is on the prosecutor's back to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not a truthful claim, regardless of whether or not T is in fact a thuggish hoodlum.

 

[Fargo]

We are all looking at the available evidence we have: Trayvon's record, video evidence, Zimmerman's testimony, physical evidence, timelines, reconstruction maps, audio recordings, witness testimonies, inter alia.

And you think this proves your theory to what burden? Possible? Probable? Certain?

I grant you the 1st two but hold you far from the 3rd.

I have mostly just been trolling in this thread, to keep up on developments.

But, in response to Fargo, there is no burden of proof or rules of evidence that will stand up to your line of logic.
You say that school administrators are untrustworthy based on the actions of a few based on internet articles.
Any profession, from judges, to pastors, priests, police... have bad representatives that would cloud any testimony.
I would like to turn the question around, what proof could possibly be provided that meets your rules of evidence?
I would say not even video evidence would be convincing enough.

I think you miss the point of what I am saying.

Many in this thread throw things about as "proven" or "fact" when they are far from proven as facts. These things may be possible, they may even be likely or probable, but they are far from proven/certain/factual.

I want to know what level of certainty we are using here before we start referring to things as fact. More likely than not? Clear and convincing? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

What rules of evidentiary reliability are we using to establish these facts? Are we allowing sheer speculation in? Or do we require some level of established reliability?

I'm not imposing a burden of proof or rules of evidence, I just want to know what rules everybody who thinks stuff has been "proven" about T in this case is using.

Sure the school administrator is PROBABLY reliable, but what about the people upon whom he based his report? Sure they MAY POSSIBLY/PROBABLY be reliable but do we know? Or are we just going on what seems most likely?

Do we call things PROVEN based upon this?

Or are we objective about it and call them possible/likely/probable etc.

Best,


Joe

 

[Hotdoger]

Trayvon Martin justice group member tries to get onto George Zimmerman jury

Read more: Trayvon Martin justice group member tries to get onto George Zimmerman jury - NY Daily News

 

[Jerchap2]

The trial is FINALLY taking place. I see an acquittal. Time will tell.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The trial is FINALLY taking place. I see an acquittal. Time will tell.

I see a lucrative Jenny Craig endorsement....

 

[Fargo]

That article says Florida only has 6 person juries in Attempt Murder cases? That kinda surprises me but every state is different; Indiana would have a 12 person jury. Makes it easier on the state though.

 

[churchmouse]

Trayvon Martin justice group member tries to get onto George Zimmerman jury

Read more: Trayvon Martin justice group member tries to get onto George Zimmerman jury - NY Daily News

Saw this early this morning. There will be a hard road to get this man a truly fair trial regardless.

 

[jgreiner]

The trial is FINALLY taking place. I see an acquittal. Time will tell.

The burden is SQUARELY on the prosecution, they have to not only PROVE it was murder, but they ALSO have to prove there was no self defense.

 

[B-lou]

laws

Where does floridas "Stand your ground law fit into all this?" cause that was the original plea?....Bob

 

[printcraft]

Where does floridas "Stand your ground law fit into all this?" cause that was the original plea?....Bob

"Stand your ground" would not apply because Zimmerman was not able to flee and did not have the ability to flee.
With "stand your ground" you don't have to flee.


The stand your ground option was not available to Zimmerman as Trayvon was on top of him beating Zimmermans head against the concrete.

 

[churchmouse]

"Stand your ground" would not apply because Zimmerman was not able to flee and did not have the ability to flee.
With "stand your ground" you don't have to flee.


The stand your ground option was not available to Zimmerman as Trayvon was on top of him beating Zimmermans head against the concrete.

And I rest my case.
Argue this every way you wish......I would have busted "T" in this situation.