LOL AAHAHAHHAAAHHHHHAAA ooooHHHAAAAA OAOOAA AHHHAAAAH.

oh please stop I cant breath from laughing at you.

lets try a few actual stats.

In the 90's Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.

Lets contrast that with 8.1 per 100,000 for deaths from acidental falls and 10.3 per 100,000 for deaths from acidental poisoning. Thats right your more that twice as likely to eat drano and die than get shot.

And when you look at who gets shot outside of this case it is going to be people up to no good near 100% of the time.

ok you can get back to posting nonsense and trying to ride the coattails of tragedy to win political points.

I don't know, but I imagine the end result would look something like how Nicole Brown Simpson's Dad finally got OJ.

You forgot the part where we all secretly wish some vigilante-type would murder our children so we can get a big phat payday when <insert police department's name here> invariably fails to investigate properly.

First of all, could you explain the difference between 'good ole fashioned wealth redistribution' and socialism, as you see it?

And second, what is their end game?

OK, in the case of OJ,

1. There was a huge media circus and people proclaiming guilt.
2. OJ got the **** sued out of him.

So...what's the problem here? If it's OK for lawsuits to go flying for wrongful death in the OJ case amidst a media **** show, why is it wrong for Martin's parents to the same?

Lol, bolded is exactly how our system works. Did you not take a civics/American government class?

"It has long been established that “the burden of proof is never upon the accused to establish his innocense, or to disprove the facts necessary to establish the crime for which he is indicted. It is on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial, and applies to every element necessary to constitute the crime.” Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 487 (1895)"

BCPVP,

Self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning that the burden of proof is on the defense to prove that it was self defense. The state has the burden of proof to prove that Zimmerman shot Martin. If Zimmerman claims self defense, the burden of proof lies on him to prove it.

If you go around killing people, yes, the prosecution has to prove you did it. But if you go around killing people, confess to killing them, and then claim it was self defense, then you have to make a case that it was, because otherwise you proved the prosecutions case for them by confessing.

Ty. I couldn't remember affirmative defense for my life. Sam Waterston would skin me alive.

Actually, BCPVP is right, at least for Florida. The defense has to provide some trivial amount of evidence to the judge to convince the judge that self-defense isn't some crazy bull**** game the defense is trying to play. Once the judge allows for a self-defense argument to be used in court, it's up to the prosecutor to prove that the self-defense argument isn't valid. I don't think it will be hard for Zimmerman to assert self-defense given that he was injured during the fight.

ETA: Obviously the prosecutor won't have to prove who committed the homicide, that will be stipulated from the beginning. He will have to prove that this wasn't self defense.

It sure does look familiar, doesn't it? My point isn't about right and wrong, my point was about where this thing goes. Let me say it again, it isn't about justice.

Are you hinting, but not outright claiming, causality here? Because as you know there's been an overall drop in crime rates.

Foreign neurologists are still gobsmacked by the rate of spinal paralysis in the U.S., which comes directly from the cultural infatuation with handguns.

Maybe I misunderstood you. Did you think that suing OJ was good or bad?

lol the "law" is really like that in Florida? That is insane.

exsub's latest posts are really very disgusting. I really dont have to explain why im sure.

Yeah, I found it when BCPVP and I were discussing it last night. I was kind of shocked when I saw it.

So if I beat someone and he scratches me with his fingernail back, I can scream self-defense without demonstrating I was put in danger, then shoot him in the head?

I think you guys are finally getting to the bottom of this mess. First this poor kid's parents egregiously allow him to go into a 7-11 - alone! - for Skittles, then they seek recompense at the taxpayers expense. I think it's clear who the real killers are.

Surely all the evidence needed to go to trial is already in public domain? The only things in question is:

1, who started the fight
2, who was calling for help

If the prosecution can get a statement from the kid's mom that it was Trayvon calling for help and given the phone call where he continued to follow Trayvon even after being told not to there is surely enough evidence to satisfy that the self defence argument isnt clear and evident and that it should go to trial.

The only evidence in the public domain so far are the 911 calls from Zimmerman and neighbors, the call from Martin to his gf, and some vague descriptions of the wounds suffered by Zimmerman.

Martin's mom would say it was her son's regardless of whether it was or not so I don't see how anything she has to say is relevant. So far "audio experts" can't even definitively determine one word that Zimmerman said while actually speaking on the phone. I'd think it'd be even harder to determine with reasonable certainty who was screaming outside the house of a someone making a 911 call.

Oh, yeah I don't think a judge would throw the case out before trial based on a self defense, but I do think the judge will allow the defense to assert that this was a case of self defense to the jury. Once that argument is made, it's up to the prosecutor to prove that this wasn't self defense. It's the same thing in Washington State now that I'm looking into this further (which is so weird for Washington).

The prosecutor can go one of two ways as far as I can tell. He can try to prove that this wasn't self defense at all, which will let him make a strong case for 2nd degree murder, or he can try to prove that the force Zimmerman used wasn't necessary, which pretty much snuffs out any hope of anything above manslaughter.

It will be harder to prove this wasn't self defense than it will be to prove that Zimmerman used a degree of force well above what was required to defend himself.

Raimondo? Hmmm sounds hispanic. Clearly no racism here! Move along people

And that is something for the defence to argue at trial.

Try to contain your faux liberal outrage, Phill. No one would care about the death of this black kid unless they were trying to get paid.

I have to wonder about the admissibility of such "testimony".