Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) That's... that's not how a court of law works... It's the prosecution's job to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's story is untrue. It is the job of the defense to cast doubt on the case of the prosecution. You can't tell me that you've really entered into this conversation not only willfully ignorant of any facts, and unwilling to do any critical thinking, but also completely ignorant of the fundamental workings of the American legal system? Seriously... you made the statement "attacking someone" and I'm asking you to prove it, because the states already proven Zimmerman was in pursuit of Martin so in my book he is the aggressor. Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 From last page, post #2253 You'll have to pardon dog, he's too busy spewing to read anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 true, but someone just grabbing you , trying to subdue you would not really leave actual attack marks, but a person could still feel in danger for their life if someone (stranger) was trying to subdue them. Again, this isn't how a court of law works. It's not the defense's job to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman didn't initiate the physical confrontation with Martin. I can't believe I'm having to explain this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Again, this isn't how a court of law works. It's not the defense's job to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman didn't initiate the physical confrontation with Martin. I can't believe I'm having to explain this. ummm, did I even say what side I was working on? hehe Again, we the State have Zimmerman as the aggressor, hes chasing a man without provication so the Defense better have something to bolster their argument or G Zimmerman will spend time behind bars for manslaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 ummm, did I even say what side I was working on? hehe Again, we the State have Zimmerman as the aggressor, hes chasing a man without provication so the Defense better have something to bolster their argument or G Zimmerman will spend time behind bars for manslaughter The burden of proof is on the state, not the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 ummm, did I even say what side I was working on? hehe Again, we the State have Zimmerman as the aggressor, hes chasing a man without provication so the Defense better have something to bolster their argument or G Zimmerman will spend time behind bars for manslaughter How is it possible that you don't understand how a court of law works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 The burden of proof is on the state, not the defense. Its not over until the fat lady sings, and the jury hasn't even started deliberating yet puppet head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Reading on Twitter that CNN showed a police narrative report document this morning that included Zimmerman's DOB and SS#. And it's spreading around Twitter, so if you need a credit card and can't get one, there is a large number of people out there ready to help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Its not over until the fat lady sings, and the jury hasn't even started deliberating yet puppet head And that has exactly nothing to do with the burden of proof being on the state and not the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 How is it possible that you don't understand how a court of law works? awww come on man, give it a break, are you really trying that hard to make yourself look educated, good grief, of course I know how our judical system works, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Its not over until the fat lady sings, and the jury hasn't even started deliberating yet puppet head What the hell was this in response to? It's like you were asked what the capitol of New York is, and you went Wiggum and said, "My cat's breath smells like cat food." awww come on man, give it a break, are you really trying that hard to make yourself look educated, good grief, of course I know how our judical system works, lol You've clearly demonstrated otherwise. Else, how can you possibly be placing any burden of proof on the defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 And that has exactly nothing to do with the burden of proof being on the state and not the defense. not sure why this narrative was brought about to begin with puppet head, Tasker made a comment that hasn't been proven like it was fact which it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) not sure why this narrative was brought about to begin with puppet head, Tasker made a comment that hasn't been proven like it was fact which it is not. /facepalm It has everything to do with that narrative. Everything. It's the whole point. It's exactly how our legal system works. It doesn't have to be proven that Martin initiated the physical confrontation with Zimmerman. It simply has to be demonstrated that it reasonably could have happened as Zimmerman accounts it, casting any degree of reasonable doubt on the prosecution's assertion that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Unbelievable. Edited July 1, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) Following someone is not illegal. Attacking someone because they are following you is. what does this post say Tasker? has this been proven? no, Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 what does this post say Tasker? con has this been proven? no, So am I supposed to debate something again with you thats irrelevant to this case? It's interesting how you introduce assumptions that lack any factual basis as the foundation of your case for why Zimmerman is guilty, yet continue to ask if plausible defense scenarios can be proven. So I'm left to assume you either believe we currently have, or else that we should have, a system under which Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 what does this post say Tasker? has this been proven? no, So am I supposed to debate something again with you thats irrelevant to this case? Which renamed retard are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 what does this post say Tasker? has this been proven? no, So am I supposed to debate something again with you thats irrelevant to this case? Christ, you're thick. It's not my contention, it's the contention of the defense. And given the nature of our legal system, it doesn't need to be proven because the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Unbelievable. Hey, uhhh, he's intentionally saying ridiculous stuff to see how many people like will take the bait, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Christ, you're thick. It's not my contention, it's the contention of the defense. And given the nature of our legal system, it doesn't need to be proven because the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. so you want to argue hypotheticals ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 so you want to argue hypotheticals ? ... To echo Rob, "So, Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts