Yes and no. The state has the burden to prove all the elements of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt AND prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.
Thank you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes and no. The state has the burden to prove all the elements of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt AND prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.
Interesting. I don't think if I were Guy, I would want to close before a hungry and tired jury.
Their call, I guess.
It sounds to me like they're planning to deliver a verdict today.
IMHO
O/T
Yikes...you may want to see a different dentist because once they remove the nerve by doing the root canal the first time, there shouldn't be another root to remove. Sorry for your pain. Hate dealing with dental stuff.
There is no evidence of fear from TM.
Here we go with the feelings again.. Imagine, Feel, Emote.. Don't look at the evidence.
Thank you. This is what troubles me the most, I'm very disappointed that TM, the victim, has not only suffered from a lack of sympathy, he had been made out to be a malicious attacker when there's NO EVIDENCE he had even hit GZ. IMO.
GZ had some MINOR injuries, period. TM had *ZERO* DNA of GZ on him, showing that he didn't punch, slam or tussle with GZ. Yet most insist that the lack of this CRUCIAL evidence means *NOTHING* and continue to state as a FACT that TM slammed and punched GZ. IMO.
Finally, it isn't enough for self-defense if a fight or an attack takes place. The defense *MUST* prove *REASONABLE FEAR* for one's life. GZ's tiny injuries will not lead any reasonable person to believe that GZ would have died or sustained great bodily harm *IMMINENTLY* when he shot to kill TM.
These words are very important - *REASONABLE* FEAR FOR *IMMINENT* DEATH/GREAT BODILY HARM.
It is not enough that you're being attacked in some manner as fights happen all the time, every minute, everywhere in the world. If the fears are not reasonable, if great bodily harm is not imminent, then there's no legal, legitimate basis for KILLING another person citing "self-defense". IMO Otherwise, anyone can bring a gun along at any fight and then kill the other citing "self-defense", GZ being acquitted would set a chilling precedent. IMO.
GZ had every right to fight, as did TM, but did he have the right to kill?
:twocents:MOO
There is no evidence of fear from TM.
Here we go with the feelings again.. Imagine, Feel, Emote.. Don't look at the evidence.
Ow! You poor girl! That is terrible!No - the difference is if your wisdom tooth is impacted. Then you will get bruising and black eyes.
IMO
Kathi Belich, WFTV @KBelichWFTV
The state again is focusing on #Zimmermanon9 's statement rather than evidence of what happened.
IMO
I'm shocked its not necessary for Zimmerman to take the stand in a self defense case. It's unheard of where I come from.
Here in the United States it's okay to shoot someone who punches your nose and hits your head on the concrete. Self-defense.
IMO.
Seriously? The Pros is arguing for emotion over evidence!?
There is no evidence of fear from TM.
Here we go with the feelings again.. Imagine, Feel, Emote.. Don't look at the evidence.
YOU can bet those texts and emails prosecution managed to keep out speak VOLUMES.
IMO
Guy sounds schmaltzy and phony, imo, after hearing O'Mara's more natural, style and tone. Guy sounds rehearsed and stilted, and overly dramatic, imo.