George Zimmerman is in police custody

[chobie]

Originally Posted by lillygator

I have to agree- especially out walking in the rain and someone you are not used to seeing in the neighborhood. I am no watchman, but I know the people who are normally walking around in the evenings and would be able to tell if we had new folks move in.

Right, but would you call the police just to report that a person you don't recognize is walking thru your neighborhood?

[LittleMermaidsMom]

Originally Posted by Wadecool

From the previously referenced link:

"Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added)."

http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_af..._materials.pdf

Originally Posted by sbell111

You still don't have it.

Once the defense raises the argument of self defense, it becomes the prosecution's burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ok, I found it now... looks like in FL the burden to disprove self-defense is on the state. I stand corrected.

[Wadecool]

Originally Posted by sbell111

You still don't have it.

Once the defense raises the argument of self defense, it becomes the prosecution's burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense has a burden of production, meaning they have to present evidence backing up their claim of self defense. As mentioned earlier, the burden of production is significantly less than beyond a reasonable doubt. You are correct that once the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[sbell111]

Originally Posted by LittleMermaidsMom

Ok, I found it now... looks like in FL the burden to disprove self-defense is on the state. I stand corrected.

Not just Florida.

[pirategirl34]

Originally Posted by chobie

Right, but would you call the police just to report that a person you don't recognize is walking thru your neighborhood?

I defintely would if there had been recent burgularies and the person fit the discription of the burglary suspects and was out at night in the rain.

[Elinor Dashwood]

Originally Posted by chobie

Right, but would you call the police just to report that a person you don't recognize is walking thru your neighborhood?

Probably, yes. If there had been numerous break ins and thefts, I would call in.

[LittleMermaidsMom]

Originally Posted by sbell111

Not just Florida.

I didn't say it was JUST in FL... boy, you really do love to argue

[Elinor Dashwood]

Originally Posted by LittleMermaidsMom

I didn't say it was JUST in FL... boy, you really do love to argue

Sustained! Just kidding.

Actually this thread is interesting, it's very insightful to see where people stand and the reasoning behind it.

[sbell111]

Originally Posted by LittleMermaidsMom

I didn't say it was JUST in FL... boy, you really do love to argue

I wasn't arguing, exactly. I merely didn't flesh out my response as well as I could.

You had posted the following: "looks like in FL the burden to disprove self-defense is on the state." I took this to mean that you believed that in some states the burden to prove self-defense would be on the defense.

I replied 'Not just Florida' because in all states in the United States, it is the prosecution's burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

[sunshinehighway]

Can someone explain how the self defense claim will work in the trial, in dummy terms?

I thought I understood it but, now I'm confused.

It is my understand that if the defense uses self defense, they have to put on some reasonable evidence to support their claim. Not that they have to totally prove beyond a reasonable doubt but, they have to have something to back up their claim. They can't just throw it out there and have nothing to back it up.

[djm99]

Originally Posted by chobie

Right, but would you call the police just to report that a person you don't recognize is walking thru your neighborhood?

I would call the police on someone walking in my neighborhood if the circumstances where that of Zimmerman (recent burglaries, 'fit the description') - yes. But would I follow them in my car, later get out of my car, chase him, shoot and kill him - NO!

[brunette8706]

Originally Posted by djm99

I would call the police on someone walking in my neighborhood if the circumstances where that of Zimmerman (recent burglaries, 'fit the description') - yes. But would I follow them in my car, later get out of my car, chase him, shoot and kill him - NO!

*
Wait a minute. You make it sound so cut and dry, he followed him, chased him then shot and killed him.

Let me ask you this if your head was repeatedly getting bashed on the cement and you had a gun would you "shoot" the person that was trying to kill you?

[Wadecool]

Originally Posted by sunshinehighway

Can someone explain how the self defense claim will work in the trial, in dummy terms?

I thought I understood it but, now I'm confused.

It is my understand that if the defense uses self defense, they have to put on some reasonable evidence to support their claim. Not that they have to totally prove beyond a reasonable doubt but, they have to have something to back up their claim. They can't just throw it out there and have nothing to back it up.

I don't have a J.D. but that is basically how it works. As outlined earlier, the defense has the burden of production to establish their affirmative defense, which in this case is self defense. At that point, the prosecutor has to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

[djm99]

Originally Posted by brunette8706

*
Wait a minute. You make it sound so cut and dry, he followed him, chased him then shot and killed him.

Let me ask you this if your head was repeated getting bashed on the cement and you had a gun would you "shoot" the person that was trying to kill you?

He wouldn't have the opportunity; I wouldn't have gotten out of the car in pursuit of him in the first place.

[sbell111]

Originally Posted by sunshinehighway

Can someone explain how the self defense claim will work in the trial, in dummy terms?

I thought I understood it but, now I'm confused.

It is my understand that if the defense uses self defense, they have to put on some reasonable evidence to support their claim. Not that they have to totally prove beyond a reasonable doubt but, they have to have something to back up their claim. They can't just throw it out there and have nothing to back it up.

You mean like a picture of your bloody head?