JackARoot

Let me give you an example of a self-defense trial that I won. My client was charged with domestic battery. It was alleged that he grabbed his girlfriend's wrists, then pushed down onto a bed. There was no injury alleged, but under Indiana law batter is "touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner" so if the State proved that he grabbed her wrists and pushed her, then he's guilty. But I had asserted self-defense, and I had my client testify about the missing piece - that reason he grabbed her wrists was that at the time she had grabbed his testicals. So I argued that the amount of force he used was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances in order to defend himself. He was 6'3", 250, and all muscle, and she was 5'3" 120 and I incorporated into the argument that if he had used an unreasonable amount of force that she would have been injured. But I had to put my client on the stand to explain why his actions were necessary.

It's the State's burden to prove that the defendant killed someone which isn't being disputed. Since the defendant is claiming the killing was necessary and justified under the self-defense exception, it's his burden to prove that.

All I'm saying is that self defense is what is known as an "affirmative defense". So when a defendant claims self defense, he has the burden to prove the elements of self defense. The defense tried to prove the elements through other witnesses. If I were a juror, I would have a problem with the defendant claiming that it was necessary to kill another human being, but then doesn't take the stand to tell me why it was necessary. You have the right to remain silent, but in a self-defense case you have the burden of proof, and I would expect the State to really hammer this point in closing arguments.

When you claim self-defense, that is an affirmative defense, so the burden shift to the defense to show that he was in fear, that deadly force was necessary, etc. If I'm a juror, I would want to hear Zimmerman's side of the story from his own mouth, not from other witnesses. I would want to be able to evaluate his credibility. Could be a big mistake not to put him on the stand.

Ummm, Maaam ... you're only allowed a fifteen shot clip

Wow, I was in law school from 90-94. Pretty much had my head buried in a book the whole time and wasn't paying much attention to music. I guess I didn't miss much...

Spermoff - Master Baiter

If you don't use an air mattress, then you definitely need a ground-pad. Here's an idea for a pretty sweet home-made ground pad - You just need a piece of foam rubber (like the kind used in a couch cushion) the size of your body. Take a sheet and sew it like a pillow-case so that the cushion fits inside. Works pretty nice and has the advantage that it doesn't have to be blown-up, can be rolled-up into a small space, and provides insulation if the ground is cold. Those air mattresses can be a biotch if the air is cold when you blow them up you'll be cold all night unless you do something like put a reflective blanket over it to keep the cold air from mattress from sapping your body heat.

Another point about pouring gasoline on a fire is that the flame can follow the fumes to the container the gas is being poured from

Bush and Bushier

It's a question of whether its worth your time to go to Court. Mainly you are hoping the cop doesn't show to Court and it will be dismissed. So you have to consider where the Court is. In Indy, cops show up about 50 percent of the time, but in smaller towns typically the police station is in the same building as the court and they show up nearly 100 percent of the time.

So if your 95% sure he didn't have the requisite intent, that should be reasonable doubt as a juror right?

Well, just look at the text of the statute I posted earlier. You have the requisite intent in order to commit a crime. Do your really think this kid intended to "cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service"? Because that is what the government has charged him with.

Newbie, you seem to be characterizing this a terrorist threat, but don't you have to put the comment into context? Its being made on Facebook to his supposed friends in the context of playing a violent video game. Who is he intending to threaten? If you look at the text of the TX statute, it really only applies if you are trying to place someone in fear that they are going to be harmed (which is a misdemeanor under the statute btw) or if you are trying to shut-down a public service such as transportation (i.e. threaten to blow-up a train and the gov't has to shut down the train system to check for bombs). None of this happened here. It was just a stupid distasteful comment which was meant as a joke and not intended to threaten anyone. Not a crime in my opinion Also, bail is not supposed to be punishment, it is only supposed to be used to insure you will appear in Court for trial. You are only supposed to be punished after you have been found guilty. Sounds to me like bail is being used in this case as a form of pre-trial punishment which is highly improper.

My main question is how do they prove that he intended to "(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service." From an offhand Facebook comment?

Here's a link to the Texas Statute: http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/2207.htm Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: (1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies; (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or (3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place; or (4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service. ( An offense under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (3) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (4) of Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree. I think this is seriously focked up. The State should have a big problem proving intent.

http://fox59.com/2013/07/01/bob-carter-tvs-sammy-terry-dead-at-83/#axzz2Xv0AodXO Host of a weekend horror movie show I used to watch as a kid

Actually my first time was her first time too. A girl I met on Spring Break in Florida It was pretty quick, but not bad. We ended up doing it again in short order. Also, a girlfriend in high school that I dated for several years. She said it hurt, but it got better in the future. None since then though.

Usually on Friday nights, I'll have a martini. I like Bombay Sapphire, dry, up. In the summer to lighten it up I forgo the olive in favor of a lemon zest twist.

AC/DC - Back in Black Rush - Moving Pictures Rolling Stones - Goat Head Soup Frank Zappa - Peaches in Regalia Blue Oyster Cult - Fire of Unknown Origin

My grandparents would make meals with a lot of fresh garden vegies - fresh corn off the cob, green beans, sliced tomatoes, onion, chili pepper, corn bread, fried chicken, cantaloupe, iced tea I always try to recreate this meal at least once per year.

Showering in the locker room is not gay as long as you stick to your business, get it done, and get your clothes on. But there's always that one guy that goes around doing everything naked after his shower ... now we know RP is that guy

I'd love it if the Pacers could get Oladipo, but he won't be available at 23.