JackARoot

Phail, you didn't include Looking Glass - Brandi, You're a Fine Girl

Fock you, you nappin coffee-crotch spillin whining biotch

Fock you, you nappin coffee-crotch spillin whining biotch

Herb - Stash by Phish

My brother took me to see Alien in the theater when I was 11 and it freaked me out pretty good. Have to agree with Halloween. Also, I really liked The Thing (1982). I also thought Cape Fear (1991) was pretty scary.

Fock, no reason to have kids, he's already got a 3 year old to raise

Years ago, I was boarding a plane with Wifey, and my two oldest sons who were 6 and 2 at the time. Had to bring a car seat for the 2 year old, and everybody is visibly hoping we don't have the seats next to them. We find our row, wife and 6 year old are on one side of the aisle, me and 2 year old and car seat on the other side. A guy is in the window seat, I put the 2 year old in the aisle seat, and I take the middle seat. I'm a little self-conscious and am hoping my kids behave well. So, a few minutes into the flight, the guy in the window seat had ordered a cup of coffee, then fell asleep, then jerked awake and knocked the whole cup of hot coffee into my lap So, I was no longer worried about my kids' behavior for the rest of the flight.

I also get all of my dead children news from the Geek Club.

Too many changes to even put words to, but one thing I've noticed is that I drive alot more conservatively now. Whereas I might have been getting into it with a crazy driver before, I now stay out of it and don't worry as much if someone else is driving like a d1ck.

Funny, it seems the penalty for heterosexuality and celibacy is also death

That's turrible

I have to agree with Satisfaction ... I kinda consider this Satisfaction Part 2:

Well, it's still two-tiered even with stand your ground when you consider that the prosecutor is the official who decides whether or not to file charges. In most cases they are not going to file charges against a cop who shoots someone while on duty.

There's more to the "Stand your ground" law than just the proposition that you can stand your ground. It fundamentally shifted the burden of proof for a defendant claiming self defense, which took the pressure off of Z to testify to establish the requisite elements for self-defense.

You may think so, but we'll never know whether the jury would have agreed with you had this standard been in place. If it had, the defense would have been under greater pressure to put Zimmerman on the stand.

The real story in that case is the way the Florida legislature has messed with the traditional burden of proof when claiming self-defense. Under the common law and current Indiana law, a defendant who asserts self-defense has the burden to prove the elements of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the defendant almost always has to testify to explain why self-defense was necessary, why the amount of force used was reasonable under the circumstances, etc. But under Florida law, the defendant only has to create a reasonable doubt that he might have been defending himself. It really effects the jury instructions, and takes the pressure off of the defendant to explain his actions. There are hundreds of years of wisdom built into the common law regarding self-defense, and it should not be abandoned.

I've done a bit of research, and it does look like Florida implemented a lower burden for self-defense than the rest of the country. I haven't seen the specific statute, but some articles imply that the defense only has to convince the jury that there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in self-defense. In Indiana (and in common law, and most other states) the defense has to prove the elements of self-defense by a preponderance. Some jurisdictions even use a clear and convincing standard for self-defense.

It's possible that the law is different in Florida, especially with the "stand your ground" change. But I think you are stating the same thing in a different way. The defense has to prove the existence of the self-defense elements "by a preponderance of the evidence" - a standard that basically means more likely than not. I'm just saying that I would be skeptical as a juror if the defense is trying to rely on other evidence to meet their burden, when the best evidence the defense could present would be Zimmerman's statement about exactly what happened. They were trying to get this computer animation into evidence as Zimmerman's version of what happened, but the Judge denied that request. It looks to me like the defense is very worried about how credible Zimmerman would sound if he testified.

Yeah, I don't know all of the details about that, but I was surprised his taped statements were introduced. IMO it would have been much better to force him to take the stand from the State's perspective.

Well, the first step is whether you are charged under the circumstances. In most cases, the State would exercise their discretion and not file charges if they believe that you were defending yourself. But lets say you get charged, your attorney files a notice that you are claiming that the killing falls under the self-defense exception. Let's say there are no other witnesses to the incident. Under these circumstances, the burden falls on you to convince the jury that you were attacked, that you defended yourself, and that's the reason the person was killed. You're attorney would put in photos of your injuries, medical records for the treatment you received, and probably put you on the stand to explain what happened. Otherwise, the only evidence is what the State introduces, i.e. that the victim was stabbed with your knife, that you had the victim's blood on your hands, etc. In most self defense cases, you almost have to take the stand to explain why your actions were necessary. In Zimmerman's case, his defense team is trying to rely on the statements of other witnesses to establish the self-defense exception.

Must be a quirk in the Fla. statute stemming from the fact that Martin was a minor.

You can prove the elements of self defense through your own testimony by explaining exactly how you got into the situation, why it was necessary to defend yourself, and why the amount of force you used was reasonable under the circumstances. If you seem to be a credible witness and convince the jury that it was necessary to defend yourself, then you win. But it's the defendant's burden to prove this affirmatively, not the State's burden to prove he wasn't defending himself. I think Zimmerman has a major problem here by not taking the stand and explaining why his actions were necessary, but the defense may not have had much choice if they think that he wouldn't be a very credible witness.