Zimmerman Trial

#2,756
#2,756
If people riot, that would be the perfect time to declare martial law. It's starting to look like our government wants it. This case should of never hit trial, and the only reason it was due to media pressure. The police let him go in the beginning for a reason. I'm glad the liberal media failed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,757
#2,757
alexmanu said:
Do you want me to school you on evidential burden?

In self-defence cases in the UK, the evidential burden falls on the defendant and, if met, the legal burden falls on the prosecution.
Click to expand...

alexmanu said:
No they weren't. The burden of proof is placed upon the prosecutor in the majority of areas of law. Self-defence happens to be an area of UK law where the burden of proof switches to the defendant. You clearly know nothing.

And if we are such pu$$ys then why did we stand up to the Nazis before you lot decided to waddle in?
Click to expand...

SamRebel35 said:
Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing where the burden of proof is on the defense as you've been saying.
 
#2,760
#2,760
alexmanu said:
I take extreme offense to you referring to me as an inbred. My teeth are actually rather nice I'll have you know and I don't like tea. If by 'tyranny worshipping' you mean the Royal family, as I mentioned previously in this thread I am not a royalist.
Click to expand...

Why do you guys even have a queen? All royalty is a constant expense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,762
#2,762
alexmanu said:
I take extreme offense to you referring to me as an inbred. My teeth are actually rather nice I'll have you know and I don't like tea. If by 'tyranny worshipping' you mean the Royal family, as I mentioned previously in this thread I am not a royalist.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the royal family. I believe you worship tyranny as an ideal independent of the entity that may enforce it.
 
#2,768
#2,768
alexmanu said:
Look up evidential burden.
Click to expand...

Evidential burden is not the same as a burden of proof. A person accused of murder that argues self defense must provide evidence suggesting self defense, but that does not remove the burden of proof from the Prosecution.
 
#2,771
#2,771
SamRebel35 said:
Evidential burden is not the same as a burden of proof. A person accused of murder that argues self defense must provide evidence suggesting self defense, but that does not remove the burden of proof from the Prosecution.
Click to expand...

Ah I see you have spotted Lord Bingham's obiter dicta. And in any case the evidence you cited supports my main argument against hog88 anyway as he was insinuating that all cases in the UK place the burden on proof on the defendant. The evidential burden still needs to be met by the defendant in any case before the prosecution is given the legal burden of proof.
 
Last edited:
#2,773
#2,773
Nerwen Aldarion said:
I do, it's not pretty.

Yeesh the idiot who said that the jury should kill themselves needs to be steralized
Click to expand...

Ol roddy.

What I find so funny about this, is that this was never about race. Period. The blacks made it in to that, and then proceeded to get egg on their face when the verdict was read.

Keep showing TM as a baby in photos, and Zimmerman as a big bad gun toting bigot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,775
#2,775
Escape Goat said:
Ol roddy.

What I find so funny about this, is that this was never about race. Period. The blacks made it in to that, and then proceeded to get egg on their face when the verdict was read.

Keep showing TM as a baby in photos, and Zimmerman as a big bad gun toting bigot.
Click to expand...

The wise Goat has spoken!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top