Zimmerman trial

[LdiJ]

I agree, but there is no evidence to support the claim that M feared for his life, but there is evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman did. That's the crux of the case. The prosecution lacked the evidence to refute the self-defense claim. None of the other issues people bring up are legally relevant.

Why is "mar_tin" replaced with ******?

Its something that probably shouldn't be discussed publicly.

 

[TheGeekess]

I agree, but there is no evidence to support the claim that M feared for his life, but there is evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman did. That's the crux of the case. The prosecution lacked the evidence to refute the self-defense claim. None of the other issues people bring up are legally relevant.

Why is "mar_tin" replaced with ******?

He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named caused that.

 

[tranquility]

The bottom line is that the facts clearly raise self-defense even if you believe Zimmerman did stalk TM, and self-defense applies to both murder and manslaughter. So there are really only two issues in this case. 1) Was GZ justified in that very moment to pull the trigger to kill TM? and 2) if the answer is yes then did any of GZ's actions leading up to that point negate his ability to claim self-defense?

At http://www.volokh.com there are many reasonable discussions on the legal issues. (Including a correction on what I said earlier. Apparently, a large majority of states are of the same rule as"stand your ground.

The specific issue of the lack of a provocation instruction is at http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/15/new-york-times-editorial-vs-news-analysis/

 

[You Are Guilty]

And now straying from the original question.... the prosecution certainly did a competent job and no one can argue that they botched this case.

Well, the detective's testimony you cited is a pretty bad mistake. Asking for a third-degree murder charge was also boneheaded. I also submit that whoever prepped Rachel Jeantel for Day 1 should look into a new profession.

 

[NC Aggie]

Well, the detective's testimony you cited is a pretty bad mistake. Asking for a third-degree murder charge was also boneheaded. I also submit that whoever prepped Rachel Jeantel for Day 1 should look into a new profession.

I have to disagree with you here, I think she is who she is. I don't quite get the criticism that so many people have given her. I think people forget that she's still a teenager and she has a uniquely different ethnical and cultural background than the typical American. This doesn't excuse her abrasiveness on the stand, it just helps explains who she is and how she came across to some poeple. But because of the "perception" that mainstream has about her background/education/etc., this somehow automatically makes her "untrustworthy"?

 

[tranquility]

Well, the detective's testimony you cited is a pretty bad mistake. Asking for a third-degree murder charge was also boneheaded. I also submit that whoever prepped Rachel Jeantel for Day 1 should look into a new profession.

How long would it have taken to "prep" Ms. Jeantel? Her testimony was as the prosecution expected and desired. Her presentation was....something that is not going to be fixed with a bit more prep.

 

[Just Blue]

I have to disagree with you here, I think she is who she is. I don't quite get the criticism that so many people have given her. I think people forget that she's still a teenager and she has a uniquely different ethnical and cultural background than the typical American. This doesn't excuse her abrasiveness on the stand, it just helps explains who she is and how she came across to some poeple. But because of the "perception" that mainstream has about her background/education/etc., this somehow automatically makes her "untrustworthy"?

I disagree with you, ))

She was rolling her eyes. Her demeanor was disrespectful. She, seemingly, did not care. She, as TM last contact before he was shot and as his friend, was an important witness. But she just seemed to NOT care.

At 19 I can't believe she "didn't get" the importance of her roll in the case.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Having prepped my fair share of moron witnesses, there is always the chance that one still says something stupid no matter how many times you practice or how long you spend with them. But what's telling is how much she "straightened up" on Day 2. Obviously, something happened after court recessed the first day. (My money is on a lot of yelling by the prosecutors).

Unless maybe her background/education only influences her in-court behavior on odd-numbered days?

 

[NC Aggie]

I disagree with you, ))

She was rolling her eyes. Her demeanor was disrespectful. She, seemingly, did not care. She, as TM last contact before he was shot and as his friend, was an important witness. But she just seemed to NOT care.

At 19 I can't believe she "didn't get" the importance of her roll in the case.

People's perceptions are theirs and we can't always control other people's perception...mines happens to be different than yours. I took her demeanor as a direct response to the defense attorney, not as disrespect to the court or lack of caring. Not to excuse her demeanor towards Don West but I understood why her demeanor towards him was such. As the cross examination progressed, I perceived a lot of her responses and the manner in which she responded to be more of a reflection of her agitation and annoyance with Don West and the defense as a whole. For someone who might not fully understand the court system or having never participated in it, there are elements of it that might seem redundant. When I first watched her testimony, the only criticism I had was her immaturity (not thinking at the time she was 19) but later realizing that she was much younger than I had unconsciously assumed.

 

[Just Blue]

People's perceptions are theirs and we can't always control other people's perception...mines happens to be different than yours. I took her demeanor as a direct response to the defense attorney, not as disrespect to the court or lack of caring. Not to excuse her demeanor towards Don West but I understood why her demeanor towards him was such. As the cross examination progressed, I perceived a lot of her responses and the manner in which she responded to be more of a reflection of her agitation and annoyance with Don West and the defense as a whole. For someone who might not fully understand the court system or having never participated in it, there are elements of it that might seem redundant. When I first watched her testimony, the only criticism I had was her immaturity (not thinking at the time she was 19) but later realizing that she was much younger than I had unconsciously assumed.

19 years old is not an "excuse" to be a disrespectful witness in a murder trial.
She is an adult. By EVERY standard.

 

[NC Aggie]

19 years old is not an "excuse" to be a disrespectful witness in a murder trial.
She is an adult. By EVERY standard.

Where in my response did I say it was an excuse?? I think the point I was trying to make is that by realizing her age I understood why she was immature. "Understanding" or "relating" to something doesn't equate to excusing or agreeing with it, it just means that I can step outside of myself and see something through the eyes of someone else.

 

[tranquility]

I disagree with you, ))

She was rolling her eyes. Her demeanor was disrespectful. She, seemingly, did not care. She, as TM last contact before he was shot and as his friend, was an important witness. But she just seemed to NOT care.

At 19 I can't believe she "didn't get" the importance of her roll in the case.

She said it was because she prayed over it and decided she owed it to Trayvon. She did not mention any yelling. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/16/rachel-jeantel-on-trayvon-******-friendship-he-never-judged-me/

 

[tranquility]

People's perceptions are theirs and we can't always control other people's perception...mines happens to be different than yours. I took her demeanor as a direct response to the defense attorney, not as disrespect to the court or lack of caring. Not to excuse her demeanor towards Don West but I understood why her demeanor towards him was such. As the cross examination progressed, I perceived a lot of her responses and the manner in which she responded to be more of a reflection of her agitation and annoyance with Don West and the defense as a whole. For someone who might not fully understand the court system or having never participated in it, there are elements of it that might seem redundant. When I first watched her testimony, the only criticism I had was her immaturity (not thinking at the time she was 19) but later realizing that she was much younger than I had unconsciously assumed.

My personal opinion is that West treated her very well considering all the ammo he had. He gave her a lot of time to tell her story and I think it hurt the defense. He could have shown past deception quickly in the hope of discounting all her testimony. By drawing it out, I think those who watched saw a consistent story from a person who was trying to be truthful but who had a different way about her than those in the courtroom.

 

[Just Blue]

She said it was because she prayed over it and decided she owed it to Trayvon. She did not mention any yelling. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/16/rachel-jeantel-on-trayvon-******-friendship-he-never-judged-me/

My personal feelings about this case are irrelivent. At the end of the day the FL Stat's "won".

FL. should look to change its laws. Between this case and the Casey Anthony case ...urgh.

I don't care if we have another Ice Age. I will never move to that State. IMO.

 

[tranquility]

My personal feelings about this case are irrelivent. At the end of the day the FL Stat's "won".

FL. should look to change its laws. Between this case and the Casey Anthony case ...urgh.

I don't care if we have another Ice Age. I will never move to that State. IMO.

This is what I sought from my original question. But, how should the law change? Not based on these facts alone, but to apply to all fact situations.