Zimmerman trial

[Ladyback1]

No law enforcement officer ever told George Zimmerman to leave where he was at.


DC

In some jurisdictions 911 dispatchers are sworn officers. Furthermore, the 911 dispatchers work off a script! They are not autonomous, and are required to work within jurisdictional laws, any "advice" or "instructions" they give out are pre-approved.

For all any of us know, the dispatcher is a LEO, or had a LEO standing there while giving Mr. Zimmerman instructions.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

TM committed 2 criminal offenses during the school year, which the police did not prosecute because the chief apparently wanted to improve the school criminal activity stats. If the thug had been charged, he would likely have been incarcerated or home on probation. Further the prosecutor would not have been claiming how the poor black youth had no criminal record.

 

[LdiJ]

No law enforcement officer ever told George Zimmerman to leave where he was at.


Nonsense and completely unsupported by the facts.


I agree for different reasons. It is shocking that in 2012-13 so many people could be whipped into a racial feeding frenzy on such a crap story and still believe the lies after the truth has come out.

The kid died because he was a drug addled thug who savagely attacked someone. Fortunately that someone was armed.

DC

I find the bolded disturbing. My concerns have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with racism. I am a white, Anglo-Saxon (mostly) 56 year old woman. The fact that you would say the bolded statements indicates that you didn't follow the trial at all. My 77 year old white, Anglo-Saxon mother feels the same way I do.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

From an article by Jack Cashill

“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at ******’s data. He realized that ****** had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.

In each case, the case file on ****** was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of ******’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.

“Chief Hurley, for the past year, has been telling his command staff to lower the arrest rates,” confirmed another high-ranking detective.

I find the bolded disturbing. My concerns have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with racism. I am a white, Anglo-Saxon (mostly) 56 year old woman. The fact that you would say the bolded statements indicates that you didn't follow the trial at all. My 77 year old white, Anglo-Saxon mother feels the same way I do.

 

[Ladyback1]

From an article by Jack Cashill

“Oh, God, oh, my God, oh, God,” one major reportedly said when first looking at ******’s data. He realized that ****** had been suspended twice already that school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.

In each case, the case file on ****** was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was. As one detective told IA, the arrest statistics coming out of ******’s school, Michael Krop Senior, had been “quite high,” and the detectives “needed to find some way to lower the stats.” This directive allegedly came from Hurley.

“Chief Hurley, for the past year, has been telling his command staff to lower the arrest rates,” confirmed another high-ranking detective.

But, what was the young man doing the night he was killed??
What criminal acts was he engaged in? Prior "bad" acts do not indicate that the teen was engaged in criminal acts the night he was killed

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

But, what was the young man doing the night he was killed??
What criminal acts was he engaged in? Prior "bad" acts do not indicate that the teen was engaged in criminal acts the night he was killed

That was the juries job. Why do so many people second guess the people with the most facts, charged with administering the law?

 

[RedemptionMan]

But, what was the young man doing the night he was killed??
What criminal acts was he engaged in? Prior "bad" acts do not indicate that the teen was engaged in criminal acts the night he was killed

Misdemeanor assault and battery which got him killed....

 

[Ladyback1]

Misdemeanor assault and battery which got him killed....

I don't second guess this jury. They made a decision based on the information that they were presented. The prosecution did not do a good job, whereas the defense did.

But just as Mr. Zimmerman feared for his life, is it possible (probable) that the kid was also in feared of his life? Did he (Trayvon) not have the right to "stand his ground" and defend himself?

I think it's a tragic situation. I do not think it is a civil rights issue. I don't think it's a race issue.

I believe that Mr. Zimmerman was too gung-ho, and it resulted in the death of a teen, and a great deal of heartache for all the families involved.

 

[swalsh411]

But just as Mr. Zimmerman feared for his life, is it possible (probable) that the kid was also in feared of his life? Did he (Trayvon) not have the right to "stand his ground" and defend himself?

This speculation is not supported by the evidence presented to the jury. Z was clearly injured. M was not.

 

[Ladyback1]

This speculation is not supported by the evidence presented to the jury. Z was clearly injured. M was not.

One does not have to be injured to be afraid for their life.....

I think there was a lot of speculation on both sides.

The Prosecution failed miserably at proving their case. The defense did not prove innocence, they did provide enough information to support questionable doubt. The jury really had no choice.

 

[RedemptionMan]

One does not have to be injured to be afraid for their life.....

I think there was a lot of speculation on both sides.

The Prosecution failed miserably at proving their case. The defense did not prove innocence, they did provide enough information to support questionable doubt. The jury really had no choice.

He may have won his case but he has lost what little of his life he had left. Now his parents or whoever may be able to support him for the rest of his life but where does this guy go? He can not get a normal job anywhere, no one in their right mind is going to hire him. He wanted to be a cop so bad and even applied a bunch of places and they passed over him for a reason. Why? psych test, physical test? something is there? so now he can take what is left of his life and try to piece some sort of normalcy together. Like I said, he has given every normal CCW holder a bad name and it is not like we needed more negativity to affect the gun laws in this country. The family of Marten can get an injunction so that moron can never carry another firearm or at least get a CCW. I personally think people like him should not be able to get a CCW. He may have won but he lost his privacy and life forever just like Casey Anthony. What is in Florida that makes them let high profile morons like these walk? I just do not get it, but Zim can say all day he feared for his life, he used self defense or whatever but he will have to carry this with him for the remainder of his life which for me would be like prison. I would not want to be this dude for 10 million dollars or even 100 million.

 

[tranquility]

The prosecution, by all prior training and experience, was extraordinarily competent by any standard. "Competent" in this case is not alleged by anyone with knowledge or experience. Bias or political considerations, as alleged by some, is not incompetence. This was a special prosecutor. One who has pleased the Man for a very long time. You cannot blame the verdict on such a platforms

Again, what is fair?

Name the standard we must live by. Name THE LAW you think best. Once described, we might apply the facts to the law. Both in what Zimmerman did and in what we want people to do.

 

[davew128]

But just as Mr. Zimmerman feared for his life, is it possible (probable) that the kid was also in feared of his life? Did he (Trayvon) not have the right to "stand his ground" and defend himself?

No self defense law I ever read allows for escalation or disproportionate force unless grievous injury or life threatening situations are present. For your hypoethtical to be true, Zimmerman would have to be pointing his gun at ****** otherwise there would be no justification for ****** to be on top of Zimmerman punching his face and slamming his head onto the concrete except to force him to release the gun. I find that scenario difficult to imagine, as a more appropriate self defense posture would be to slam the HAND into the ground to force a release of the gun.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Getting back to the original question there are some things that look slightly "unfair" to me but it may just be that it is very different from what I am used to in a jury charge. I don't like how it instructs the jury to consider physical differences and abilities between the parties in determining whether self defense was justified. There are sooooo many specific things one can consider on this issue, it seems you either need to list them all or list none of them, otherwise you are singling out a specific piece of evidence and highlighting it for the jury, making it seem important. This instruction seems to favor the defense. I also find it strange how the charge seems to jump in and out on the issues of self defense and justifiable homicide. I'm used to charges that define the crime itself and everything about it and then explain how self defense (or another defense) excuse it. I suppose this favors the defense but mostly its just confusing. I also think that Florida's definition for reasonable doubt is terrible.

Ultimately these attorneys are very familiar with jury charges in their state and they are dealing with language that has been fleshed out and adapted over decades. They know how to try their cases around the jury instructions. Any "unfairness" in a proper jury charge (ie: no errors in the charge) becomes moot provided the attorneys are given sufficient time in closing arguments because they can go through the charge and fully explain everything. These attorneys definitely had sufficient time for closing.

And now straying from the original question.... the prosecution certainly did a competent job and no one can argue that they botched this case. They did make one egregious mistake by any standard when they waited until the following morning to request that the jury be instructed to disregard the Detective's testimony that he believed Zimmerman to be credible. That was a horrible mistake and it hurt their case. You try to object before the witness says something objectionable. If they do blurt it out you either get the instruction to disregard then and there or not at all. Waiting until the next day only lets it sink in long enough for you to REMIND them of it again. An instruction to disregard does nothing at that point and one of the jurors even said she considered that statement despite the instruction. The decision to request the instruction should have been an instant no brainer. You have to do it otherwise it becomes evidence and they can argue it as such. If the defense gets to state in closing that even the lead detective has a reasonable doubt.... then you are going to lose the case.

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?

There was literally zero evidence disproving Zimmerman's account that he didn't provoke the attack and was in fear of serious injury, which is what is legally required to be proven. Self defense cases are the hardest to prove because you have to prove a negative, that he didn't act in self defense. Sometimes it is just plain impossible to prove that negative but in order to do so you have to have affirmative evidence, and in this case it wasn't even close. The only thing strategically the State could have tried would have been to not admit any of GZ's statements. The defense can't admit them and it would likely force GZ to testify. That would have dramatically changed the way the case played out, but it still doesn't change the facts which frankly are terrible for the State. The ONLY thing the State could have done to win this case would have been to have picked a different jury. Not a better jury but a different one. I think the jury absolutely got this case right. Hypothetically there are other juries the State could have picked that would have convicted. That might have been "justice" for alot of people but I don't think it would have been even remotely consistent with the law or the facts.

Our justice system is not designed or equipped to right every wrong or punish every bad act. The system is based on the fundamental concept that people are not punished for what actually happened but rather what the State can PROVE actually happened. In filing these charges the special prosecutor violated her oath to seek justice and not merely a conviction. It was a political prosecution based on the public's perception of what happened, even though she had to have known pretty conclusively that she could never PROVE it actually happened. In actuality I think the defense did a pretty good job of proving that the public's perception of what happened was mistaken, or more specifically mislead

 

[swalsh411]

One does not have to be injured to be afraid for their life.....

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 ******?