George Zimmerman Trial

[Irish Houstonian]

One wrinkle is that, as an affirmative defense, Zimmerman actually has the burden of proof on his self-defense claim.

So he's got the bloody face pictures, his testimony, testimony from treating physicians, and cross-examinations of law enforcement who saw his injuries at the scene.

Is that enough to satisfy his burden of proving he had a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury? I would say yes, but that's why they play the games.

 

[Emcee77]

Yup, that's bascially it. Although the "Stand Your Ground" concept is getting a bit more attention than it deserves. The actual defense is plain, vanilla, Self-Defense. "Standing Your Ground" is just a sub-topic within Self-Defense, meaning that you don't have to first look for a place to retreat before defending yourself with violent force.

So in theory, even in a non Stand Your Ground state, Zimmerman could still walk if he can show that he reasonably believed he couldn't retreat. (In addition to showing he reasonably believed he was under threat of serious bodily injury).

This, many times over. I've said that since this case first became big news. The issue here is really just whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in grave danger. I may misunderstand the facts, but at least under the facts as I understand them, if Zimmerman has a valid self-defense defense, he would have it in virtually any state. If he doesn't, same thing. Why? Because what happened, according to Zimmerman, is that he was following Martin because he believed him (apparently unreasonably, but who knows, and it doesn't matter) to be up to no good, when Martin suddenly turned and attacked him. Zimmerman, believing his life to be in danger, fired his weapon.

I mean, it's virtually undisputed that Zimmerman and Martin were in close physical combat. This is not a case in which, say, someone flashed a knife at the defendant from twenty yards away and rushed toward the defendant, and the defendant stood his ground and shot his attacker at a distance of 5 yards. In that case, the Stand Your Ground law would matter, because it would control whether the parties have to litigate whether the defendant could have run away rather than defend himself (in my hypothetical, he might have been able to, depending on other environmental factors such as whether the defendant was in an alley where there was nowhere to run, but in Florida he wouldn't have to if he didn't want to, no matter where he was). If Zimmerman can prove that he reasonably feared for his life, then he is innocent. Whether he believed he could retreat doesn't matter. I mean how are you going to believe you can retreat when a guy is holding you and punching you? It's just a matter of who the initial aggressor was ...

So why the eff has the media been talking about the Stand Your Ground law? I guess because it has been a problem in other Florida cases, but it's not a major deal here.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This, many times over. I've said that since this case first became big news. The issue here is really just whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in grave danger. I may misunderstand the facts, but at least under the facts as I understand them, if Zimmerman has a valid self-defense defense, he would have it in virtually any state. If he doesn't, same thing. Why? Because what happened, according to Zimmerman, is that he was following Martin because he believed him (apparently unreasonably, but who knows, and it doesn't matter) to be up to no good, when Martin suddenly turned and attacked him. Zimmerman, believing his life to be in danger, fired his weapon.

I mean, it's virtually undisputed that Zimmerman and Martin were in close physical combat. This is not a case in which, say, someone flashed a knife at the defendant from twenty yards away and rushed toward the defendant, and the defendant stood his ground and shot his attacker at a distance of 5 yards. In that case, the Stand Your Ground law would matter, because it would control whether the parties have to litigate whether the defendant could have run away rather than defend himself (in my hypothetical, he might have been able to, depending on other environmental factors such as whether the defendant was in an alley where there was nowhere to run, but in Florida he wouldn't have to if he didn't want to, no matter where he was). If Zimmerman can prove that he reasonably feared for his life, then he is innocent. Whether he believed he could retreat doesn't matter. So why the eff has the media been talking about the Stand Your Ground law? I guess because it has been a problem in other Florida cases, but it's not a major deal here.

So, it is up to GZ to prove he feared for his life and not the state to prove that he didn't? Just trying to make sure I fully understand where the burden of proof resides here.

 

[GoIrish41]

I mean I might be WAY off here on my understanding of the facts of this case... but for starters, I'm 99.9% sure that there are photos of Zimmerman injured (with blood on his head and stuff) and that the whole racism angle vis a vis the 911 call was debunked because what it was initially thought he said probably wasn't what he said.

So unless they can prove that he drew first blood and assaulted Martin first OR that his injuries were not caused by Martin... I don't see how as a juror you could convict him.

What we do know is that Zimmerman was armed and Martin wasn't. We know that when Zimmerman made the 9-1-1 call, the dispatcher told him NOT to follow Martin, but yet he continued to follow him. From an outsider looking in, it looked like Zimmerman was the one looking for trouble. Martin also had the right to defend himself. IMO it will be difficult for Zimmerman to prove that he didn't provoke the entire confrontation in the first place.

 

[Irishnuke]

As others have said, there will be riots if he walks. Considering the jury knows this and are from the area, they won't let this happen. From what's been reported, the evidence isn't going to be concrete one way or the other. This is going to work against Zimmerman.

You're shitting me? Why even have the trial then if the jury already has their minds made up because of the potential of having a riot? Why don't they just lock him up for life for a crime that he potentially may not have done so that some black guys don't get angry? Your logic is f'ed.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Isn't the kid the person who was in self defense mode?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

So, it is up to GZ to prove he feared for his life and not the state to prove that he didn't? Just trying to make sure I fully understand where the burden of proof resides here.

Yup. Burden is on state to show Zimmerman killed him, etc., and burden is on Zimmerman to prove Self-Defense.

 

[Emcee77]

So, it is up to GZ to prove he feared for his life and not the state to prove that he didn't? Just trying to make sure I fully understand where the burden of proof resides here.

Right, as Houstonian said. The State has to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (which it can do ... GZ won't dispute that he killed Martin). The defendant has to prove any affirmative defenses -- i.e. any defense in which a defendant admits that he committed the conduct he is accused of committing, but that he was justified in committing it. GZ will admit that he killed Martin, but say he was justified because he believed his life was in danger.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Isn't the kid the person who was in self defense mode?

It's not mutually exclusive -- they both could have reasonably believed they were in danger, meaning neither of them would be guilty. Rare but possible.

 

[Irishnuke]

Isn't the kid the person who was in self defense mode?

Who knows? GZ said the kid attacked him.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

It's not mutually exclusive -- they both could have reasonably believed they were in danger, meaning neither of them would be guilty. Rare but possible.

Who knows? GZ said the kid attacked him.

I honestly haven't followed the details of the case but it sounds like GZ made a mistake (whether that is a crime or not) and a kid died.

And once again the situation is really about an entirely different issue...

 

[pumpdog20]

You're shitting me? Why even have the trial then if the jury already has their minds made up because of the potential of having a riot? Why don't they just lock him up for life for a crime that he potentially may not have done so that some black guys don't get angry? Your logic is f'ed.

It's certainly a possibilty, and with social media, the ones who want to riot are going to be able to organize fairly well. It's a generous consensus, even on this thread, that there will be riots if he walks. Without concrete evidence on either side, and the media race-baiting the entire thing, this has the potential to be very dangerous. If you don't think that's on the jury's mind, well you live in a fantasy land.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

To be honest, were I a juror, and after the trial I felt he was not guilty, I would let Orlando riot its a$$ off before I sent what I thought was an innocent man to prison.

 

[Emcee77]

To be honest, were I a juror, and after the trial I felt he was not guilty, I would let Orlando riot its a$$ off before I sent what I thought was an innocent man to prison.

Yes, good Lord I hope so. The jurors have absolutely no right to convict Zimmerman because they are afraid there might be riots if they don't. Their job is to determine what happened on the day Trayvon Martin was killed, and that's all.

 

[Jerry]

What we do know is that Zimmerman was armed and Martin wasn't. We know that when Zimmerman mad the 9-1-1 call, the dispatcher told him NOT to follow Martin, but yet he continued to follow him. From an outsider looking in, it looked like Zimmerman was the one looking for trouble. Martin also had the right to defend himself. IMO it will be difficult for Zimmerman to prove that he didn't provoke the entire confrontation in the first place.

See IMO I think he probably did provoke the entire confrontation by following him. But it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove his story untrue. There is a time lapse from when Martin hangs up with his girlfriend to where witnesses hear them fighting. During that time the only living witness is GZ and I'm not sure how anybody proves anything during that time, so that leaves benefit of the doubt in GZ's favor IMO.

 

[Booslum31]

Yes, good Lord I hope so. The jurors have absolutely no right to convict Zimmerman because they are afraid there might be riots if they don't. Their job is to determine what happened on the day Trayvon Martin was killed, and that's all.

If GZ is not convicted I'm afraid that there will be rioting and would be willing to bet that some people will get hurt. It's disappointing that some folks don't trust the judicial system...they've been programed not to. I don't think that there is enough evidence to put GZ in the pokie but the jury could fear for their own safety or fear that the town will get torn up. This might be at the back of their mind if it's a tough decision. Nothing like a good reason to go out shopping...er...looting. I pray not.

 

[Redbar]

We are going to wait on the facts and give GZ the benefit of the doubt but we are sure there will be rioting and looting if he's innocent. OK.

If GZ has injuries it would matter not to me, as I see it TM was probably standing his ground against a man following him acting suspicious toward him and armed. I'm not a lawyer but whether GZ "feared" he was in danger does not usurp TM's right to be "afraid" of an armed man following him in a car. Please tell me where I am wrong. Or is stand your ground only provided to the neighborhood watch?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

We are going to wait on the facts and give GZ the benefit of the doubt but we are sure there will be rioting and looting if he's innocent. OK.

If GZ has injuries it would matter not to me, as I see it TM was probably standing his ground against a man following him acting suspicious toward him and armed. I'm not a lawyer but whether GZ "feared" he was in danger does not usurp TM's right to be "afraid" of an armed man following him in a car. Please tell me where I am wrong. Or is stand your ground only provided to the neighborhood watch?

Unfortunately, "stand your ground' only applies to people who are alive and can tell their side of the story.

 

[Redbar]

Unfortunately, "stand your ground' only applies to people who are alive and can tell their side of the story.

So the moral of the story and the logical conclusion to "stand your ground" is have the quickest draw and make sure you hit vitals. We are going backwards. Evolution is a linear concept why are we doubling back on covered ground? Do we really think Billy the Kid had it right?

 

[Emcee77]

We are going to wait on the facts and give GZ the benefit of the doubt but we are sure there will be rioting and looting if he's innocent. OK.

If GZ has injuries it would matter not to me, as I see it TM was probably standing his ground against a man following him acting suspicious toward him and armed. I'm not a lawyer but whether GZ "feared" he was in danger does not usurp TM's right to be "afraid" of an armed man following him in a car. Please tell me where I am wrong. Or is stand your ground only provided to the neighborhood watch?

Unfortunately, "stand your ground' only applies to people who are alive and can tell their side of the story.

Ha, that's one way of putting it. Of course it's true that Martin's rights are not at issue because he has passed away. We don't have to figure out whether Martin could have used a self-defense defense if he had killed Zimmerman.

We still don't know exactly what happened, and may never know for sure, but Redbar, where you are wrong is where you suggest that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him. That's not a good enough reason. You have to have reason to fear for your safety, and it has to be more concrete than just that some guy was creeping you out by following you. If Martin was really creeped out, he should have called the cops so they could investigate.

But those may not be the actual circumstances. It's likely that Zimmerman did something more to provoke a confrontation than simply follow Martin. We know that Zimmerman was under the delusion that he was some kind of cop; he may have even sought to physically restrain and "arrest" Martin. If so, then AT THAT POINT, Zimmerman loses the right to defend himself. So that's likely to be a critical issue ... was Zimmerman the initial aggressor? Or was Martin the initial aggressor? If it was Zimmerman, then he was not justified in defending himself. If it was Martin, then we can move on to other issues, like whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force even though Martin, by all appearances, threatened Zimmerman with only non-deadly force.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

So the moral of the story and the logical conclusion to "stand your ground" is have the quickest draw and make sure you hit vitals. We are going backwards. Evolution is a linear concept why are we doubling back on covered ground? Do we really think Billy the Kid had it right?

It may not be right, but it's the way it is. When I took a conceal/carry course in Fla the instructor made 2 things very clear: only pull your gun if you feel you are in danger for your life, and, you had better "incapacitate" the person and claim self defense before they do the same to you.

 

[Irishnuke]

To be honest, were I a juror, and after the trial I felt he was not guilty, I would let Orlando riot its a$$ off before I sent what I thought was an innocent man to prison.

This is the only answer. Your job as a juror is to determine innocence or guilt based on evidence presented in court. That's it.

 

[Redbar]

Ha, that's one way of putting it. Of course it's true that Martin's rights are not at issue because he has passed away. We don't have to figure out whether Martin could have used a self-defense defense if he had killed Zimmerman.

Well then the moral of the story is to apply force liberally.

We still don't know exactly what happened, and may never know for sure, but Redbar, where you are wrong is where you suggest that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him.

I am not suggesting TM was right in attacking GZ, because I don't know that he did that at all. I doubt he did that honestly.

That's not a good enough reason.

What's a good enough reason to shoot somebody? Obviously being black and wearing a hoodie.

You have to have reason to fear for your safety, and it has to be more concrete than just that some guy was creeping you out by following you.

How about some guy is creeping me out because he is black and he's in my neighborhood?

If Martin was really creeped out, he should have called the cops so they could investigate.

Then kill him before they get there, like GZ did?.

But those may not be the actual circumstances. It's likely that Zimmerman did something more to provoke a confrontation than simply follow Martin. We know he was under the delusion that he was some kind of cop; he may have even sought to physically restrain and "arrest" Martin. If so, then AT THAT POINT, and at that point only, Zimmerman loses the right to defend himself. So that's likely to be a critical issue ... was Zimmerman the initial aggressor? Or was Martin the initial aggressor? If it was Martin, then we can move on to other issues, like whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force even though Martin, by all appearances, threatened Zimmerman with only non-deadly force.

I am not trying to be argumentative Emcee I appreciate the legal perspective, but IMO this illustrates the flawed logic and philosophy behind the law.

 

[Redbar]

It may not be right, but it's the way it is. When I took a conceal/carry course in Fla the instructor made 2 things very clear: only pull your gun if you feel you are in danger for your life, and, you had better "incapacitate" the person and claim self defense before they do the same to you.

My instructor in Louisiana told us the same thing. Especially the "incapacitate" part.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

We are going to wait on the facts and give GZ the benefit of the doubt but we are sure there will be rioting and looting if he's innocent. OK.

If GZ has injuries it would matter not to me, as I see it TM was probably standing his ground against a man following him acting suspicious toward him and armed. I'm not a lawyer but whether GZ "feared" he was in danger does not usurp TM's right to be "afraid" of an armed man following him in a car. Please tell me where I am wrong. Or is stand your ground only provided to the neighborhood watch?

Finding Zimmerman not guilty of murder does not necessarily "usurp" any of Martin's rights. It's possible they were both acting reasonably under the penal code. (Or they could both be guilty -- that's actually a pretty common occurrence.)

So it's not a zero-sum game, where Zimmerman's acquittal implies Martin's guilt, and vice versa.

 

[Emcee77]

I am not trying to be argumentative Emcee I appreciate the legal perspective, but IMO this illustrates the flawed logic and philosophy behind the law.

Oh I know, and I don't want to seem to defend Zimmerman. I think he is probably guilty. I'm just kind of playing devil's advocate and pointing out what facts will have to be found before we can guess what the verdict will be.

 

[IrishInFl]

Guilty, no trial needed.

 

[connect the dots]

There will be blood

There will be blood

This case will be tried inside a central Florida courtroom, and not outside. Should George Zimmerman be acquitted of second degree murder, rioting and looting is not a foregone conclusion. However, it is a scenario wrongfully embedded in the minds of some Irish Envy posters. What I can say with certainty, George Zimmerman will not testify in his own defense.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

This case will be tried inside a central Florida courtroom, and not outside. Should George Zimmerman be acquitted of second degree murder, rioting and looting is not a foregone conclusion. However, it is a scenario wrongfully embedded in the minds of some Irish Envy posters. What I can say with certainty, George Zimmerman will not testify in his own defense.

No, he bascially has to. Otherwise there will be very, very little evidence substantiating that Zimmerman believed he was in grave danger...

 

[Redbar]

Finding Zimmerman not guilty of murder does not necessarily "usurp" any of Martin's rights. It's possible they were both acting reasonably under the penal code. (Or they could both be guilty -- that's actually a pretty common occurrence.)

So it's not a zero-sum game, where Zimmerman's acquittal implies Martin's guilt, and vice versa.

In theory it is not a zero sum game, in a classroom it's not a zero sum game, in the court room maybe not a zero sum game, but in reality one of the guys was packing and it was very much a zero sum game. All of TM's rights were usurped. Possessing deadly force changes the equation and should require MORE care and caution not less. Don't know why people can't see that.