George Zimmerman Trial

[Irish Houstonian]

..."In this case, they have to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt..."

Are you still willing to believe the prosecutors will get that far?

Well, your quote is a little inaccurate. Under Florida law the Defendant has the initial burden of making a prima facie case that the use of force was warranted in self defense. To make such a case, the Defendant has to have personally and reasonably believed that he was at risk of serious injury.

He can't make that case without taking the stand -- he can't introduce his prior statements because that's hearsay. So there isn't anything out there that can prove what he personally believed while he was being punched, other than his own testimony.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Wait a second IrishHoustonian, I see where you don't have any vbucks.... that's messed up.

That's why I said "every vbuck I ever get".

 

[Emcee77]

"..The defense doesn't have to present any evidence, any piece of paper, any witness including the defendant. It is all up to whether or not the State can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt," he said. "In this case, they have to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So if they get past all of that, such that we decide to put some witnesses on, we'll decide whether or not George should take the stand."
He noted that Zimmerman has already given several voluntary statements to police, "so all of that information is already out there."

Are you still willing to believe the prosecutors will get that far?

Lawyers have no plans for George Zimmerman to take the stand in Trayvon Martin murder trial

I don't know about this. This explanation is misleading. It's true that it's the State's burden to disprove self-defense ... but the initial burden is on the defendant to state a valid claim of self-defense. In other words, it goes:
--State has to prove Zimmerman killed Martin (no one disputes it); once it does, then -->
-- Zimmerman has to provide evidence that the killing was in self-defense; if he does, then -->
--State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim is bunk.

Unless the State introduces Zimmerman's prior statements to police during its case-in-chief (which they can probably do because they are non-hearsay admissions of a party-opponent), and those statements make out a valid claim of self-defense, Zimmerman must testify. I don't see how Zimmerman doesn't testify.

 

[Cackalacky]

Well, your quote is a little inaccurate. Under Florida law the Defendant has the initial burden of making a prima facie case that the use of force was warranted in self defense. To make such a case, the Defendant has to have personally and reasonably believed that he was at risk of serious injury.

He can't make that case without taking the stand -- he can't introduce his prior statements because that's hearsay. So there isn't anything out there that can prove what he personally believed while he was being punched, other than his own testimony.

The quote is accurate. His lawyer said it. Apparently from the last two responses either GZ's lawyer does not know **** or no one read the link. And they do not think the state can prove 2nd degree murder.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I agree with a lot of this. But I disagree that this case has nothing to do with race. If you need proof of that, just wait until the verdict is read and you see clips of black people celebrating/rioting and white people celebrating/rioting. Watch. It'll be OJ 2.0. Which is sad.

Had a black man shot Trayvon...you think that activists would be out there screaming for justice? You think Obama makes the comment about it? You think There are retaliation crimes? Not a chance in hell.

And while I disagree with some people's value on personal things...the right to DEFEND ones home and property, I don't disagree with. And it's really not about your things...when someone breaks into your home, it's about safety and protecting your family.

And why do you not call out the crimnal as valuing property that ISN'T his, as more important than his OWN life??!!?!?!? THAT IS THE QUESTION SOCIETY SHOULD BE ASKING.

(But I do understand your point, and respect your opinion)

Actually we probably are in agreement because of the parenthesis part about profiling. I agree that I don't care about the mechanisms involved in getting someone who shouldn't have had a gun in his hand, armed and looking for bear, or whatever he thought it was.

My point is there are two mentalities here. Not having respect for human life; and overvaluing the tangible. Which could include all property. If I see someone that is breaking the law, what do I do? Call the police.

I had a situation that I have related several times about a woman that was knocking a child who turned out to be her grandson into the shelves so hard at a Kroger store that I saw items move on the other side, next isle over. What did I do? I didn't shoot her, or kick her ***, both of which I could easily have done. I confronted her in a way that let her know I saw what she did, I called the police, (I had the manager at the front desk call), and that she better stop because I was reporting her a$$. No one got hurt.

I even hung around and got a lecture about how African-American's discipline their kids more harshly that Caucasians do, and most of the time they behave better than the spoiled brats that went to (of all places) St Johns HS. This poor deputy was trying to point out how the rich have their share of problems, but like most people that stereotype, he didn't have his facts straight. He was appealing to me as someone of a lower class, a regular guy, not one of those high-falutin' richies that send their kids to the expensive schools. It took me a minute to compose myself and during that time I am sure it looked like I was staring at him like he at a big bug. As I responded my daughter took three steps away from me, "It is interesting that you mentioned that, because I went to St Johns High School. And I will tell you that your entire spiel is the most superficial stereotypical pile of bull shiiit I have been asked to digest in a long time. I have never been anything but a model citizen, and as a mature, father of seven, I know the difference between disciplining a child and annihilating them. Please call your command officer." When the command officer came we went on for about 45 minutes more with this lady standing there with all melted ice cream and looking like she either wanted to jump in a hole or kill someone. I kept asking the command officer why if the deputies that responded were trying to diffuse the situation they were so condescending and insulting.

And this is my point. People look a real human lives like they were cardboard cutouts. They want to pigeon hole them, categorize them and write them off. If they can prove them bad and wrong, then they feel justified treating them as less that their property.

See the only thing I cared about in my situation was this six year old boy. I wanted him to be treated with love and respect. Now the chances are much greater, after years of having the shiit kicked out of him, he grows into a man and hauls off on his woman for "no apparent reason." Somebody will blame a video game, rap music or a movie, but wouldn't it be easier to take care of the problem before it becomes so big?

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Racists are going to stick together and stick by Zimmerman I guess...

 

[ACamp1900]

SMH...

 

[no.1IrishFan]

At the end of the day I think GZ will be found guilty. In the state of Florida it's illegal to follow someone in an attempt to arrest/detain them unless you personally witness them committing a FELONY.

TM commited no felony, therefore when GZ started chasing TM he became the aggressor and TM legally defended himself....until he was shot.

 

[GoIrish41]

At the end of the day I think GZ will be found guilty. In the state of Florida it's illegal to follow someone in an attempt to arrest/detain them unless you personally witness them committing a FELONY.

TM commited no felony, therefore when GZ started chasing TM he became the aggressor and TM legally defended himself....until he was shot.

I completely agree with this.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Hard for anyone to say they wouldn't do the same thing if they were in Trayvon's shoes. He was followed, tried to get away, and was confronted. Trayvon was standing his ground and was murdered doing so.

 

[FLDomer]

Hard for anyone to say they wouldn't do the same thing if they were in Trayvon's shoes. He was followed, tried to get away, and was confronted. Trayvon was standing his ground and was murdered doing so.

You were there? You have heard and seen all the evidence??

 

[Redbar]

You were there? You have heard and seen all the evidence??

I was not there, and have not seen all the evidence, but I am ab-so-lute-ly sure that there will be rioting and looting if GZ is found innocent. 100%, I am glad I don't live there and have started a novena for the people there.

 

[woolybug25]

And while I disagree with some people's value on personal things...the right to DEFEND ones home and property, I don't disagree with. And it's really not about your things...when someone breaks into your home, it's about safety and protecting your family.

And why do you not call out the crimnal as valuing property that ISN'T his, as more important than his OWN life??!!?!?!? THAT IS THE QUESTION SOCIETY SHOULD BE ASKING.

(But I do understand your point, and respect your opinion)

Serious question... do you see this as Zimmerman protecting HIS property? The reason I ask is that he was admittingly stalking a child (by legal definition) that was committing no crime for simply looking suspiscious. He was stalking him on a public street in which he was walking. Sure, Zimmerman lives in the neighborhood, but TM was not on his property, he wasn't breaking into his property. He was not confronting Zimmerman while in the act of committing a crime.

If anything, it has always seemed to me that TM confronted a man that was pursuing him for reasons unknown to him. For all practical purposes, it seems as though TM was the one protecting himself, and instead of taking a beating for his actions, he chose to kill another person.

I try to put myself in TM's shoes. What would I do if I realized that a strange man was stalking me as I walked home? I believe that I would confront him, and if he continued to pusue me, I would defend myself.

 

[Emcee77]

Hard for anyone to say they wouldn't do the same thing if they were in Trayvon's shoes. He was followed, tried to get away, and was confronted. Trayvon was standing his ground and was murdered doing so.

The problem with this case is that we just don't know what happened. Zimmerman supporters want to believe that Martin saw Zimmerman following him and decided to attack him, otherwise unprovoked. Martin supporters want to believe that Zimmerman not only followed Martin but confronted him, provoking Martin's attack in self-defense. I see a lot of assumptions in this thread about what happened; the above-quoted post is just one example. But we're having a trial because we don't know what happened. We'll have to see what Zimmerman says on the stand and how he reacts to cross-examination from the prosecutor, and we'll have to see what other evidence is introduced. I don't understand why so many people ON BOTH SIDES seem to think they know what happened in this case before we've gotten to that point.

 

[ACamp1900]

The problem is we have a bunch of asshats who fall under Zimmerman supporters or Martin supporters...

Two people at my work just got in a big argument over this BS... neither knew their *** from their elbow... sounds familiar. When I tried to step in and state that we should just let the thing play out and see both basically accused me of supporting the other... unreal.

What really strikes me is how many people have this case solved from beginning to end… why even have a trial??

 

[FLDomer]

Serious question... do you see this as Zimmerman protecting HIS property? The reason I ask is that he was admittingly stalking a child (by legal definition) that was committing no crime for simply looking suspiscious. He was stalking him on a public street in which he was walking. Sure, Zimmerman lives in the neighborhood, but TM was not on his property, he wasn't breaking into his property. He was not confronting Zimmerman while in the act of committing a crime.

If anything, it has always seemed to me that TM confronted a man that was pursuing him for reasons unknown to him. For all practical purposes, it seems as though TM was the one protecting himself, and instead of taking a beating for his actions, he chose to kill another person.

I try to put myself in TM's shoes. What would I do if I realized that a strange man was stalking me as I walked home? I believe that I would confront him, and if he continued to pusue me, I would defend myself.

Two quick points it was in a Gated Community so it was not public property, but association property. GZ was appointed by the Association to be head of the neighborhood watch and he was watching the neighborhood (maybe a little to closely)

 

[PANDFAN]

The problem with this case is that we just don't know what happened. Zimmerman supporters want to believe that Martin saw Zimmerman following him and decided to attack him, otherwise unprovoked. Martin supporters want to believe that Zimmerman not only followed Martin but confronted him, provoking Martin's attack in self-defense. I see a lot of assumptions in this thread about what happened; the above-quoted post is just one example. But we're having a trial because we don't know what happened. We'll have to see what Zimmerman says on the stand and how he reacts to cross-examination from the prosecutor, and we'll have to see what other evidence is introduced. I don't understand why so many people ON BOTH SIDES seem to think they know what happened in this case before we've gotten to that point.

 

[woolybug25]

Two quick points it was in a Gated Community so it was not public property, but association property. GZ was appointed by the Association to be head of the neighborhood watch and he was watching the neighborhood (maybe a little to closely)

My bad. It was a gated community in which he was legally staying in with his father at his father's fiance house. He was not tresspassing and had every legal right to be walking on that road.

 

[FLDomer]

My bad. It was a gated community in which he was legally staying in with his father at his father's fiance house. He was not tresspassing and had every legal right to be walking on that road.

Just as GZ had every right to follow him, it the community that he lived and was assigned to watch over. Now what happens with the confrontation and who started it...that for God to know and the courts to decide.

 

[woolybug25]

Just as GZ had every right to follow him, it the community that he lived and was assigned to watch over. Now what happens with the confrontation and who started it...that for God to know and the courts to decide.

I didn't say that he didn't have the legal right to follow him, just that TM had the legal right to be there. Shoot, if you want to look at the FL Law, TM should have had the legal right to defend himself if he thought his life was in danger, correct?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

I didn't say that he didn't have the legal right to follow him, just that TM had the legal right to be there. Shoot, if you want to look at the FL Law, TM should have had the legal right to defend himself if he thought his life was in danger, correct?

1000% correct.

 

[FLDomer]

I didn't say that he didn't have the legal right to follow him, just that TM had the legal right to be there. Shoot, if you want to look at the FL Law, TM should have had the legal right to defend himself if he thought his life was in danger, correct?

I do not disagree with you at all. Never had, just stating the sides you weren't.

 

[GoIrish41]

Serious question... do you see this as Zimmerman protecting HIS property? The reason I ask is that he was admittingly stalking a child (by legal definition) that was committing no crime for simply looking suspiscious. He was stalking him on a public street in which he was walking. Sure, Zimmerman lives in the neighborhood, but TM was not on his property, he wasn't breaking into his property. He was not confronting Zimmerman while in the act of committing a crime.

If anything, it has always seemed to me that TM confronted a man that was pursuing him for reasons unknown to him. For all practical purposes, it seems as though TM was the one protecting himself, and instead of taking a beating for his actions, he chose to kill another person.

I try to put myself in TM's shoes. What would I do if I realized that a strange man was stalking me as I walked home? I believe that I would confront him, and if he continued to pusue me, I would defend myself.

great post Wooly.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It's possible they're both not guilty of any crime, actually. People keep implying that it's zero-sum, and that Zimmerman being not guilty means Martin was guilty of something. The law just doesn't work that way.

 

[FLDomer]

It's possible they're both not guilty of any crime, actually. People keep implying that it's zero-sum, and that Zimmerman being not guilty means Martin was guilty of something. The law just doesn't work that way.

Very true

 

[GoIrish41]

It's possible they're both not guilty of any crime, actually. People keep implying that it's zero-sum, and that Zimmerman being not guilty means Martin was guilty of something. The law just doesn't work that way.

Either Zimmerman is guilty or he isn't. Martin is not on trial.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Either Zimmerman is guilty or he isn't. Martin is not on trial.

Funny, then, how people keep pointing out that Martin "acted reasonably"...That was my nice way of pointing out that it doesn't matter.

 

[FLDomer]

.

 

[woolybug25]

It's possible they're both not guilty of any crime, actually. People keep implying that it's zero-sum, and that Zimmerman being not guilty means Martin was guilty of something. The law just doesn't work that way.

Here's a question. Say that neither are guilty, as both thought their life was in danger. Does anyone else think that a law making it legal to kill someone for following you or killing someone for attacking you for following them is messed up?

If that's the case. Then I can just go stalk strangers in Florida and if they try to fight me, then I can legally shoot them, right?

Makes sense...

 

[FLDomer]

Here's a question. Say that neither are guilty, as both thought their life was in danger. Does anyone else think that a law making it legal to kill someone for following you or killing someone for attacking you for following them is messed up?

If that's the case. Then I can just go stalk strangers in Florida and if they try to fight me, then I can legally shoot them, right?

Makes sense...

Wooly are you trying to troll or are you this obtuse? It is not legal to kill some one who is simply following you.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine