George Zimmerman Trial

[WestCoast]

How would it violate DP if part of FL law as noted by the poster you responded to.

IF it does violate DP wouldn't that be grounds for appeal as he has an attorney. Wouldn't that also cause censure for his attorney, the prosecutor, and the judge who will charge the jury?

IIRC, charges were posted earlier in this thread.

As a lawyer you would probably know how to look up statutes, indictments, and such better than we mere mortals, wouldn't you?

Something can violate due process even though it is in a statute.

 

[WestCoast]

How would it violate DP if part of FL law as noted by the poster you responded to.

IF it does violate DP wouldn't that be grounds for appeal as he has an attorney. Wouldn't that also cause censure for his attorney, the prosecutor, and the judge who will charge the jury?

IIRC, charges were posted earlier in this thread.

As a lawyer you would probably know how to look up statutes, indictments, and such better than we mere mortals, wouldn't you?

I have a dog. Don’t walk him as much as I should. When I go on vacation, my absence only makes it worse. When I get home, he’s barking, paw’n at me, following me around. Sometimes he get so excited, he even begins humping my leg.

I don’t put up with it from my dog, so would you kindly stop following me from thread to thread, humping my leg saying the same tired crap about you go look it up?

19K+ posts? You're here more than IrishEnvy the auto-poster. get a life man.

 

[BGIF]

I have a dog. Don’t walk him as much as I should. When I go on vacation, my absence only makes it worse. When I get home, he’s barking, paw’n at me, following me around. Sometimes he get so excited, he even begins humping my leg.

I don’t put up with it from my dog, so would you kindly stop following me from thread to thread, humping my leg saying the same tired crap about you go look it up?

19K+ posts? You're here more than IrishEnvy the auto-poster. get a life man.

To my knowledge I've posted once in 19K+ posts for you to look it up yourself. That's "following from thread to thread"?

That occasion was after another poster and I answered the questions on recruiting YOU asked. You took issue with both responses, which were correct. I then responded simply, "Then why don't you look it up yourself?" You then posted some baloney that you were making a joke. Your attempt at a cover your butt joke was after I suggested you look it up yourself.

Again as to "following you from thread to thread" perhaps your confusing me with the poster you got into it with in the Blankenship thread yesterday or the day before. That poster commented about the inappropriate comments in a recruit's thread that was a recent ND verbal. You chose to troll him. I had no posts in that exchange, did I?

Tonight in this thread you responded to Houstonian's post with legal questions about DP noting that you've never practiced "crim law". From that qualifier and your due process question it seemed to me you had benefit of legal training. I noted, "IIRC, charges were posted earlier in the thread," with no mention of you looking it yourself. I recalled another lawyer posting in this thread about the charges. He mentioned he could lookup the charge document on some legal service lawyers have access to but apparently that was from office and as he was home, he didn't have access to it then. I found the notarized charges as part of a new story. I posted it and he repped me for. I don't have access to lawyer's proprietary services so tonight I asked with your background wouldn't it be better for to get the answer than we mere mortal.

If you're not a lawyer, why didn't you simply say so?

And as for your "19K+ posts" and "get a life" comments, I've been a member here under the same user name for 8 years this month. I was a mod twice and used to open a lot of recruiting threads and updated a lot more. You've been here less than a month and you average more posts that I do!


I understand why your dog humps your leg so much, he's simply responding in kind. Dogs tend to reflect their owner's demeanor.

 

[NDinL.A.]

And as for your "19K+ posts" and "get a life" comments, I've been a member here under the same user name for 8 years this month. I was a mod twice and used to open a lot of recruiting threads and updated a lot more. You've been here less than a month and you average more posts that I do!

LOL...Oops!!!!!

Btw west coast, BGIF is a fountain on ND knowledge and MANY of his posts are of the informative variety for posters needing help/info. The 'get a life' dig wasn't even called for, and judging by the math, well, it might be 'look in the mirror' time (and fwiw, I have 6000+ posts and you double my average post total per day)...

 

[Emcee77]

So, not a Florida lawyer but in Illinois and many jurisdictions the options are these:

--1st degree murder: Z knew what he was doing and killed TM, not because he feared he would be killed or suffer great bodily harm but just because he wanted to kill him, even just in the heat of the moment (doesn't matter that it wasn't premeditated).

--2nd degree murder (used to be called voluntary manslaughter): Z killed TM because he UNREASONABLY feared that he was in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm.

-- not guilty: Z killed TM because he REASONABLY feared that he was in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm (i.e. the killing was in self-defense).

So he could be convicted of the lesser included offense of 2nd degree murder if the jury finds that he truly was in fear for his life, but that a reasonable person would not have been. Don't think he could be convicted of the other crimes people have mentioned like aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter because there is no question that a person died due to Z's intentional act. He isn't even claiming that it was an accident.

Again not certain that Florida law is the same and I'm not gonna look it up on my iPad but that's the law in many jurisdictions. I actually watched a trial this week for work in which the State strongly argued for first degree murder and the defense for an NG based on self-defense, and the judge (bench trial) gave a verdict of 2d degree murder. Nobody was happy but it was the right result.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I haven't been paying close attention to this trial or this thread for that matter but found something interesting on another forum I frequent:

So all this time we've been hearing that sweet little angel Trayvon was just going to the store to get an Arizona Iced tea and Skittles. Wrong:

That is not iced tea. It is Arizona watermelon juice. It is used to make one of the varieties of Lean/Purple Drank when mixed with cough syrup and.....Skittles. I wonder if the Defense will try to bring this up.

Anyone know anything about this?

 

[Redbar]

I haven't been paying close attention to this trial or this thread for that matter but found something interesting on another forum I frequent:



Anyone know anything about this?

Objection. Relevance. (and I'm not even a lawyer).

 

[IrishLax]

I haven't been paying close attention to this trial or this thread for that matter but found something interesting on another forum I frequent:



Anyone know anything about this?

Who knows. It's speculation. And sorta irrelevant besides lending some possible credibility to Zimmerman's phone call that he appeared to be "on drugs."

Simple fact is Trayvon Martin was not an "angel" but that has almost zero bearing on whether his shooting was justified. The fact that he owned a gun (illegally of course), had some THC in his system, etc. I heard wasn't even admissible.

 

[drayer54]

How he could be high and drinking "Sizzurp"? Must be a cultural thing or I am getting old.

I didn't know little kids did that. Ohh wait, he wasn't a little kid, that's just what the media showed us all the time. Ohhhh..

 

[connor_in]

George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why

Dan Abrams...long time TV legal guy and former integral cog at MSNBC...analyzing the case so far. Doesn't make an actual judgement of GZ guilt or lack of it and doesn't guess at what the jury will say...just analysis.

 

[magogian]

Whatever you might think about whether Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter, I just don't see a conviction. Or rather, I don't see how a reasonable jury could convict. If this was a civil trial using the civil burden of proof, well maybe. But beyond a reasonable doubt? That seems impossible to me.

 

[ACamp1900]

Yeah, I don't really know what happened,... I do think it's clear this was not some angry white guy targeting a black dude out of racism, that's pretty certain in my mind now... Beyond that, who knows...

But I do think it's got to be hard to convince the jury of murder at this point... No?

 

[IrishLax]

George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why

Dan Abrams...long time TV legal guy and former integral cog at MSNBC...analyzing the case so far. Doesn't make an actual judgement of GZ guilt or lack of it and doesn't guess at what the jury will say...just analysis.

Really good read and a reasonable take on what was presented. I had been unaware that you can convict on lesser charges if they only brought murder 2? I thought in the Casey Anthony trial a big issue was that they only put a murder charge on the table and not lesser charges? I have no clue how this stuff works under Florida law.

 

[irishpat183]

Really good read and a reasonable take on what was presented. I had been unaware that you can convict on lesser charges if they only brought murder 2? I thought in the Casey Anthony trial a big issue was that they only put a murder charge on the table and not lesser charges? I have no clue how this stuff works under Florida law.

"To win a murder conviction, they have to show he had the intent to kill and did so with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will."

No way in hell any of that is true about this case. And it's not even close. If you wanna say GZ was an idiot or renegade...that's one thing...but I don't believe for a min that he went out looking to kill anyone that night, or even TM when he spotted him.

 

[irishpat183]

I love this as well:


"In many self defense cases the person who shoots a fatal bullet suffers no injuries at all and instead argues he or she protected himself or herself from injury by shooting the attacker.

So wait, let's take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes."

 

[ShawneeIrish]

I hae not been folowing trial so this is just related to the legal grounds generally...

"To win a murder conviction, they have to show he had the intent to kill and did so with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will."

No way in hell any of that is true about this case. And it's not even close. If you wanna say GZ was an idiot or renegade...that's one thing...but I don't believe for a min that he went out looking to kill anyone that night, or even TM when he spotted him.

Not necessary for a murder conviction. Intent does not have to be formed a great deal of time in advance. If Zimmerman formed the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm or acted recklessly in a manner that is reasonably certain to result in death or serious bodily injury this is sufficient intent and malice.

I love this as well:



"In many self defense cases the person who shoots a fatal bullet suffers no injuries at all and instead argues he or she protected himself or herself from injury by shooting the attacker.

So wait, let's take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes."

Not necessarily true. Self-defense is about reasonable belief. If one possessed a reasonable belief that force was necessary to defend themselves this can justify self-defense even if at a later time it turns out the force was not necessary, again as long as the belief was reasonable. However, with the use of deadly force it is never reasonable unless it is used with the reasonable belief that it is necessary to repel deadly force. So as an example if Zimmerman initiated the altercation then Martin would be justified in using self-defense, if Martin had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to repel deadly force used by Zimmerman this is only way that Martin could use deadly force. If Zimmerman initiated altercation the only way in which Zimmerman would be justified in using deadly force is if Martin unreasonably used deadly force to counter non-deadly force on behalf of Zimmerman thus escalating the conflict and making use of deadly force on behalf of Zimmerman justified.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...the use of deadly force it is never reasonable unless it is used with the reasonable belief that it is necessary to repel deadly force...

Not totally correct. At least not in Florida. You can use deadly force in self-defense if you're reasonably in fear of 'substantial and imminent bodily injury' -- you don't have to be in fear of outright death.

So for example, if someone is coming at you with a baseball bat, and you have a gun, you can shoot them (and kill them) in self defense. You don't have to, like, stop and calculate the chances of a baseball bat causing your death, or only pistol-whip them since they don't have a gun.

 

[irishpat183]

I hae not been folowing trial so this is just related to the legal grounds generally...



Not necessary for a murder conviction. Intent does not have to be formed a great deal of time in advance. If Zimmerman formed the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm or acted recklessly in a manner that is reasonably certain to result in death or serious bodily injury this is sufficient intent and malice.




Not necessarily true. Self-defense is about reasonable belief. If one possessed a reasonable belief that force was necessary to defend themselves this can justify self-defense even if at a later time it turns out the force was not necessary, again as long as the belief was reasonable. However, with the use of deadly force it is never reasonable unless it is used with the reasonable belief that it is necessary to repel deadly force. So as an example if Zimmerman initiated the altercation then Martin would be justified in using self-defense, if Martin had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to repel deadly force used by Zimmerman this is only way that Martin could use deadly force. If Zimmerman initiated altercation the only way in which Zimmerman would be justified in using deadly force is if Martin unreasonably used deadly force to counter non-deadly force on behalf of Zimmerman thus escalating the conflict and making use of deadly force on behalf of Zimmerman justified.

You make good points, but after talkign with a couple of lawyer buddies of mine and my fathers, they are in agreement that there is no way there is enough evidence to convict GZ of murder 2...

 

[ShawneeIrish]

Not totally correct. At least not in Florida. You can use deadly force in self-defense if you're reasonably in fear of 'substantial and imminent bodily injury' -- you don't have to be in fear of outright death.

So for example, if someone is coming at you with a baseball bat, and you have a gun, you can shoot them (and kill them) in self defense. You don't have to, like, stop and calculate the chances of a baseball bat causing your death, or only pistol-whip them since they don't have a gun.

Thanks for the stand your ground clarification.

You make good points, but after talkign with a couple of lawyer buddies of mine and my fathers, they are in agreement that there is no way there is enough evidence to convict GZ of murder 2...

Like I said I have not been following so Im not really sure what evidence has been presented or facts established, I was just trying to mention some general legal principles. However, I would caution against saying there is no way there is enough evidence, like I said Im not following the trial, but there have been plenty of murder convictions with questionable evidence (not making any statement on the quality of the evidence here for either side.)

 

[drayer54]

I think hearing that Trayvon's dad didn't think it was him was also a big hole in the case. If the voice doesn't fit, you must acquit!

 

[Emcee77]

Thanks for the stand your ground clarification.



Like I said I have not been following so Im not really sure what evidence has been presented or facts established, I was just trying to mention some general legal principles. However, I would caution against saying there is no way there is enough evidence, like I said Im not following the trial, but there have been plenty of murder convictions with questionable evidence (not making any statement on the quality of the evidence here for either side.)

Right. Juries do crazy stuff all the time, and judges are very leery of overturning jury verdicts. Would I vote to convict Zimmerman of murder? No, not based on what I've read about the evidence against him. But do I think a conviction is impossible? No.

 

[BGIF]

I hae not been folowing trial so this is just related to the legal grounds generally...

...

Not necessarily true. Self-defense is about reasonable belief. If one possessed a reasonable belief that force was necessary to defend themselves this can justify self-defense even if at a later time it turns out the force was not necessary, again as long as the belief was reasonable. However, with the use of deadly force it is never reasonable unless it is used with the reasonable belief that it is necessary to repel deadly force. So as an example if Zimmerman initiated the altercation then Martin would be justified in using self-defense, if Martin had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to repel deadly force used by Zimmerman this is only way that Martin could use deadly force. If Zimmerman initiated altercation the only way in which Zimmerman would be justified in using deadly force is if Martin unreasonably used deadly force to counter non-deadly force on behalf of Zimmerman thus escalating the conflict and making use of deadly force on behalf of Zimmerman justified.

Such as Martin banging Zimmerman's skull against the sidewalk trying to knock his brains out.

For someone who hasn't followed the trial you have captured one of the essential issues of the case missed or ignored by many that claim to have followed the case.

And further as Houstonian notes, under the Florida statute the death doesn't doesn't have to be the potential outcome, substantial and imminent bodily injury is adequate justification.

Based upon the abundance of conflicting testimony presentated I don't see how a jury could find other than "reasonable doubt" unless the jurors use there own prejudices to select who was on top, who screamed for help, who attacked who, who escalated the level of injury, who resisted deadly force.

Sixty years after "12 Angry Men" overcame their preconceived notions and various personal prejudices to arrive at Not Guilty By Reasonable Doubt perhaps "Six Reasonable Women" will come to a similar decision.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think hearing that Trayvon's dad didn't think it was him was also a big hole in the case. If the voice doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Martin's dad originally testified for the Prosecution that it was Martin crying for help on the 911 call, but today two investigators on the case testified that Martin's dad told them it wasn't him.

The Prosecution tried to mitigate by specifying that when Martin's dad was saying "no" they were more like no's said in disbelief, and weren't in response to the questions being asked.

Also, a Vietnam Vet got on the stand today for Zimmerman and said he was sure that it was Zimmerman crying for help on the call. Then drama ensued, when he held back tears of all his fallen comrades who he heard "yell like little girls" during battle.

 

[drayer54]

Martin's dad originally testified for the Prosecution that it was Martin crying for help on the 911 call, but today two investigators on the case testified that Martin's dad told them it wasn't him.

The Prosecution tried to mitigate by specifying that when Martin's dad was saying "no" they were more like no's said in disbelief, and weren't in response to the questions being asked.

Also, a Vietnam Vet got on the stand today for Zimmerman and said he was sure that it was Zimmerman crying for help on the call. Then drama ensued, when he held back tears of all his fallen comrades who he heard "yell like little girls" during battle.

This is where it is good that the burden of proof lies on the state.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Another odd moment today was when the Defense called Zimmerman's trainer, who's also an MMA "expert".

He demonstrated the "ground and pound" technique, allegedly used by Martin, by straddling the defense attorney in the courtroom.

No homo.

 

[NDWorld247]

The judge ruled she will allow testimony on Martin's toxicology results. Big win for the defense.

 

[ND NYC]

Another odd moment today was when the Defense called Zimmerman's trainer, who's also an MMA "expert".

He demonstrated the "ground and pound" technique, allegedly used by Martin, by straddling the defense attorney in the courtroom.

No homo.

were they able to demonstrate how GZ retrieved his gun from his waistband/holster during the ground and pound struggle?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

^No, I don't think that was particularly relevant to either side. (The demonstration was more to substantiate what was meant by witness Good when he described the scuffle as "ground and pound").

Although he did remark that the goal of the guy on top is to get his legs above the victim's waist, and the goal of the guy on bottom is the "shrimp out" to get away. (I have no idea what "shrimping out" means).

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Although he did remark that the goal of the guy on top is to get his legs above the victim's waist, and the goal of the guy on bottom is the "shrimp out" to get away. (I have no idea what "shrimping out" means).

The technique for escaping a full mount involves turning on one's side and slipping a leg out from under the opponent. I can see how that movement is vaguely evocative of a shrimp's body shape.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The technique for escaping a full mount involves turning on one's side and slipping a leg out from under the opponent. I can see how that movement is vaguely evocative of a shrimp's body shape.

Ah. I thought it kinda sounded like playing dead or assuming the fetal position or something...I should probably stick to non-combat activities.