George Zimmerman Trial

[A Pac]

Jury selection starts today and I wanted to start a thread so that people could post updates and news on it. I have no idea how this case will go. The media has already found him guilty but who knows what a jury will say. Any word on whether or not the actual trial will be televised and if so, what channel?

 

[NDTampa]

HLN will have the trial. I am glad I do not live in Orlando, if GZ is found not guilty there will be a riot.

 

[A Pac]

HLN will have the trial. I am glad I do not live in Orlando, if GZ is found not guilty there will be a riot.

Thanks and I agree. I wonder how many other cities will riot if this is the case.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

HLN will have the trial. I am glad I do not live in Orlando, if GZ is found not guilty there will be a riot.

I could def see that happening.

 

[notredomer23]

HLN will have the trial. I am glad I do not live in Orlando, if GZ is found not guilty there will be a riot.

TBH, I think that is going to be the result of this case.

 

[FLDomer]

I agree with Tampa 100% and am glad I do not live there too. Worried about some of my friends over there, especially the ones in law enforcement if he is found Not Guilty.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Have some dear frends in Orlando. Praying for their safety if something stupid starts up.

 

[CanadianIrish]

TBH, I think that is going to be the result of this case.

As a lawyer, albeit a Canadian one, that boggles my mind. How can you claim self-defense when you initiate the conflict and the other party doesn't have a weapon?

He would be convicted of second degree murder in Canada at a minimum, and almost certainly by directed verdict (meaning the judge wouldn't let it go to the jury because there is no real issue for them to decide).

 

[notredomer23]

As a lawyer, albeit a Canadian one, that boggles my mind. How can you claim self-defense when you initiate the conflict and the other party doesn't have a weapon?

He would be convicted of second degree murder in Canada at a minimum, and almost certainly by directed verdict (meaning the judge wouldn't let it go to the jury because there is no real issue for them to decide).

I am not saying I agree with that verdict, it just reminds me too much of OJ, Casey Anthony, etc... I hope I am wrong.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

What's really disturbing to me(other than TM being killed) is the astonishing number of deaths per year from black on black crime. I just don't see the African American community up in arms when other black people take each other out in large numbers, but someone of a different race kills a black person and riots are a real possibility. (wonder who calls me a racist first.lol)

 

[FLDomer]

What's really disturbing to me(other than TM being killed) is the astonishing number of deaths per year from black on black crime. I just don't see the African American community up in arms when other black people take each other out in large numbers, but someone of a different race kills a black person and riots are a real possibility. (wonder who calls me a racist first.lol)

I agree but what really bother me as a friend of my wife on Facebook posted that this is the "Biggest Civil Rights Trial" of his life time....I thought it was a murder trial.

 

[GoldenDomer87]

As a lawyer, albeit a Canadian one, that boggles my mind. How can you claim self-defense when you initiate the conflict and the other party doesn't have a weapon?

He would be convicted of second degree murder in Canada at a minimum, and almost certainly by directed verdict (meaning the judge wouldn't let it go to the jury because there is no real issue for them to decide).

Hold on, so you can only claim self defense if both parties have weapons? I'm pretty sure a person can be killed without a weapon. How do you have all this knowledge of the case and be so confident in Murder 2? I haven't been able to watch the news much, but last I saw details were still kind of fuzzy.

I'm going to wait till the facts come out and then make my decision.

 

[ACamp1900]

I could def see that happening.

TBH, I think that is going to be the result of this case.

Most likely on these two...

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Hold on, so you can only claim self defense if both parties have weapons? I'm pretty sure a person can be killed without a weapon. How do you have all this knowledge of the case and be so confident in Murder 2? I haven't been able to watch the news much, but last I saw details were still kind of fuzzy.

I'm going to wait till the facts come out and then make my decision.

Not to spoil the ending, but if Zimmerman's version of the events is true then he's not guilty of anything under Florida law.

That's the cost of a penal code with self-defense. On occasion, you get acquittals that 'just don't feel right'.

 

[ACamp1900]

Not to spoil the ending, but if Zimmerman's version of the events is true then he's not guilty of anything under Florida law.

That's the cost of a penal code with self-defense. On occasion, you get acquittals that 'just don't feel right'.

It did seem once a few findings started coming out that somewhat supported his tale the story began to die off... Whether right or wrong the media has been shameless here...

 

[Jerry]

Hold on, so you can only claim self defense if both parties have weapons? I'm pretty sure a person can be killed without a weapon. How do you have all this knowledge of the case and be so confident in Murder 2? I haven't been able to watch the news much, but last I saw details were still kind of fuzzy.

I'm going to wait till the facts come out and then make my decision.

How will all the facts come out when one of the parties is dead? It's basically Zimmeran's word vs the prosecution trying to prove he used unwarranted force. I think Zimmerman walks, especially with the Florida law.

 

[mgriff]

All the bullshit that's going to be coming from this is going to make my head hurt...

 

[Wild Bill]

It did seem once a few findings started coming out that somewhat supported his tale the story began to die off... Whether right or wrong the media has been shameless here...

They never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[GoldenDomer87]

How will all the facts come out when one of the parties is dead? It's basically Zimmeran's word vs the prosecution trying to prove he used unwarranted force. I think Zimmerman walks, especially with the Florida law.

It's called evidence, things that prove the story true or false. I'm sure the prosecution is getting paid quite well to make sure they find every piece of evidence. I'm kind of stunned by your first sentence, I mean that's how every alleged murder case works. Will we ever know exactly what happened, no, but I'm sure we could at least paint a good picture of what happened.

And, Florida's law? From my understanding of the law you have the right to "stand your ground" no matter where you are. So some guy walks up to me and starts beating me to a pulp, I have the right to defend myself. If that's not the law then please let me know, but that sounds like a damn good law to me.

 

[Cackalacky]

At least this vulture gets to make some more accurate and objective statements for a few months.

I think due to the sketchy details, Stand your ground law, and lack of witnesses, he will walk. There will be at least enough reasonable doubt to hang the jury unless someone finds some ridiculous facebook or twitter post.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It's called evidence, things that prove the story true or false. I'm sure the prosecution is getting paid quite well to make sure they find every piece of evidence. I'm kind of stunned by your first sentence, I mean that's how every alleged murder case works. Will we ever know exactly what happened, no, but I'm sure we could at least paint a good picture of what happened.

And, Florida's law? From my understanding of the law you have the right to "stand your ground" no matter where you are. So some guy walks up to me and starts beating me to a pulp, I have the right to defend myself. If that's not the law then please let me know, but that sounds like a damn good law to me.

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).

 

[pumpdog20]

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.

 

[Cackalacky]

It's called evidence, things that prove the story true or false. I'm sure the prosecution is getting paid quite well to make sure they find every piece of evidence.

In a court of law, this means less than you think. Convincing the jury is what matters. Truth is in the eye of the beholder in a court room.

I'm kind of stunned by your first sentence, I mean that's how every alleged murder case works. Will we ever know exactly what happened, no, but I'm sure we could at least paint a good picture of what happened.

This is more on par with what will happen. The truth will be bent on both sides.

And, Florida's law? From my understanding of the law you have the right to "stand your ground" no matter where you are. So some guy walks up to me and starts beating me to a pulp, I have the right to defend myself. If that's not the law then please let me know, but that sounds like a damn good law to me.

I wonder what TM did to provoke GZ or vice versa. Does anyone remember. I don't. I wonder how each side will paint the other.

 

[Jerry]

It's called evidence, things that prove the story true or false. I'm sure the prosecution is getting paid quite well to make sure they find every piece of evidence. I'm kind of stunned by your first sentence, I mean that's how every alleged murder case works. Will we ever know exactly what happened, no, but I'm sure we could at least paint a good picture of what happened.

Maybe there will be some surprising evidence during the trial and I'll be stunned. But after reading dozens of articles I know that the 911 call shows that Zimmerman was following Martin which he admits too. Zimmerman has cuts on this head and a bloody nose that proves a struggle. The witnesses seem to be all over the place and I don't think any of them saw Zimmerman doing anything that would contradict his story. I guess we'll see but like I said I think he walks.

And, Florida's law? From my understanding of the law you have the right to "stand your ground" no matter where you are. So some guy walks up to me and starts beating me to a pulp, I have the right to defend myself. If that's not the law then please let me know, but that sounds like a damn good law to me.

Saw an interview with Dennis Baxley last week, a rep from Florida instrumental in passing that law. He was talking about a case where a guy had his car stereo stolen and he chased the thief down and stabbed him to death. And somehow got off on the "stand your ground" law. Last year when this happened I read about a guy who's neighbor threw a rock at his car and he shot him to death. Walked. I'm totally for this law if somebody is on your property and obviously in your house. Just seems like the interpretation is pretty wide out in public.

 

[Jerry]

In a court of law, this means less than you think. Convincing the jury is what matters. Truth is in the eye of the beholder in a court room.


This is more on par with what will happen. The truth will be bent on both sides.

I wonder what TM did to provoke GZ or vice versa. Does anyone remember. I don't. I wonder how each side will paint the other.

He thought he looked suspicious. That's where most of the outrage came from because he was basically racially profiled. There had been break ins in the neighborhood recently, Zimmerman was the head of the neighborhood watch. Basically Zimmerman thought he might be a thief, Martin thought he was being followed by some creep. It was an unfortunate encounter really.

 

[jmurphy75]

As a lawyer, albeit a Canadian one, that boggles my mind. How can you claim self-defense when you initiate the conflict and the other party doesn't have a weapon?

He would be convicted of second degree murder in Canada at a minimum, and almost certainly by directed verdict (meaning the judge wouldn't let it go to the jury because there is no real issue for them to decide).

This is one of the most ridiculous statements i have ever read

 

[Ndaccountant]

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.

If that is the case, then I am deeply concerned about our justice system. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. If they cannot prove guilt past a resonable doubt, nothing else should matter.

 

[GoldenDomer87]

Maybe there will be some surprising evidence during the trial and I'll be stunned. But after reading dozens of articles I know that the 911 call shows that Zimmerman was following Martin which he admits too. Zimmerman has cuts on this head and a bloody nose that proves a struggle. The witnesses seem to be all over the place and I don't think any of them saw Zimmerman doing anything that would contradict his story. I guess we'll see but like I said I think he walks.



Saw an interview with Dennis Baxley last week, a rep from Florida instrumental in passing that law. He was talking about a case where a guy had his car stereo stolen and he chased the thief down and stabbed him to death. And somehow got off on the "stand your ground" law. Last year when this happened I read about a guy who's neighbor threw a rock at his car and he shot him to death. Walked. I'm totally for this law if somebody is on your property and obviously in your house. Just seems like the interpretation is pretty wide out in public.

I'm confused, I'm not arguing that he is guilty or not. I'm just saying I'm waiting for the facts. Yes, I know one party is dead, but that doesn't mean there won't be evidence to get as close to the truth as possible.

And the second part is an issue with the application of the law, not the law itself. Look, nothing's perfect, but we have a good system. Better than that guy in Canada who said a judge could just determine your guilt instead of 12 with a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Jerry]

I'm confused, I'm not arguing that he is guilty or not. I'm just saying I'm waiting for the facts. Yes, I know one party is dead, but that doesn't mean there won't be evidence to get as close to the truth as possible.

And the second part is an issue with the application of the law, not the law itself. Look, nothing's perfect, but we have a good system. Better than that guy in Canada who said a judge could just determine your guilt instead of 12 with a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Yeah sorry, this case just frustrates me because you have 2 people that may or may not be guilty of a crime but only one that will get to tell their side of the story in court. I'm of the belief that there are a lot of idiots in this world and I don't want all of them carrying around guns. In theory I think the stand your ground law is a good one it just seems in some cases it almost relieves people with guns of some of the responsibility.

 

[IrishLax]

As a lawyer, albeit a Canadian one, that boggles my mind. How can you claim self-defense when you initiate the conflict and the other party doesn't have a weapon?

He would be convicted of second degree murder in Canada at a minimum, and almost certainly by directed verdict (meaning the judge wouldn't let it go to the jury because there is no real issue for them to decide).

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.