George Zimmerman Trial

[FLDomer]

We are so to the point that we cannot even converse on this. In Florida and in Ohio, hell in any state but confusion, you cannot put yourself into a position where you are in harm, when advised not to, and claim self defense.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/08Rf4G0JOOk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


And this testimony by the classes taken by Zimmerman is just what the Prosecution wants. If he was afraid for his life, what was he doing running blindly into a dark alley after a "suspect." Maybe not to you, but to a jury of well adjusted citizens, this looks amazingly nefarious. More to come.

Nice personal shot.... Lets not converse anymore on this, that might be the best suggestion you have made, I have posted facts and links to the case not twisted statements. Have a good one Bogs, but **** off after taking a personal shot on me, a person you have never met and know nothing about beyond this board.

 

[irishpat183]

Nice personal shot.... Lets not converse anymore on this, that might be the best suggestion you have made, I have posted facts and links to the case not twisted statements. Have a good one Bogs.

Bogs gots nothing on this one. His arguments fall apart because they're based on what he (and the ignorant media and mob) THINK about GZ...not about what actually happened.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...If he was afraid for his life, what was he doing running blindly into a dark alley after a "suspect."...

You do understand that the claim isn't that he was "afraid for his life" while he was following Martin, right...?

The claim is that he developed a reasonable fear of substantial bodily injury while he was being repeatedly punched in the face.

 

[irishpat183]

You do understand that the claim isn't that he was "afraid for his life" while he was following Martin, right...?

The claim is that he developed a reasonable fear of substantial bodily injury while he was being repeatedly punched in the face.

LOL...no sh*t.


Again, I wish we could just drop the whole part about following TM...it's not illegal and had nothing to do with the shooting.

 

[Woneone]

We are so to the point that we cannot even converse on this. In Florida and in Ohio, hell in any state but confusion, you cannot put yourself into a position where you are in harm, when advised not to, and claim self defense.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/08Rf4G0JOOk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


And this testimony by the classes taken by Zimmerman is just what the Prosecution wants. If he was afraid for his life, what was he doing running blindly into a dark alley after a "suspect." Maybe not to you, but to a jury of well adjusted citizens, this looks amazingly nefarious. More to come.

Here's a story you told in January, 2012 --

The closest I ever came was when I was with my now 16 year old daughter, in a grocery, and we heard someone striking another in the next isle over. I walked around and there was a woman beating her (obvious grandson, nephew, or neighbor) so hard it rattled the can goods behind them. I told her, as I chased her to the front of the store, that the boy looked to be about half her size and she about half mine. I explained how sometimes the larger person doesn't know how hard they are hitting, or how bad it hurts the smaller person. I asked her if she would like me to demonstrate. When I asked her to stand as still as the little boy in the cart, she looked like she ate a turd, and bolted out the door. I followed her into the lot, and told her I would get her plate number. So she just stood there.

What if she didn't just stand there. What if she whacks you with a tire-iron?

Would you have looked "amazingly nefarious" in following her as well, if the outcome instead of her waiting, was one of you "defending" yourself?

 

[irishpat183]

Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge  - NY Daily News


That citizens grand jury deal may have some validity to it (written by a Harvard professor)

 

[irishpat183]

Really all that needs to be said:

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

 

[mgriff]

Here's a story you told in January, 2012 --



What if she didn't just stand there. What if she whacks you with a tire-iron?

Would you have looked "amazingly nefarious" in following her as well, if the outcome instead of her waiting, was one of you "defending" yourself?

 

[SaltyND24]

Bogs gots nothing on this one. His arguments fall apart because they're based on what he (and the ignorant media and mob) THINK about GZ...not about what actually happened.

I wanna know exactly what happened...and I want you to tell me every single detail...then when we die, we'll get confirmation as to whether you were right lol...Come on man, we know nothing about the night in question other than what GZ has said and the little evidence concludes...Even then, we may never know the full story...I don't tend to believe GZ, basing it on my experiences (and nothing else), but I don't think it was a smart choice of prosecution to seek Murder 2 in this case

 

[greyhammer90]

Here's a story you told in January, 2012 --



What if she didn't just stand there. What if she whacks you with a tire-iron?

Would you have looked "amazingly nefarious" in following her as well, if the outcome instead of her waiting, was one of you "defending" yourself?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Here's a story you told in January, 2012 --



What if she didn't just stand there. What if she whacks you with a tire-iron?

Would you have looked "amazingly nefarious" in following her as well, if the outcome instead of her waiting, was one of you "defending" yourself?

I didn't have a gun. It wasn't at night. And if you would have read anything you would have seen this as my example of how to get the authorities properly involved without putting yourself or anyone else at risk! Your point was?


It occurs to me that you looked up my previous telling of this episode. Look back earlier in this thread to #305 (permalink)

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 ate 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?

This is how I related my story to the Zimmerman case. It really concerns me if you cannot see the distinctions I am attempting to make. And trust me that day there were a crowd of thousands, including three neighbors who heard and saw it all! The whole thing was kind of funny. The command officer that came was Nate Washington Jr's uncle. I asked if he wanted to call two guys I knew who were basically under sheriffs, so the whole thing stayed civil. But to get back to it, the lady knew I had the police called, and she knew I was going to copy her license plate down, so she wouldn't walk toward me, or toward her car. It was a riot. Cool when you hear the rest of the story, hey guys?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Drop George Zimmerman’sÂ*murder chargeÂ* - NY Daily News


That citizens grand jury deal may have some validity to it (written by a Harvard professor)

It doesn't.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Really all that needs to be said:

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

Go back to the PA's previous testimony. She treated GZ. He refused an x-ray. It takes an x-ray to determine whether a nose is broken or fractured. Some people get raccoon eyes for almost nothing, others can fracture their nose and not get them at all. Everyone (in court) concedes that there is no substantiation to the claim that GZ made about having a broken nose, everyone except five people on this thread and those particular sensationalistic writers . . . If there was evidence that GZ was damaged it would have come up under cross, or will emerge with the defense case, but I think that is too much of a risk for the defense to try. I will apologize and give everyone in this thread discussion 1M vbucks if it is substantiated in the trial that GZ had worse injuries than have already been characterized, including a documented fractured nose or broken nose.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Nice personal shot.... Lets not converse anymore on this, that might be the best suggestion you have made, I have posted facts and links to the case not twisted statements. Have a good one Bogs, but **** off after taking a personal shot on me, a person you have never met and know nothing about beyond this board.

I want to further apologize to you FL. In your case from our conversations I would bet (close to) my life that you wouldn't have conducted yourself in the same manner as GZ. Also, when coming out the other side you wouldn't have claimed you were in fear of your life. In addition, I would not believe that anyone would get the drop on you (with the training I know you have had).

What happened was I was hurry, so I regret, but I confused a whole bunch of things in one post.

I consider GZ to have some personality disorder. I also feel, as some say I don't know GZ, they don't either. I look at the whole GZ story and situation, furthered by an element of the media to be anti-social.

You are trained to deal with a violent criminal element. You would not find yourself in this kind of situation. You have also proven that you do not have any kind of personality issue.

I was trying to say that the jury's behavior though not within the framework of your experience, is not on par with Zimmerman or his story, or those that promote it. I actually was not intending to take a shot at you. I can see re-reading it that I failed miserably. I am truly sorry. I am apologizing in public because I do not want anyone on this thread not to hear it. We may go at it from time to time, but all of you (particularly you FL, you Charger, you) but that doesn't mean I don't have respect for you.

 

[Woneone]

I didn't have a gun. It wasn't at night. And if you would have read anything you would have seen this as my example of how to get the authorities properly involved without putting yourself or anyone else at risk! Your point was?


It occurs to me that you looked up my previous telling of this episode. Look back earlier in this thread to #305 (permalink)



This is how I related my story to the Zimmerman case. It really concerns me if you cannot see the distinctions I am attempting to make. And trust me that day there were a crowd of thousands, including three neighbors who heard and saw it all! The whole thing was kind of funny. The command officer that came was Nate Washington Jr's uncle. I asked if he wanted to call two guys I knew who were basically under sheriffs, so the whole thing stayed civil. But to get back to it, the lady knew I had the police called, and she knew I was going to copy her license plate down, so she wouldn't walk toward me, or toward her car. It was a riot. Cool when you hear the rest of the story, hey guys?

I understand. You were trying to act like a badass when telling the story for the first time, but then were trying to prove a point the second time, completely changing tone and, on some levels, meaning.

You and GZ may have a lot more in common than you think.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I understand. You were trying to act like a badass when telling the story for the first time, but then were trying to prove a point the second time, completely changing tone and, on some levels, meaning.

You and GZ may have a lot more in common than you think.

Hey does that qualify me for IE Sociopath of the Year 2013?

Doctor Wonone, you crack me up!

Before I go back to being my usual badass self, I thought I would post some fact based news. (Your message is humorous on so many different levels!)

By Barbara Liston
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - Former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was well versed in Florida's self-defense laws before he shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, despite a previous claim to the contrary, jurors were told at Zimmerman's trial on Wednesday.
The contradiction came into evidence as prosecutors were preparing to wrap up their case on Friday after two weeks of testimony aimed at showing inconsistencies in Zimmerman's accounts of the February 2012 shooting.
On Tuesday, Seminole County Judge Debra Nelson let the jury hear a television interview in which Zimmerman said he had no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which underpins his trial defense.
But an army prosecutor who taught Zimmerman in a 2010 college class on criminal litigation, testified that he often covered Florida's self-defense and "Stand Your Ground" laws in his 2010 course. Army Captain Alexis Carter said Zimmerman "was probably one of the better students in the class," calling him an "A" student.
Under the "Stand Your Ground" law, which was approved in 2005 and has been copied in some form by about 30 other states, people fearing for their lives can use deadly force without having to retreat from a confrontation, even when it is possible.
The statute is central to Zimmerman's defense in a case that captivated the United States throughout much of 2012 because police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman based on his self-defense argument and right to use deadly force under Florida law.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to a charge of second-degree murder, saying he shot Martin in self-defense during their confrontation inside a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford on February 26, 2012.
In allowing evidence about Zimmerman's criminal law studies, the judge overruled strenuous objections from Zimmerman's lead lawyer, Mark O'Mara.
Prosecutor Richard Mantei had said during a hearing that Zimmerman's legal studies would help jurors understand his "state of mind" and "ambitions and frustrations" in the weeks and months leading up to the shooting.
Prosecutors say Zimmerman's choice of classes at Seminole State College, on criminal investigation and witness testimony among other topics, underscored his intense interest in law enforcement and previous interest in becoming a police officer.
DNA EXPERT
In testimony on Tuesday, the jury heard a medical examiner say Zimmerman suffered "insignificant" injuries in the fight in which he shot and killed Martin.
Zimmerman, 29, has said Martin, 17, punched him in the face and repeatedly slammed his head into a concrete walkway. Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, could face life in prison if convicted.
Despite those claims, a DNA expert with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement testified on Wednesday that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found in scrapings of Martin's fingernails or on the cuffs or other parts of the hooded sweatshirt he wore on the night he died.
There was also no trace of Martin's DNA on Zimmerman's gun, the expert, Anthony Gorgone, told the court. Zimmerman has said Martin tried to grab the 9mm Kel-Tec semi-automatic before he shot him at point-blank range.
Police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, accepting his story of self-defense.
A special prosecutor later brought the murder charge. The prosecutor accused Zimmerman of profiling Martin and chasing him vigilante-style rather than waiting for police to arrive.
Martin was a student at a Miami-area high school and a guest of one of the housing development's homeowners. He was walking back to the home in the rain from a convenience store when Zimmerman spotted him and called police, saying Martin looked suspicious. During the confrontation between the two, which is still clouded by competing narratives and conflicting witness testimony, Zimmerman shot Martin through the heart.
Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda had said he hoped to rest the prosecution's case against Zimmerman on Wednesday but court adjourned before he was able to call his final witnesses.
The court will be closed on Thursday for the U.S. Independence Day holiday so the final state witnesses, including the medical examiner who autopsied Martin's body and the dead teenager's parents, won't take the stand until Friday.
(Writing by Tom Brown; Editing by Jane Sutton, Bernard Orr)

Also from a Fox News article:

Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin's sweatshirt, beneath his hoodie. Martin's DNA was found on Zimmerman's jacket.

Read more: Prosecutors winding down case in George Zimmerman trial | Fox News

The fact that Zimmerman DNA was found on Martins sweatshirt under the hoodie, means that Zimmerman most probably dripped on Martin while Martin was face up! (before he was dead) Barring this being medium impact spatter, which would have hit his hoodie, and been on his sleeves, this was most probably blood dripping from Zimmerman's nose, if we can trust any part of the Zimmerman story to determine continuity . . .

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Hey does that qualify me for IE Sociopath of the Year 2013?

Doctor Wonone, you crack me up!

Before I go back to being my usual badass self, I thought I would post some fact based news. (Your message is humorous on so many different levels!)

By Barbara Liston
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - Former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was well versed in Florida's self-defense laws before he shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, despite a previous claim to the contrary, jurors were told at Zimmerman's trial on Wednesday.
The contradiction came into evidence as prosecutors were preparing to wrap up their case on Friday after two weeks of testimony aimed at showing inconsistencies in Zimmerman's accounts of the February 2012 shooting.
On Tuesday, Seminole County Judge Debra Nelson let the jury hear a television interview in which Zimmerman said he had no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which underpins his trial defense.
But an army prosecutor who taught Zimmerman in a 2010 college class on criminal litigation, testified that he often covered Florida's self-defense and "Stand Your Ground" laws in his 2010 course. Army Captain Alexis Carter said Zimmerman "was probably one of the better students in the class," calling him an "A" student.
Under the "Stand Your Ground" law, which was approved in 2005 and has been copied in some form by about 30 other states, people fearing for their lives can use deadly force without having to retreat from a confrontation, even when it is possible.
The statute is central to Zimmerman's defense in a case that captivated the United States throughout much of 2012 because police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman based on his self-defense argument and right to use deadly force under Florida law.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to a charge of second-degree murder, saying he shot Martin in self-defense during their confrontation inside a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford on February 26, 2012.
In allowing evidence about Zimmerman's criminal law studies, the judge overruled strenuous objections from Zimmerman's lead lawyer, Mark O'Mara.
Prosecutor Richard Mantei had said during a hearing that Zimmerman's legal studies would help jurors understand his "state of mind" and "ambitions and frustrations" in the weeks and months leading up to the shooting.
Prosecutors say Zimmerman's choice of classes at Seminole State College, on criminal investigation and witness testimony among other topics, underscored his intense interest in law enforcement and previous interest in becoming a police officer.
DNA EXPERT
In testimony on Tuesday, the jury heard a medical examiner say Zimmerman suffered "insignificant" injuries in the fight in which he shot and killed Martin.
Zimmerman, 29, has said Martin, 17, punched him in the face and repeatedly slammed his head into a concrete walkway. Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, could face life in prison if convicted.
Despite those claims, a DNA expert with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement testified on Wednesday that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found in scrapings of Martin's fingernails or on the cuffs or other parts of the hooded sweatshirt he wore on the night he died.
There was also no trace of Martin's DNA on Zimmerman's gun, the expert, Anthony Gorgone, told the court. Zimmerman has said Martin tried to grab the 9mm Kel-Tec semi-automatic before he shot him at point-blank range.
Police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, accepting his story of self-defense.
A special prosecutor later brought the murder charge. The prosecutor accused Zimmerman of profiling Martin and chasing him vigilante-style rather than waiting for police to arrive.
Martin was a student at a Miami-area high school and a guest of one of the housing development's homeowners. He was walking back to the home in the rain from a convenience store when Zimmerman spotted him and called police, saying Martin looked suspicious. During the confrontation between the two, which is still clouded by competing narratives and conflicting witness testimony, Zimmerman shot Martin through the heart.
Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda had said he hoped to rest the prosecution's case against Zimmerman on Wednesday but court adjourned before he was able to call his final witnesses.
The court will be closed on Thursday for the U.S. Independence Day holiday so the final state witnesses, including the medical examiner who autopsied Martin's body and the dead teenager's parents, won't take the stand until Friday.
(Writing by Tom Brown; Editing by Jane Sutton, Bernard Orr)

Also from a Fox News article:



The fact that Zimmerman DNA was found on Martins sweatshirt under the hoodie, means that Zimmerman most probably dripped on Martin while Martin was face up! (before he was dead) Barring this being medium impact spatter, which would have hit his hoodie, and been on his sleeves, this was most probably blood dripping from Zimmerman's nose, if we can trust any part of the Zimmerman story to determine continuity . . .

Powder burns on the hoodie but none on the body with another expert stating a range of only a couple inches.
And with this lab they only thing I trust they'll get right is the law of gravity.
This whole trial is a keystone cop operation from start to finish.
The prosecutor is being indited.
The judge is doing everything she can to make sure any conviction is over turned on appeal.
About the only person coming out of this trial not looking like a complete moron is Zimmermans' lawyer.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Powder burns on the hoodie but none on the body with another expert stating a range of only a couple inches.
This of course is what the prosecution has said all along. This fits any one of many scenarios. Most of which allow for the gun being pulled without having been seen first by the victim.
And with this lab they only thing I trust they'll get right is the law of gravity.
Not the best but they didn't ruin any results. Better than the original investigation. Remember they started it by not doing their jobs!
This whole trial is a keystone cop operation from start to finish.
I don't see that. The original officers have the intelligence of a box of rocks, which made this a particularly difficult case to prosecute.
The prosecutor is being indited.
Get your story straight; and the word is 'indicted,' anyways. First it is the Attorney General, then the Prosecutor. Nowhere in American Jurisprudence would a case not be dismissed before any such kind of indictment was issued. This is just another white supremacist wet-dream, perpetrated for it's obvious impact. This group in Ocala is a bunch of "Zeroes." The only good thing about their activities is that you can rule out any fact based reporting from anyone who brings up their activities!
The judge is doing everything she can to make sure any conviction is over turned on appeal.
Source?
About the only person coming out of this trial not looking like a complete moron is Zimmermans' lawyer.
Matter of perspective. I have an associate who is (I believe, over a thousand dollars an hour, 25k non-refundable retainer) a top defense attorney, who tends to think the prosecution is doing a good job with a shiitty case.

My answers are of course, within your quote. I am more interested in seeing the angle of the wound. Since no damage was done to the victim's hands as a result of a gun going off that the victim and the other victim were struggling over.

 

[dshans]

There goes the streak.

Is this your point of reference?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/stvrWdFijZc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[IrishLax]

So the prosecution rested its case and the defense asked for the case to be dismissed because they did not present enough evidence to make their case. After some back and forth the judge considered dismissing it for about a minute before allowing the trial to proceed. Now the defense gets to do their thing.

Simply put, as much as some on here want to put the burden of proof on Zimmerman, the state is the one who has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. And based on contradicting testimony, inconclusive forensics, etc. it realllllly does not seem like that is happening.

 

[pkt77242]

So the prosecution rested its case and the defense asked for the case to be dismissed because they did not present enough evidence to make their case. After some back and forth the judge considered dismissing it for about a minute before allowing the trial to proceed. Now the defense gets to do their thing.

Simply put, as much as some on here want to put the burden of proof on Zimmerman, the state is the one who has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. And based on contradicting testimony, inconclusive forensics, etc. it realllllly does not seem like that is happening.

Especially since they went for murder 2. I think they would have had a better chance at manslaughter.

 

[IrishLax]

Especially since they went for murder 2. I think they would have had a better chance at manslaughter.

Totally agree. Think they could've gotten a conviction on involuntary manslaughter for sure.

 

[drayer54]

Woulda coulda shoulda...

When he gets his acquital, it's going to be a dangerous place in South Florida...

Twitter users threaten to murder George Zimmerman if he's acquitted | Washington Times Communities

Black agitators descend on Sanford, Fla., threaten riot if Zimmerman acquitted - St. Petersburg Political Buzz | Examiner.com

 

[jmurphy75]

Woulda coulda shoulda...

When he gets his acquital, it's going to be a dangerous place in South Florida...

Twitter users threaten to murder George Zimmerman if he's acquitted | Washington Times Communities

Black agitators descend on Sanford, Fla., threaten riot if Zimmerman acquitted - St. Petersburg Political Buzz | Examiner.com

We're all worried about what happens WHEN that happens. Believe me FDLE and both Orange and Seminole Counties are ready.

 

[WestCoast]

Totally agree. Think they could've gotten a conviction on involuntary manslaughter for sure.

couple q's:

does anyone know if they charged him on M2 only and no lesser includeds? anyone familiar enough with Florida crim law to know if the window is still open on allowing the jury to find guilt on a lesser included? Or is the pros precluded from asking for it after the first wit is sworn in?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

couple q's:

does anyone know if they charged him on M2 only and no lesser includeds? anyone familiar enough with Florida crim law to know if the window is still open on allowing the jury to find guilt on a lesser included? Or is the pros precluded from asking for it after the first wit is sworn in?

The prosecution only charged him with M2, but the jury could find him guilty of any lesser included offense under Florida law. So in theory he could be found not guilty of M2 but guilty of Attempted Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, or Aggravated Assault.

The problem is, though, is that if the jury buys the Self-Defense claim then he's not really guilty of anything -- Self Defense acquits for all the lesser included offenses too. So either he's guilty of M2 or he should walk. Splitting the baby here, so to speak, just to appease the country/media, really makes a sham of the criminal justice system.

 

[drayer54]

Two observations:

a) Zimmerman called 911,...

Trayvon had a phone too, and yet, Trayvon called a girl to report an uncomfortable situation,...

not 911,...

b) I have never known a cracker, black or Hispanic who would describe George Zimmerman as a "creepy white cracker", upon seeing him,...

When I first heard his name without seeing his face (just as the girl on the other end of Trayvon's phone) I imagined blond, blue-eyed, German,...

Trayvon Martin did not know Zimmerman's name the night he died, I can imagine no young stud prone to pouring out racial epithets over the phone describing George Zimmerman as a "creepy white cracker", another racial epithet or two comes to mind based on Zimmerman's face and appearance, but they are not "white" epithets,...

I do not know what that girl on the other end of the phone line thinks she heard, but I reasonably suspect that when she heard her friend had been killed by a man named George Zimmerman her story became the story of the "creepy white cracker",...

Once Zimmerman's visage was out in the media,.....too late, the "creepy white cracker" story was out there,...

Zimmerman does not look like a creepy white cracker to me, I reasonably doubt he looked like a creepy white cracker to Trayvon,...

Knowing your races well is too important to folks still steeped in that central Florida paradigm,...

Especially amongst those who use racial epithets to describe each other,...

I'm just saying,...



.....

 

[jmurphy75]

As we argue our opinions I think we loose sight of the simple fact that this could have all been prevented and Martin would still be alive today if only a simple 30-second, civil discussion could have transpired. Something like this:

Zimmerman: “Hey, I'm part of the neighborhood watch group, what are you up to?”

Martin: “Hey man, I'm just walkin’ home from the store.”

Zimmerman: “Oh, OK. The only reason I'm asking is because there have been some break-ins recently and I didn’t recognize you.”

Martin: “No problem man, I'm just here with my dad visiting his girlfriend down in unit #37.”

Zimmerman: “OK, cool man. Have a good night.”

Is that so hard!? Instead, a fight breaks out and someone ends up dead. This is exactly what’s wrong with our society. Civility seems to be a thing of the past.

So I guess the question is, who was the aggressor? I know one thing, Zimmerman had every right to approach Martin, and he had every right to defend himself.

 

[WestCoast]

The prosecution only charged him with M2, but the jury could find him guilty of any lesser included offense under Florida law. So in theory he could be found not guilty of M2 but guilty of Attempted Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, or Aggravated Assault.

Does the Indictment mention lesser includeds, even if only by implication? Seems like it would violate DP not to give the defendant notice that he could be found guilty of a serious crime not mentioned in the charging doc. Never practiced in crim law, so what do I know.

 

[BGIF]

Does the Indictment mention lesser includeds, even if only by implication? Seems like it would violate DP not to give the defendant notice that he could be found guilty of a serious crime not mentioned in the charging doc. Never practiced in crim law, so what do I know.

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?