Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Sorry but the outcry had to do with the Sharptons types of the world as there was a similar outcry over the so call Duke rape case and the prosecutor was eager to charge those three young men and a similar outcry over the DSK case with public demonstrations and once more the prosecutor did not drag his feet in pulling DSK off the plane and arresting him within hours.

So it is a nice theory however it was too good of a story that could be spin just right not to had drawn Al Sharpton and his likes.

So it is you position Firefly that an unarmed person had the right to kill you by driving your head into the sidewalk or that an unarmed person can not kill another person?

Just assumptions without evidence, and arriving at conclusions not stated anywhere.

There is a picture to go along with Zimmerman claims taken within minutes after the shooting and at the scene so your comment without evidence is not true.

So, does the picture show Zimmy's head being hit against the cement? Or is that part and parcel of your personal imagination and interpretation?

So I need to repost the pictures of the wounds on Zimmerman head taken within minutes of the shooting that support his statement that good innocent and unarmed Trayvon was doing his very best to kill him by pounding his head on the sidewalk?

So, is there a picture that shows Zimmerman shooting Trayvon?

In which case an arrest would have been made immediately when the killer was found with gun in hand and the killer would still be in jail.

Pictures are not always reliable evidence of crime. How do you know he didn't self-inflect his wound? 100% sure?

It seems to me that you have already made up your mind, without knowing all the facts in the case.
Are you so eager to convict Zimmerman that you are willing to ignore any evidence that might be presented that doesnt fit your opinion?

The irrelevant cases you are dragging in really don't make sense. You are comparing cabbages to apples.

There were definite racial issues surrounding the Duke case, that were unrelated to the rape charges, that you seem to be disregarding. And why you are mentioning DSK as an example of a case driven by public pressure I can't fathom--he was arrested before the public was even aware of the matter, and the charges were handed down by a grand jury.

You simply seem to be unable to focus on the Zimmerman case.

My position is that, in this particular case, there was enough ambiguity about what had occurred to warrant an arrest and a charge of manslaughter, and that would have allowed Zimmerman the opportunity to present his claim of self defense to a judge--which would have been the most appropriate way to legally determine whether his claim was valid and supported by evidence. He had committed a homicide, which he admitted to, and there is a legal burden of proof required of him to justify his claim of self defense--you can't just take his word for it, despite some lacerations on his scalp. And the lead investigator wasn't convinced by his story. An arrest should have been made the night of the shooting.

Martin had reason to fear Zimmerman and to wonder what he was up to--this strange man was following him. Suppose, because of that fear, Martin had punched Zimmerman, knocking him to the pavement and causing a laceration to his scalp when he hit the cement, but then Martin did nothing more than maybe get on top of Zimmerman and hold him down--no head pounding, no further punching. But, if Zimmerman just feared Martin might do more, and pulled out his gun and shot him, that scenario would explain Zimmerman's injuries, but it would not be a situation that clearly required deadly force because of a real imminent threat to Zimmerman's life.

That's why this situation was not a clear-cut case of self defense--as might be the case if someone breaks into your home. This was a man who shot an unarmed stranger on the street--a stranger who had not been engaged in any criminal activity, and a stranger who this man had actively pursued despite being advised by a police dispatcher not to do so. And no one witnessed the actual shooting to back up the claim of self defense. That type of homicide situation is sufficiently ambiguous to require that the issue of self defense be legally resolved, either by a judge at a pre-trial hearing, who could decide to dismiss the case, or by a jury after a trial.

And, had the victim been a white teen, I think an arrest would have been made the night of the shooting, and so do most people. And that's what the public outcry was all about. Was the state attorney not taking the matter seriously enough because this was a dead black kid, and not a white one? Was the state attorney's thinking possibly influenced by racial profiling? Is that why an arrest wasn't made? Those are very troubling questions for the black community, and that has always been Al Sharpton's major area of focus and activism--how blacks are regarded and treated by the police and within the criminal justice system--and this case seemed to indicate that law enforcement had stopped short of doing what was necessary to determine whether this homicide was justified self defense or whether it was manslaughter or murder.

So, I think the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman was a bad judgment call. And I think the case is now where it belonged all along--in court. Zimmerman will have his opportunity to convince a judge that this homicide was a justifiable act of self defense. If he succeeds in doing that, the matter will be dismissed. But, thanks to the decision to not charge him initially, and the consequent firestorm that ensued, his life will never be the same again. Not charging him immediately did not do him a favor.

Sorry you do not arrest and charge someone because you had yet to figure out what had happen and then investigate if a crime had occur or not.

The guy just shot a young man dead; that's a crime scene if there ever was one!

A crime scene as in an assault by the now death attacker perhaps as will as a scene of self defense.

So every time someone was able to save their lives by employing deadly force in self defense we should arrested the victims of the assault?

A man with a gun, standing next to the dead body of an unarmed person, who then admits he did the shooting that killed the dead man, is evidence of a crime. It is a homicide.

Self defense is an affirmative defense--to the crime of homicide. It may absolve you of punishment for the killing, it doesn't absolve you of having to present evidence in support of that claim of self defense, it doesn't absolve you from being arrested and having to make that claim of self defense before a judge.

Just the lacerations on Zimmerman's head are not sufficient, in themselves, to wipe out doubts about whether this was a justified use of deadly force. As I already pointed out, he could have been knocked to the sidewalk by Martin and cut his head that way--no pounding, no threat of death involved. And the lead investigator was unconvinced by Zimmerman's account. That's why the arrest should have taken place that night and should have been approved by the state attorney. This case belonged in court all along because the circumstances of the shooting were not clear, and there was no question that Zimmerman had killed someone.

When the situation is unclear, or ambiguous, yes, an arrest should be made.

You want to give people a license to kill, by just letting them blithely claim self defense after a killing, and leaving it at that?

The flip side of letting people carry guns is that, if they use them and kill someone, they should have a lot of explaining to do, and some evidence that their use of deadly force was justified.

WRONG WRONG WRONG

At least until you repeal the rights of self defense it is wrong.

Of course if Zimmerman had allowed Trayvon to kill him it would not be anything but a local story.

You don't don't get it, BillRM. Self defense is a defense to a crime to a homicide.

Because someone claims self defense, it doesn't mean the homicide didn't happen. It doesn't change the fact that the death was a homicide caused by that person.

If the self defense claim is legally acceptable, it just means you won't be held accountable and punished. But there has to be proof, or evidence, to back up the claim of self defense, and presenting that evidence to a judge is a legally appropriate way of resolving a homicide and deciding whether charges should be dismissed or not.

Under Florida law you still need to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the unlawful killing of another human being!!!!!!!!!!!!

Repeat the unlawful killing..........not a killing in self defense.

I know this break you heart Firefly but the state had the burden of proof that Zimmerman did not act in self defense not the other way around and only if a jury reject his claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt can they find him guilt.


chttp://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/zimmermans-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/


Zimmerman's Low Burden of Proof on the Issue of Self Defense
by Professor Will Huhn on April 13, 2012

in Criminal Law,Wilson Huhn

In her news conference announcing that George Zimmerman was being charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey mentioned several times that self-defense is an "affirmative defense" under Florida law. She also said that "Stand Your Ground" is "a tough affirmative defense to overcome." It will be "tough" for the prosecution because although Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.
Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:

You know Firefly the more I think about how wrong you happen to be the more I am laughing that you was of the opinion that Zimmerman have to prove he acted in self defense instead of the real situation that the state have the burden under Florida law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense.

Good luck with his wounds proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense!!!!!!!!

This case would never had been file except for political reasons and I do not like the idea that the justice system is charging people for political reasons.