The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

At this point, I would hope that a juror is still listening to testimony, and won't make up her mind until both sides have rested.

To me it is/was fateful that the words of the dispatcher don't/didn't have the strength of law. Of course I can see why they don't.. I think.

I think, though I can't be sure, E, that this is your mild expression of revulsion at such a thoughtless law.

You have arrived at a conclusion; I haven't. That's the Florida law. The trial is still on-going, and we still have not heard all the testimony. It's you who don't understand Florida law.

The judge didn't say anything about stopping the trial based on Florida law.

Hey, I thought the default was supposed to be 'his'.

My revulsion is more than mild, but yes that is what I was going for.

I think you can tell whether the physical altercation spiraled "out of control"--and that is from the injuries to both parties.

Zimmerman showed signs of a blow to his nose that caused some bleeding, and two tiny abrasions on the back of his head that were also bleeding. Neither his face nor body showed any signs of repeated punches, nor of any other strong single blows, other than the trauma to his nose. The back of his head showed no signs of pounding, other than the two very small abrasions. He required no immediate medical treatment at the scene, other than to have the blood under his nose and on the back of his head cleaned off, and no further medical treatment for these injuries subsequently. He did not show evidence consistent with a fight that had spiraled out of control.

Martin had no signs of injury to his body, other than a single gunshot wound to the chest. His hands showed no signs of having repeatedly punched something. There was none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA found on Martin's hands, body, or clothing, not even under the fingernails. He showed no signs of being in a fight, just of being shot.

The injuries are consistent with Zimmerman being hit in the nose, knocked down, and scraping or banging the back of his head on concrete once or twice--and not much more than that. They are not indicative of a fight that got out of control, or a life-threatening injury. There is nothing to justify the use of deadly force in this situation, based on the injuries which Zimmerman had sustained up to that point. The lack of any injury to Martin, suggests Zimmerman did not defend himself, or respond to Martin, in any way other than by using deadly force.

Whether Zimmerman felt threatened for his life could have been based on exaggerated or unfounded fears on his part. Zimmerman already thought that Martin was a criminal type who was up to no good--and that perception was also only in his own mind and not founded in reality--so, being hit by this same individual may well have resulted in distorted perceptions or exaggerated and unrealistic fears that his life was in danger, because of that. In that situation, during the fight, Zimmerman may not have been thinking, or interpreting the situation, as a reasonable person might--because he had "profiled" Martin in a certain way.

I think Zimmerman's actions during the fight have to be viewed in the context of his actions and mind-set from the moment he spotted Martin.

I agree with you that...

And that was after he had been watching and following him for some time--in a suspicious and somewhat menacing way, from Martin's perspective, as indicated in Rachel Jeantel's testimony about her phone conversation with Martin as this was going on.

Furthermore. Jeantel's testimony indicated that Martin was trying to avoid Zimmerman, and it does not support Zimmerman's account that Martin was hiding in some bushes waiting to confront him, and it does not support the contention that Martin was looking for a fight or getting ready to fight. The last thing Jeantel heard Martin say was, "Get off me." From start to finish, this evidence suggests Martin wanted to avoid Zimmerman and he just wanted Zimmerman to leave him alone. On the other hand, from start to finish, Zimmerman viewed Martin with animosity, and suspicion of being a criminal, and he didn't want this one to get away from the police. Even in his written statement for the police, after the shooting, he only referred to Martin as "the suspect".

So there are dots the jury can connect which might lead them not to acquit. They can conclude, that, given the circumstances, the total circumstances, Zimmerman should be held legally accountable for causing Martin's death, because, beyond a reasonable doubt, his actions were consistent with either second degree murder or manslaughter. It will depend on how the jury views the evidence and how they interpret it.

Let's assist all black kids with getting their hand on a gun - for self-defense.
<snicker>

That's a fair point. I don't use tags like this myself because I trust readers to notice when I'm being sarcastic. But it's your choice to help along inattentive readers with hints like that, and I shouldn't have messed with it.

At any point in any criminal trial, I would hope that jurors presume the defendant innocent until proven guilty. I would also hope that they scrutinize skeptically all the prosecution's attempts to prove him guilty. It's called "the presumption of innocence". It does approach the testimony with a somewhat biased mind --- and criminal justice is a better system for doing it that way. This is especially true when the defendant is as unsympathetic as Mr. Zimmerman, who does come across as "a creepy-ass cracker" (Trayvon Martin's words, not mine).

[/no sarcasm whatsoever, except in this tag itself]

But, in this case, there is no presumption of innocence about whether Zimmerman killed Martin--he committed a homicide

The only issue is whether that homicide was legally justified or not, and in affirming self-defense, there is a burden on Zimmerman to justify his actions. So his credibility should also be scrutinized--he has to present some credible evidence that his action was legally justified self defense.

The presumption of innocence in this case is really with regard to the second degree murder charge.

firefly, what did you make of Zimmerman's best friend's testimony? I think he might have actually helped the prosecution with all that about the gun. Pretty sure I heard him say Martin actually came into contact with the gun. (don't remember exact words)

No, there isn't. How much longer will you keep repeating this claim? It flatly contradicts Florida law. In Florida, unlike in most American jurisdictions, the defense has nothing to prove about Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. It's the prosecution that has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's claim is unjustified. If any reasonable doubt remains about the prosecution's story, the jury must acquit. Here, let me cite letter and verse for you again, straight from the website of Florida's Supreme Court:


See Florida Standard Jury Instructions, under 3.6(f), page 4, second paragraph from the top.

PS: When you check the quote, you may see a popup informing you that Florida's standard jury instructions are currently under review. A proposed revision of this paragraph, published by the Florida Bar, states the point even more adamantly:


(Source: Florida Bar News, April 1 2012)

What you are missing is the fact that the jury doesn't even get that instruction unless the defense has already raised the possibility, during trial, that the defendant's actions were possible self defense.

Zimmerman is pleading "not guilty". But he killed someone, so what makes him not guilty? His defense, during trial, must raise the issue of self defense to explain his "not guilty" plea--and that burden is on them.

The prosecution never has to raise the issue of self-defense at all--that burden is on the defendant to raise at trial. The prosecution in this case just lays out their evidence for second degree murder. That won't get the defendant those jury instructions for self defense.

The defense, through their cross-examination of the state's witnesses, has already managed to raise self defense as a possible explanation for this homicide. So the jury in this case will get those instructions, but only because the defense met its burden in that regard.

If Zimmerman is found completely innocent after what is now known, Florida will have created legaized murder by law. For instance, just say, that little boy jumped out in front of me and scared me to death. I just had to run over him cause he was gonna attack me...........

It is a general rule that a defendant who acts in Self-Defense may only use force that is reasonably calculated to prevent harm to himself or herself. If the person honestly, but unreasonably, believes Deadly Force is necessary and, therefore, causes another's death, some courts will consider the crime voluntary manslaughter. Similarly when a defendant acts under an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she has a right to kill another to prevent a felony, some courts will find the person guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Although it is generally considered a crime to kill another in order to save oneself, the justification of coercion or necessity may, likewise, reduce murder to manslaughter in some jurisdictions.

Zimmerman knew MMA, that is a fair match - he didn't need a gun.

"Reasonal man" has the strength of law.

murder is very often legal, so there is nothing new here....

He may be found legally "not guilty"--which means he won't suffer legal punishments. That's quite far from, and different from, being found "completely innocent".

We don't find people "innocent" legally in our system, we simply find them "not guilty"--which means the legal charges were not proved in court. But that person might not be "innocent" at all--think O.J.

In the minds of many, Zimmerman will never be seen as "innocent"--even if he is acquitted. A not guilty legal verdict does not mean the person is innocent.