The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

What I care about is that the right of self defense
from criminal violence was successfully vindicated in Zimmy 's acquital.
Any of us might need to use it; (I already have).

If he or anyone else goes forth and violates any laws,
then the legal system will execute its processes upon whoever does so.

I still ADMIRE his naborly concern in contributing his time
in following the guy seen to be casing the naborhood for burglaries.
Zimmy 's a better man than I am, Gunga Din.





David

If I run into him,
I 'll be sure to slip him some cash; good fellow!





David

Not if they failed to correctly understand the law regarding manslaughter. If that's what happened, and I definitely believe it did in the case of the juror Maddy, based on her own comment about premeditation, then they did not follow the laws.

And, while self-defense law in Florida gives the benefit of any doubt to the defendant, manslaughter does not. Conviction on manslaughter requires belief beyond a reasonable doubt that that law was violated, and that negates the claim of self-defense. But the jury has to understand the manslaughter law. And manslaughter would involve all of Zimmerman's actions--like following Martin in the dark, and frightening him, without sufficient objective reason, failing to identify himself to Martin, etc.--all of Zimmerman's reckless and provocative actions before that shot was fired--the things which apparently did trouble this jury in terms of Zimmerman's responsibility for this death--and that does add up to manslaughter under Florida law. But the jury has to understand the manslaughter law to see that.

Like you, I think the state blew it by overcharging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. That was too high a bar given the evidence they had to work with. Had they gone only for manslaughter, for which they had a very strong case, the law itself would have been made much clearer to the jury, and I really feel they would have gotten a conviction.

As always your sequence of events forgets to mention that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

I agree with that article and its conclusion, Walter.

Our law enforcement and criminal justice systems are very infected with racism, often covert racism, on many different levels, and that's where the corrective focus should be placed. The particular case of Zimmerman and Martin is relatively unimportant except as a starting point for that broader discussion we need to have in this country. And I do believe it has helped to get that discussion started.

Yes!
It is conspicuous that neither Sharpton
nor the Republican governor wud have become involved
to make Zimmy the victim of a witch hunt,
if only Zimmy had been a black,
or if travon were a white. That trial was 1OO% racial; no doubt.





David

I have never studied the law of Florida.
Have u found something in the statute against manslaughter
that has led u to your conclusions qua conviction?????

Will u reveal what that language IS ?
Will u quote us what u have in mind
that theoretically results in conviction for this defendant??

Which may have happened after Zimmerman indicated to Martin that he had a gun, or made his gun visible, causing Martin to punch him once, in self-defense, and everything that followed that was not a "fight" or a "beating", but rather a stuggle over the gun. That would explain why Zimmerman never fought back, why he had no significant injuries beyond that single blow, and why Martin had none of Zimmerman's DNA on his hands. It was a struggle over the gun, as Martin tried to protect his own life from the "creepy" armed stranger who had been following him in the dark for no apparent reason.

That's not an "attack" by Martin. Nor has it ever been definitively established that Martin "attacked" Zimmerman, as opposed to just trying to defend himself from this man and his gun.

As always, your sequence of events ignores other likely possibilities.

And given Zimmerman's post-acquittal penchant for continuing to threaten people with guns, my speculation about what occurred that night with Martin seems much more likely than yours. Zimmerman repeats patterns of behaviors.

Look up the Florida law yourself, David, you're capable of doing that. That's what I did.

I've already said in what regard I feel Zimmerman's actions violated the manslaughter law. So did the state in their summation at trial. Unfortunately, it was tacked on almost as an afterthought, and their main case, and summation, focused on murder in the second degree. That also resulted in the explanation of manslaughter law to the jury getting rather short shrift. And, during deliberation, one of the jurors did send the judge a question about manslaughter that never got answered. Confusion about the manslaughter law, in the mind of even one juror, who was the last hold-out favoring conviction, could well have affected the verdict.

If any of those things were to have happened wouldn't good ol' Jantel have over heard those things and said something to the police. The only words we have reported are the "creepy ass cracker" and "get off of me". No other words before or after the "get off of me" are reported.

Look who is stretching for an explanation.

The only witness for Martin never said anything else and I think she was keeping things from the police for a reason. She heard get off of me but nothing else? No mention of a gun or anything else, just the "get off of me" comment.

Thanks much for the detail account of the George Zimmerman case and info regarding O'Mara.....I have noticed the latter was a contributor to CNN. You seem to be well acquainted with this case and the key players. I have not followed it so closely but do respect your intelligent analysis of events and your willingness to take the time to write at such length. You are a valuable asset to this thread and are thoroughly appreciated by me....at least and a few others.

Because after that the phone was dropped by Martin, and at some point disconnected, and the struggle over the gun may not have involved a verbal interchange. She said she heard "grass sounds" or something like that after the phone was dropped.

That the last thing Jeantel heard Martin say was, "Get off of me," right after Zimmerman confronted him, certainly indicates he did not "attack" Zimmerman, but was rather responding in self-defense.

Look Zimmerman was just arrested for threatening another person with a gun, and he menaced his estranged wife by making gestures indicating that he might shoot her or her father, and hanging bullet-ridden targets on the wall for her to find. And I believe he made gestures toward his gun, or actually showed it, when he confronted Martin. He displays consistent patterns of behavior--including blaming the other person and casting himself as the victim.

It's pointless to keep re-hashing what happened with Martin. I'd rather focus on the way Zimmerman has been acting since his acquittal and what that behavior says about him.

Thanks for the Guardian link, Walter. I am posting it in its entirety.
_______________

Latest Zimmerman arrest is a reminder of just how broken US justice system is.

There's a presumption of white innocence. It reflects a society rife with institutional racism and prejudice against people of color

Michael P Jeffries
Michael P Jeffries
theguardian.com, Wednesday 20 November 2013 14.49 EST

George Zimmerman is a disturbed and dangerous man. He is a man with a prolonged history of violence and poor judgment, who is yet to demonstrate remorse for taking the life of an innocent 17-year-old boy. The police chief who oversees Zimmerman's former Florida town agreed with a concerned citizen who wrote that Zimmerman was "a Sandy Hook [or] Aurora waiting to happen".

This past summer Zimmerman was pulled over for speeding twice, and he participated in what appears to be a staged car crash rescue to repair his soiled public image. His recent arrest and felony charge for assaulting his girlfriend and threatening her with a firearm was met with little surprise by those of us who were devastated by outcome of the Trayvon Martin murder trial.

As evidence mounts that Zimmerman is a menace to society, his character will come under increasing attack. These too-little-too-late public condemnations may feel like vindication in light of the injustice of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. But left unchecked, shouts of "I told you so!" will drown out the most crucial lessons of the saga. Zimmerman's personal failings and poor character played undeniable roles in Martin's death. But the injustice of the Martin murder is not enabled or sustained by "bad guys" like Zimmerman. Rather, it is produced by a broken criminal punishment system that reflects a society rife with institutional racism and prejudice against people of color.

During the murder trial, defense attorney Mark O'Mara explicitly told the jury, "Do not give anybody the benefit of the doubt except for George Zimmerman." Indeed, Zimmerman was given the benefit of the doubt by the legal system at every turn, and it began long before the trial started. It took sustained protests by Martin's parents, neighbors, and prominent civil rights advocates merely for Martin's killer to be arrested and brought to court.

The presumption of white innocence is interwoven with the perceptions of black and Hispanic criminality and threat. Law professors Allie Rolnick and Priscilla Ocen explain that self-defense laws like "Stand Your Ground" are based on the idea of "reasonable fear" of severe bodily damage. So Zimmerman's "not guilty" verdict cannot be separated from condemnation of Martin as fearsome, despite the fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin in a vehicle and confronted the boy with a loaded gun. These codependent biases of white innocence and black guilt were crystalized through comparisons between Zimmerman (who is Hispanic but was perceived as white) and Marissa Alexander, a young black woman who was sent to prison after her "Stand Your Ground" defense claim was denied. Alexander, who fired warning shots to scare off her allegedly abusive husband, had her case reopened after the Zimmerman verdict.

The plague of racial prejudice is not speculation. Stereotypes of black criminality run rampant and are empirically documented (pdf). Implicit and explicit racial prejudice against blacks and Hispanics has increased since President Obama took office in 2008. But the most disastrous impact of prejudice is not social unpleasantness, it is its codification and reinforcement in institutions like the police system and the courts.

New York City's "Stop and Frisk" policy and Arizona's immigrant surveillance law are two ongoing legal battles that exemplify these trends. Despite Obama's heartfelt response to the Zimmerman verdict, little action has been taken by the federal government and racial profiling and mass incarceration of blacks and Hispanics continues unchecked.

The idea that we can address Zimmerman's transgressions without talking about the interplay of race, gender, and class is often framed as a commitment to neutrality. Judge Debra Nelson, who presided over the Zimmerman trial, actually banned the phrase "racial profiling" from being used during proceedings. But silence about race, gender, and class is not neutrality. Colorblindness and "postracialism" require the active denial of continued oppression of people of color and the racist stigma that follows young black men and boys like Martin.

Zimmerman's latest arrest presents another opportunity for "neutrality" to manifest as active denial. Zimmerman's history of domestic violence cannot be treated as unrelated to his current predicament. As Salamishah Tillet pointed out during the murder trial, previous abuses of women and children are often precursors to repeat offenses, especially when left unchecked by the criminal punishment system.

We have to guard against attributing the Martin tragedy solely to Zimmerman's behavior and taking satisfaction in his disgrace. The Martin murder and the plague of domestic violence against women and children should inspire anger and righteous discontent. But rather than exhausting ourselves with calls to lock Zimmerman up and throw away the key, our indignation needs to be channeled and used as fuel for a long and unglamorous fight.

We have to reform immigration policy, ban racial profiling, and repeal sentencing laws that disproportionately penalize people of color. We also have change the ways we talk about criminal punishment, innocence, and white male privilege. Neutrality is a smokescreen for racism and sexism inscribed in law and on our bodies. So we have to talk truthfully about race, gender, and class in courts, legislative halls, schools, and in our homes if we are to move towards justice. Catching the bad guy will not stop the crime.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/george-zimmerman-girlfriend-assault-white-innocence?
• This commentary was amended on 20 November to correct that Trayvon Martin was 17 years old

She definitely is highly valued by me, MiT.

She is tilting with some brick walls...but she is steady and indefatigable.

Thanks, Moment-in-Time, I really appreciate your kind words. I am willing to take the time to respond at length because I know that people like you will appreciate my investment of effort.

And I just saw Frank's comments. I thank him as well.

Yes; I can do that,
but I am not empathically enabled to discern WHAT
in the statute 's language has given rise to your conclusions qua conviction.

I distinctly remember the precept of dear old Professor Ellegaard:
"The first step in statutory interpretation is: READ THE STATUTE!!!"
When I was in practice in NY, I (and all other trial lawyers whose
motion practice or memos of law crossed my desk) was very acutely concerned
to explicitly quote the operative language of any statute whose benefit
I sought for my client. I never left it to the chances of un-aided judicial inference.
Reading a statute can be like looking at painted fine art in a museum;
u never know for sure what will catch the eye of the observer.

Do u wish to tell us WHAT,
in particular, u like so much in that statute???

I always thought it was fun
to quote the specific language in the statute to make my point
more POINTEDLY. Do u wish to display your statutory discovery
for the evaluative analysis of all of us?? If u show us, we can parse it.





David

Go read the trial transcript to find why the prosecution told the jury, during summation, that manslaughter was applicable in this case.

I'm not really interested in bantering with you about this, David. I've already said what I think about this matter. Go back and re-read my posts.

What do you think about Zimmerman's post-acquittal run-ins with the law, and his latest arrest? Doesn't any of it cause you to re-think your appraisal of his character?

Would you want to see him having continuing access to guns, given his threatened use of them to terrorize others, as well as his suicidal thoughts?

that is not how I read the jury instructions:


http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

the state did not have proof at trial time, anything that happens after is irrelevant. perhaps the state would have been better off to not charge Zimmerman so quickly, but they get no do overs.

You omitted the charge of manslaughter...

He submitted an affirmative defense--self-defense--and, at the time he shot Martin, he may have feared for great bodily harm to himself. That doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of manslaughter in recklessly instigating, or causing, or provoking, the situation with Martin that led to the shooting, or that he felt necessitated the use of his gun.

If he committed manslaughter, by reckless actions that disregarded Martin's welfare, or he intentionally provoked a defensive physical response from Martin, that would negate his assertion of an affirmative defense. I'm not sure the jury really understand that. Maddy didn't seem to.

Zimmerman, in defiance of Neighborhood Watch Rules, and the advisement of a police dispatcher, profiled and stalked a minor, who was engaged in no criminal behaviors, through a dark private gated community, for no legitimate reason that would have been apparent to that minor. That can be considered menacing or threatening behavior. Zimmerman never considered that he was misguided in his profiling of Martin, or the impact of his stalking on Martin.

That's very questionable as "reasonable behavior" toward Martin. The intentional stalking of Martin was motivated, not by any objective requirements of the situation, like a crime in progress, or after witnessing Martin commit a crime, but rather by Zimmerman's personal obsession with not letting this "f---ing punk" get away--and by his own feelings of anger toward his "suspect" who represented all those other "f---ing punks" to him. And, when he finally confronted Martin, he never identified himself or tried to defuse the situation he had created. Zimmerman's actions were not "reasonable" and they resulted in a totally avoidable death.

That all adds up to the legal violation of reasonable behavior that defines manslaughter, beyond a merely negligent act, and that intentional, unreasonable, and reckless behavior, on Zimmerman's part, contributed to, and led to, the death of Trayvon Martin. And that's manslaughter.

George Zimmerman did intentionally commit acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. That's manslaughter.

If he had stayed in his car, this death would not have occurred.

And the state actually made a strong case for manslaughter. Just because Zimmerman felt he had to fire his gun, and the jury believed that, does not mean he's automatically absolved of manslaughter if previous reckless/unreasonable behavior toward Martin, due to Zimmerman's anger and personal obsessions, led to, and created the need for, that final act.

The jury instructions on manslaughter really don't make that clear.

Had Zimmerman been charged with manslaughter, and not second degree murder, everything would have been clearer for the jury, including the law, and I think the verdict would have been different.

The Stand Your Ground instructions futher confused the issue for the jury--this wasn't a SYG case.

And it's all really beside the point now.