The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:

One President, Andrew Johnson in 1868,
was charged with violation of federal laws in a politically-motivated impeachment,
C. I. loves leftist prejudiced lexicography,
that omits the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

What does that tell us about C. I. 's credibility??

So you think Bill Clinton's impeachment was politically motivated?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Just because "we don't know" who started the fight that night doesn't mean we can't judge Zimmerman's other actions before, during and after. When his actions lead to the death of a person and those actions can be considered reckless then he can be found guilty of a crime.

Would a reasonable person have stayed in the car?
Would a reasonable person have followed someone in the dark?
Would a reasonable person have let the police handle it?
Would a reasonable person have continued to follow after being told by a 911 operator "we don't need you to do that?"

At what point does a series of known "unreasonable" acts by Zimmerman suddenly overshadow what we don't know?

In a local case a father was just convicted of child endangerment and manslaughter because his 4 year old found a gun and shot and killed himself. There are a lot of things we don't know in that case but the recklessness of leaving a gun where a child can get it overshadowed what we don't know.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Would a reasonable person have stayed in the car?
Would a reasonable person have followed someone in the dark?
Would a reasonable person have let the police handle it?
Would a reasonable person have continued to follow after being told by a 911 operator "we don't need you to do that?"

He probably would. But the prosecution isn't charging Zimmerman with unreasonableness, nor is unreasonableness a necessary part of second-degree murder. The definition of second-degree murder demands much more than garden-variety unreasonableness. It demands that the killing happened from "ill will,‭ ‬hatred,‭ ‬spite,‭ ‬or an evil intent". (See Florida Standard Jury Instructions, under 7.4.) Not a single item on your list demonstrates any of those.

parados wrote:

At what point does a series of known "unreasonable" acts by Zimmerman suddenly overshadow what we don't know?

At the point where the facts we do know prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman shot Martin from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intend.

3 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Is your gut feeling still the same?

Yes. If the quality of evidence and testimony was the same, I would still retain reasonable doubt, and would still think the Black shooter should be acquitted.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The jury will also be considering manslaughter.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados wrote:

The jury will also be considering manslaughter.

True. To prove that, the prosecution has to remove all reasonable doubt that "[t]he death of‭ (‬victim‭) ‬was caused by the culpable negligence of‭ (‬defendant‭)‬." (Florida Standard Jury Instructions, under 7.7.) That still goes well beyond garden-variety unreasonableness. And your list still doesn't make the grade; none of the acts on it caused the victim's death.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Your list still doesn't make the grade; none of the acts on it caused the victim's death.

Zimmerman pulling the trigger of the gun he was carrying when he did those things caused the victim's death. There is no dispute of that fact. The question then is whether his actions leading up to pulling the trigger were reasonable.

Here is a take on the trial and charges.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerman-trial-if-state-cant-get-murder-2-can-they-get-manslaughter-yes-and-no/

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The question then is whether his actions leading up to pulling the trigger were reasonable.

No it's not. The question is whether his actions leading up to pulling the trigger prove ill will,‭ ‬hatred,‭ ‬spite,‭ ‬or an evil intent (which would establish second-degree murder) or culpable negligence (which would establish manslaughter). The actions you listed prove neither.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

It demands that the killing happened from "ill will,‭ ‬hatred,‭ ‬spite,‭ ‬or an evil intent".

Depends on what you define as the critical moment.

He definitely had ill will when he left his car, and went chasing Martin on foot. Ill will was the reason for the entire encounter. Anger about break-ins was Zimmerman's entire reason for being on the neighborhood watch.

Ill will caused the confrontation, which ended in a dead person.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

You wrote,

Quote:

"ill will,‭ ‬hatred,‭ ‬spite,‭ ‬or an evil intent"

If I were a member of the jury, I could easily arrive at all of those adverbs.

First off, he was told to stay in his car, but he didn't listen - because he believed Martin was up to no good. There no justifiable reason to assume that unless you are Zimmerman. Whatever followed isn't that important - unless Zimmerman actually saw Martin commit a crime. He didn't.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

BillW wrote:
Zimmerman's lies are all self serving, therefore, one can conclude that al of Zimmerman's statements that are self serving are lies or at a minimum can not be depended on.

"Cannot be depended on" is right. But if you can't depend on Zimmerman's Fox-Noise interview for the truth about the confrontation, that doesn't mean we know that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. It means we don't know the truth about the confrontation. And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.

That would be true if we were in a vacuum and there isn't more evidence. There is more evidence, it has to be put together in a way that the jury sees that this is the way it happened. That will come at the end.

It this can't be done or can't be done convincingly, then you are correct - they must acquit or go to a lesser charge. Manslaughter doesn't have the same degree of proof, for instance. And, there are two or three differing man slaughter charges that require less proof and lesser reasons to convict.

It is the fact that Zimmermans lies are so self serving that hurts in three or four different directions. Not only the Fox lies but also the interview lies. It will be pointed out that the lies got more and more self serving and refined as time went by.

0 Replies

@parados,

What David can't seem to get into his head is that just because anyone is charged with a crime doesn't mean they are guilty.

A defendant is presumed innocent until they are found guilty of a crime.

Impeachment is not a crime; it's only a charge without any evidence.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

BillW wrote:
Is your gut feeling still the same?

Yes. If the quality of evidence and testimony was the same, I would still retain reasonable doubt, and would still think the Black shooter should be acquitted.

You are one of the few that belive in aquittal that I believe would judge the same, both ways. It is funny that you are also the only one to answer this question - Thanks!

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Ill will caused the confrontation, which ended in a dead person.

That's a fair point.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If I were a member of the jury, I could easily arrive at all of those adverbs.

What a frightening thought. I hope my freedom will never depend on a jury's mercy, then.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

When in the jury room, a member that is really, really good in human persusasion can change minds. Yes, it is a frightening thought, especially after having been there.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Just the act is enough under Florida law. There is no requirement of culpable negligence.

2 Replies

@parados,

Here's another issue that's not been brought up, but I feel is significant to this case.

Quote:

The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or Fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

The law of kidnapping is difficult to define with precision because it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most state and federal kidnapping statutes define the term kidnapping vaguely, and courts fill in the details.

Generally, kidnapping occurs when a person, without lawful authority, physically asports (i.e., moves) another person without that other person's consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective. Under the Model Penal Code (a set of exemplary criminal rules fashioned by the American Law Institute), kidnapping occurs when any person is unlawfully and non-consensually asported and held for certain purposes. These purposes include gaining a ransom or reward; facilitating the commission of a felony or a flight after the commission of a felony; terrorizing or inflicting bodily injury on the victim or a third person; and interfering with a governmental or political function (Model Penal Code § 212.1).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci, Zimmerman may have had some limited right to detain a person as being a neighborhood watch person, but, his duties were explained as - the eyes and ears. Doesn't imply any physical hands on activity with the "suspect", does it?

I also think that they were specifically not suppose to have a gun. For these exact reasons as happened in this case? I would think so.

1 Reply

I think they are getting to the ill will and spite today with going over Zimmerman's words of "F--- punks. These a----. They always get away." Witnesses say it don't represent ill will or spite, but I think most people will think it does.

Also good when the prosecution pointed out the stakes the Osterman couple had because of the book Mark Osterman wrote and the proceeds from the book going to the defendant. Not exactly unbiased.

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know