The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

who has been shown to be either derelict or incompetent for sure, and maybe abusive as well

Quote:

who has been shown to be either derelict or incompetent for sure, and maybe abusive as well

IS that opinion based upon your years of training qnd experience as a trial attorney ?

The judge helped the defense today by allowing the little bit of pot into the evidence. Travon is after all dead and cant refute the evidence. But Georges lawers can get the evidence that he has a temper thrown out because it might influence the jury. Yes, the murdering sob is going to walk. Just as I predicted in the beginning.


A black wont get justice any place in the deep south.

martin would not have died this day if zimmerman had not gotten out of bed....zimmerman did that, thus zimmerman is criminally liable for the death. this is the type if argument we are getting in the effort to make zimmerman guilt. it is a farce.

parados wrote:

If Zimmerman created the circumstances through acts that weren't reasonable then his argument for self defense is weakened under the law.

There really is no reason for hand-waving arguments like this when the jury instructions are right there at your fingertips --- section 3.6(f) (RTF) in this case. Let's take a look:

In its standard jury instructions, the state of Florida wrote:

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to‭ [‬himself‭] [‬herself‭] ‬while resisting:

1. ‎another’s attempt to murder‭ [‬him‭] [‬her‭]‬,‭ ‬or
   
2. ‎any attempt to commit‭ (‬applicable felony‭) ‬upon‭ [‬him‭] [‬her‭]‬,‭ ‬or
   
3. any attempt to commit‭ ‬(applicable felony‭)‬ upon or in any dwelling,‭ ‬residence,‭ ‬or vehicle occupied by‭ [‬him‭] [‬her‭]‬.
   
   Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

The defense claims that Zimmerman reasonably believed that his use of force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself while resisting a beating from Trevon Martin. (So I guess the applicable felony would be assault.) Because self-defense is not an affirmative defense in Florida (look at the table of contents for "3.6: Defenses"), the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt hat Zimmerman couldn't possibly have held such a belief reasonably.

On the other hand, Florida also wrote:

However,‭ ‬the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: [. . . ]

2.‭ (‬Defendant‭) ‬initially provoked the use of force against‭ [‬himself‭] [‬herself‭]‬

The prosecution seems to be claiming that Zimmerman provoked the use of force --- either by starting the physical fight in the first place, or by the way he talked to Zimmerman. Again, it's the prosecution that has prove is claim. The defense needn't refute it.

And I don't see how the prosecution can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Witness Jentel (sp?) heard Martin ask, "why are you following me?" She also heard Zimmerman ask, "what are you doing here?" Zimmerman's words, however officious and unwarranted, are hardly fighting words; they do not rise to the level of a provocation.

After that, Jentel heard the sound of bodies bumping into each other; then she heard the sound of bodies rolling around in the grass. But she had no way of hearing who attacked whom. So again, the prosecution hasn't proven that Martin didn't start the fight, or that Zimmerman provoked Martin into starting it.

And that's the best evidence that the state presented of what started the fight. It hardly eliminates a reasonable doubt of Zimmerman's guilt.

This is for hawk and David.
This isn't about "liberalism."

It IS; liberalism is distortion of perception
for the purpose of deception.

You wrote,

DAVID wrote:

It IS; liberalism is distortion of perception
for the purpose of deception.

Prove it's liberalism?

To give you a 'head start,' here's some REAL deceptions, and they're not "liberalism."

I have yet to see even one legal elite not on the state payroll who is of the opinion that the murder charge was justified by the evidence. we know that there are big problems with this case being where it ended up.

You're not answering the question.

U c, there is an error of grammar.
U shud have said: here ARE some REAL deceptions
or
here IS some REAL deception.

... is a long standing propensity for there is or there's in every case, even when the following subject is clearly plural ... . Jesperson finds the same construction in Danish, Russian, and Italian, and dates it back to the 15th century. ... . It certainly has been common.

Honey, and milk, and sugar: there is three. -- Shakespeare, Love's Labor's Lost 1595

...

The MWDoEU page 899-900

Such is the mind of liberalism.