27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:07 am
@Thomas,
Wanted to take a moment to thank you for the interesting insight you always have on American mores, law and culture.
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:31 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Next up, defeating all of these idiotic Tea Party Republicans in Texas, so that I don't have to find a new state to live in.

The A2K pockets in New Jersey and New York will always be happy to grant you political asylum. Boston too, come to think of it.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:31 am
@panzade,
Thanks for the compliment.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:33 am
I am glad that the state has a chance to rebut, they might get manslaughter in. But speaking as a side note, this O'Mara guy reminds me of my preacher, sometime a test of endurance to just listen to him. (glad this is anonymous, wouldn't want to hurt his feelings....my preacher that is) But do you guys think he is creating reasonable doubt? I realize he don't have to, but is he?
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:48 am
@revelette,
At least he's not yelling around or pretending to have a lump in his throat, the way the prosecutor did.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:50 am
@revelette,
What I'd like to know is, when does the jury get to consider that Travon Martin's punching of George Zimmerman was also an act of self defense on his part?
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:51 am
@Butrflynet,
Butrflynet wrote:
What I'd like to know is, when does the jury get to consider that Travon Martin's punching of George Zimmerman was also an act of self defense on his part?

As soon as the state of Florida charges Trayvon Martin with a violent crime --- which won't happen as long as he's dead.
revelette
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 09:57 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
As soon as the state of Florida charges Trayvon Martin with a violent crime --- which won't happen as long as he's dead.



Which is the tragedy of the whole thing and it didn't have to happen if Zimmerman only stayed in the car and waited for the police to show up.
firefly
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:00 am
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
What I'd like to know is, when does the jury get to consider that Travon Martin's punching of George Zimmerman was also an act of self defense on his part?

They already have that to consider--that's part of the state's case.

According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony, Martin was apprehensive about Zimmerman following him, he was trying to avoid Zimmerman, and it was Zimmerman who confronted him and provoked an altercation, and Martin's response would have been defensive.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:02 am
@revelette,
Yeah, I don't get why they didn't additionally charge him with reckless endangerment or something....
firefly
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:03 am
@DrewDad,
I think reckess endangerment might be included in manslaughter.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:03 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Which is the tragedy of the whole thing and it didn't have to happen if Zimmerman only stayed in the car and waited for the police to show up.

True. But courtrooms are the wrong places to mourn tragedies. That is not their function.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:04 am
@firefly,
According to the defense, Martin wasn't supposed to protect himself in any way. Only the guy with a gun has all the rights.

I hope the jury uses common sense in this case, because that's one important issue that seems to have been vacant during this trial.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:05 am
Here comes the state's rebuttal...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:14 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony, Martin was apprehensive about Zimmerman following him, he was trying to avoid Zimmerman, and it was Zimmerman who confronted him and provoked an altercation, and Martin's response would have been defensive.

If Zimmerman provoked he altercation and Martin let Zimmerman provoke him, that's not self-defense on Martin's part. It's only self-defense if Zimmerman put Martin in "reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm" (Florida Standard Jury Instructions, 3.6(f), page 2. (RTF file)) If a wannabe cop like Zimmerman asks you "what are you doing here?", you are right to be aggravated, and you have every right to ask "why are you following me?". But you're not in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.
parados
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:16 am
@Thomas,
Since Martin didn't kill Zimmerman his standard is not fear of imminent death.

He is allowed to use force that is less than deadly force under circumstances where he feels danger but not fear of imminent death.
Thomas
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:19 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Yeah, I don't get why they didn't additionally charge him with reckless endangerment or something....

If you listened to the story the prosecution told in its closing statement --- wannabe cop wants to do what he considers the right thing, and it goes horribly wrong --- you could see that they probably had a good case of involuntary manslaughter.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:22 am
Again with the yelling and the pretend-choking on the prosecution's part. As they say, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table." Judging by its table pounding, the prosecution itself no longer believes it has a good case.
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:31 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Since Martin didn't kill Zimmerman his standard is not fear of imminent death.

Good catch, Parados. I looked at the wrong jury instruction. The correct instruction would have been 3.6(g): "Justifiable use of nondeadly force" (RTF), which has this to say:

Quote:
(‬Defendant‭)‬ would be justified in using non-deadly force against‭ (‬victim‭) ‬if the following two facts are proved:

1.‏ ‎(Defendant‏)‎ must have reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend‏ [‎himself‭] [‬herself‭] [‬another‭] ‬against‭ ‬(victim’s‭) ‬imminent use of unlawful force against the‭ [‬defendant‭] [‬another person‭]‬.

2.‏ ‎The use of unlawful force by‭ ‬(victim‭)‬ must have appeared to‭ ‬(defendant‭)‬ to be ready to take place.

But again, Zimmerman wouldn't have put Martin in this position just by asking "what are you doing here?".
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jul, 2013 10:32 am
@Thomas,
when the book comes out we are going to get told that the top charge was in place due to political arm twisting rather than prosecutorial descretion.....I believe that even some of the states representatives believe that injustice is being done here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 01:00:00