The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@firefly,

My guess is that in a civil rights trial or a civil wrongful-death suit either one, all of the evidence which was disallowed for this trial would be allowed, i.e. Trayvon punching a school bus driver, Trayvon being suspended from school for women's jewelry and burglary tools in his locker, Trayvon being high on grass and carrying the ingrediants of "Purple-Drank" when he died, etc. etc. etc.

I can't picture any lawyer taking the wrongful death thing even in flori-duh, the odds of winning would be too low. Bork and Eric have enough troubles of their own at present, and I can't easily picture them wanting part of this one at this time either.

3 Replies

@gungasnake,

lots of things you can't easily picture happen every day.

Trayvon was a purple drank dealer?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

I can't picture any lawyer taking the wrongful death thing even in flori-duh, the odds of winning would be too low.

wanna bet?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Trayvon was not suspended for having burglary tools or women's jewelry in his locker. He had no criminal record of any kind. He was not a ghetto kid. This was a middle class high school kid who had no need to commit burglaries.

Quote:

Mr. Martin was suspended for 10 days after school officials found in his backpack a baggie that contained traces of marijuana.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/zimmermans-lawyers-release-text-messages-of-trayvon-martin.html

And, while he might have smoked pot, he was not at all "high" when he died--he had only trace amounts of marijuana in his system, which may have been present there for quite some time, and which might not have affected him in any way at all. He had a can of flavored iced tea with him when he died--nothing suspicious about that at all.

None of what you are mentioning is relevant to the issue of Zimmerman's responsibility in causing Martin's death. Zimmerman created the conditions that led to that death, Martin wasn't bothering anyone, or doing anything illegal, when Zimmerman spotted, profiled, and followed him. Zimmerman created the provocation that led to the altercation--an altercation which never would have occurred had Zimmerman simply remained in his car and waited for the police. Zimmerman's reckless and impulsive actions prompted the likely defensive reaction from Martin that gave Zimmerman the excuse to shoot him. Zimmerman's claim that he allegedly feared for his life, despite his quite minor injuries, allowed him to avoid criminal liability for this death because of Florida law's low threshold of proof in that type of affirmative defense.

It is entirely possible that a civil suit would find Zimmerman guilty of causing a wrongful death.

2 Replies

@firefly,

All Martin had to do to avoid the problem was continue walking home. He knew where he was going, George Zimmerman did not.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

engineer wrote:
Do I think Zimmerman went out their with the intent to kill Martin? No. Do I think that he was looking for a confrontation and that he thought he had the upper hand because he was armed. Yes.

Do you have any evidence to support your supposition that Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation?

As stated, this is my opinion from what was presented at trial.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

All Martin had to do to avoid the problem was continue walking home

Except George Zimmerman prevented him from doing that....

Had Zimmerman not gone anywhere near Martin that night, Martin would have safely arrived home.

That's why Zimmerman might well be found guilty of causing a wrongful death in a civil suit--his reckless and impulsive actions created the conditions that led to that death. Zimmerman is fully responsible for creating the provocation, and threatening situation, that led to that death. He acted with complete indifference for the welfare and life of Martin--because he was so caught up in his own distorted perceptions that this kid was a criminal, and his own need not to see this "f--king punk" get away from from the police.

Zimmerman's twisted mind-set led to Martin's death.

0 Replies

@firefly,

You would have to think that a person like Zimmerman can identify anyone who smoked marijuana and how intoxicated they are, presume they are up to o good, follow them, confront them, then shoot them dead when they resist.

It could be a much younger youth too!

Which country allows this kind of vigilante? Guess?

0 Replies

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.html

Dershowitz:

Quote:

MIKE HUCKABEE: You have said that you thought the prosecutor ought to be disbarred, that's a pretty serious type of violation to get a person disbarred. It is that serious to you?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Right, it is. She submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. She, by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She's known for overcharging, she's known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn't going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I've seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I've seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor, [Angela] Cory.

DERSHOWITZ: As far as prosecutor Cory is concerned, I would invite her to my class, let her justify her conduct in front of my students. In fact, when I accused her of misconduct early in the case, she complained to the dean of Harvard Law School, and asked that I be disciplined for criticizing her.

Just the other day, she fired one of her people because he blew the whistle on her misconduct. So, she has engaged in this kind of tyrannical suppression of criticism against her, you know, and every American is in danger when we have prosecutors like her who don't obey the law, who follow political pressures.

We're the only country in the world that elects prosecutors and elects judges. A case like this would never have been brought in any other country. They never even would have brought charges. It was such an obvious case of self defense, and there was obvious reasonable doubt. And the only reason this case ever came in front of a jury was because of the political pressures that were brought by groups of people who were dissatisfied with the first investigation and with the fact that a responsible prosecutor and a responsible police force decided that there was reasonable doubt, and that the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not engage in classic self defense. (Huckabee, July 14, 2013)

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Dershowitz clearly doesn't understand the law in other countries. Zimmerman would have been charged with so many things in Canada that they'd barely be started on the first trial against him.

Carrying the gun would be problem one for Zimmerman. He'd be in jail for that alone. Using the gun would be the next. Killing someone would come along. Then killing someone with a gun. His behaviour in response to dispatch comments would likely lead to additional charges. The lies about his funds ... and on and on

If Dershowitz can get the basics so wrong, I can't imagine how much the rest of his comments are whack.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Let's look at other things Dershowitz had to say...

Quote:

Dershowitz was careful to add that the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin exposes a need to reform Florida laws.

He believes the Stand Your Ground law should be changed because it "elevates macho over the need to preserve life."

He also stated that racial profiling “has to be addressed.”

“I think these vigilante community groups have to be disarmed,” he said. “I don’t think Zimmerman should have been allowed to have a gun.

“He should have been walking around with a walkie-talkie and calling the police,” he said. “It’s the job of the police to investigate and apprehend suspects based on their professional training.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Zimmerman-Prosecutorial-Misconduct/2013/07/14/id/514957#ixzz2Z4f2unxS

0 Replies

In New York, Zimmerman would not likely have been acquitted.

Quote:

Second, notice that the New York State law establishes very clear exceptions to the right to use force in self-defense. In New York, a person cannot use force in self-defense if that person provoked the attack or was the initial aggressor. New York’s law includes these exceptions in the general self-defense provision; not just in the special “duty to retreat” provision. In other words, it’s not just that a person can’t kill his attacker if the person provoked the attack; the person cannot lawfully use any force at all if the person provoked the attack. A person who provokes the first punch and responds in kind is guilty in New York of assault. A person who provokes a deadly attack and responds in kind is guilty in New York of homicide.

The Florida statutes have no such provision. In other words, looking at the statutes alone, I find nothing that prohibited Zimmerman from chasing Martin down, confronting him, and even provoking Martin into using or threatening force against Martin, then shooting and killing him in self-defense as defined by and permitted by the statute quoted above.
http://politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/the-duty-to-retreat/

0 Replies

@revelette,

Quote:

His gun was holstered in back, if he was on his back when he shot Martin like he claimed, how did Martin even see the gun like Zimmerman claimed he did ?

How did he even get his gun out if Martin was on top of him and the gun was holstered behind him?

I don't know why the state waited until their closing argument to really emphasize that point.

The only obvious answer is that Zimmerman either had his gun out before the fight started, or he had it unhooked from the holster, with his hand on it, as he approached Martin, and he pulled the gun fully out when Martin punched him, and before Martin even had time to get on top of him.

I think the fight was really a struggle over the gun, which was already out the entire time. Martin was fighting for his life the entire time because he had seen the gun. Zimmerman didn't punch Martin in self-defense because he had his gun in one hand and he couldn't use both his hands to fight back. And, as soon as he was able, he pressed the gun to Martin's sweatshirt and fired it.

This wannabe cop was confronting someone he considered "a suspect". And he knew that when real cops approach suspects they do it with their hand on their gun, so that they can be ready to fire if need be. And I believe that's what he did too. And he unhooked it from the holster in advance, so he could pull it out quickly, and the gun he used has no safety on it--it's ready to shoot immediately.

That is the only scenario that makes any sense to me. The gun was already out throughout the struggle, the sight of the gun provoked the defensive reaction from Martin, and the fight was over the gun.

But, with Martin dead, no one else could possibly know that Zimmerman had had that gun in his hand the entire time.

And Zimmerman told the police he had reached for his cell phone just before the fight, and I think he said that just in case someone had seen him reaching for something. But the something he reached for wasn't his phone...

1 Reply

@firefly,

Those are all issues the prosecution failed to bring up during the trial. The prosecution lost this case for Trayvon Martin.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

oralloy wrote:
engineer wrote:
Do I think Zimmerman went out their with the intent to kill Martin? No. Do I think that he was looking for a confrontation and that he thought he had the upper hand because he was armed. Yes.

Do you have any evidence to support your supposition that Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation?

As stated, this is my opinion from what was presented at trial.

Is that a "no" on the evidence?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Dershowitz clearly doesn't understand the law in other countries. Zimmerman would have been charged with so many things in Canada that they'd barely be started on the first trial against him.

I don't think that is what he meant. I think he was saying that no prosecutor in another country would bring a case as weak as the case brought in Florida.

In other words, he wasn't trying to say Zimmerman's actions would be treated the same under Canadian law. Rather, he was saying that if a case in Canada were that weak, then it would not be prosecuted.

I think he's being optimistic though. Corrupt prosecutors will try to win weak cases against innocent people anywhere in the world.

ehBeth wrote:

Carrying the gun would be problem one for Zimmerman. He'd be in jail for that alone.

I know. I wish you guys were free.

I crossed into Canada once briefly when I was younger. The people were nice, but the lack of freedom just made me itch inside, and I couldn't wait to get back over the border.

ehBeth wrote:

Using the gun would be the next. Killing someone would come along. Then killing someone with a gun.

I question this though. You guys may not be allowed to carry guns in public, but you do have the right to defend yourselves when you are attacked.

ehBeth wrote:

His behaviour in response to dispatch comments would likely lead to additional charges. The lies about his funds ... and on and on

I question this as well. There is no evidence that Zimmerman misbehaved in response to the dispatchers, and the claims that he lied about funds are overblown.

But I do agree that he would prosecuted for carrying the gun. It sucks that you guys have no freedom.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

The guy teaches law at Harvard University. Do you??

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
People are actually allowed to defend their lives in the US.

And that would include Trayvon Martin.

When a barely 17 year old kid is watched and followed by some creepy guy, causing him to feel apprehensive about his own safety, that kid is entitled to defend himself.

Everyone is allowed to defend himself if he is under physical attack or has a reasonable fear for his safety. If Zimmerman's story is true, then he was justified in using the gun. If not, he may not be justified depending on exactly what happened. However, you said:

"You can't walk around, playing neighborhood vigilante, while packing a gun, and shoot and kill unarmed minors, who aren't even trespassing, and not expect to be held answerable and legally accountable for your actions. "

We don't know that Zimmerman was playing a vigilante. Being in a neighborhood watch group does not in and of itself make one a vigilante. Whether or not he was playing a vigilante depends on the exact series of events. Once Martin attacked him, if Martin attacked him, and if Zimmerman's account was true, he was justified in using his gun. Sometimes juries are smart and sometimes they are stupid, but one thing I'm sure of is that they heard more of the details than you or I did.

0 Replies

The regulations under which the neighborhood watch was organized said volunteers were not to casrry guns, and volunteers were to WATCH (which is why it was called a neighborhood WATCH) they were to notify police and let them handle it. They were NOT to involve themselves. Zimmerman broke the two cardinal rules of the organization he was supposed to uphold. He chased Trayvon. That's vigilantism.

6 Replies

the law here clearly and on purpose put the burden of proof onto the state. they could not meet it so the jury ruled "not guilty". justice was done by the jury.

1 Reply

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know