The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

under the law that is in force zimmerman should not have been in court unless the state could prove martin innocent.

Since he knew the police were coming he should have let them handle it rather than worrying about the "punks always getting away."

Even if it implies murdering innocent black teens?

So we are looking at a repeat of the state actions where the state at first did not bring charges until political pressure was place on them and now we are in the same position at the Federal level with even less reasons to think that there was any criminal wrong doing that would be cover under the Federal civil rights laws.
Nice to know that we have not only the best congress money can buy but the best justice system that pressure groups can control.

My question was whether u heard O' Mara offer that argument to the jury or not.

No, I don't think he offered that argument.

U believe that Travon was brave enuf
to aggressively march up to someone holding a gun,
to smack him in the face when he was already pointing his gun at Travon

I think--from Rachel Jeantel's testimony--that it was Zimmerman who suddenly approached Martin,
while he had his hand on his gun, and he may have reached for, or grabbed, Martin's sleeve,
to keep him from running off (which is why Martin said, "Get off me").
At that point, Martin may have punched him in the nose, defensively, and Zimmerman
pulled out the gun as he fell to the ground, before Martin got on top of him. Martin then saw the gun,
began screaming for help, and struggled to get the gun away from him before Zimmerman fired it.

Neither side was able to satisfactorily explain how Zimmerman was able to get his gun out
from under himself if Martin was on top of him pinning him down, since the gun was holstered in the back.

The prosecution contended that Martin was getting up, and withdrawing,

and that's how Zimmerman got the gun out and shot him--unjustifiably at that point.

As I recall, the defense offered no explanation,
and just went along with Zimmerman's story that he somehow
managed to get the gun out.

I think the more reasonable, and logical, explanation is that Zimmerman had the gun unhooked from the holster before he approached Martin, and his hand was on the gun as he approached Martin, and he pulled it out as soon as Martin punched him--which would not have been legal for him to do at that point. But there would be no way for the prosecution to prove it happened that way. I think that's one reason they urged the jurors to use "common sense"--

Zimmerman's version of how he suddenly got the gun in his hand
doesn't make sense in the context of the situation he described.

Are the Feds acting constitutionally in spending hard-working taxpayers money on a case that has been decided?

Yes. The 'double-jeopardy' guarantee of Constitutional rights does not apply as a Federal charge would not be for the same felony of which Zimmerman has already been found to be not guilty. If he is brought into a Federal court of law it would be on a charge of having violated Trayvon's civil rights by virtue of killing him.

A civil suit by the victim's family, alleging 'wrongful death' and seeking monetary damages would also be possible (as was done in the O.J. Simpson case) inasmuch as nobody's accusing Zimerman of 'murder' (of which, again, he has been found not guilty) but merely of causing a wrongful death. No criminal charges, you see, just a demand for several millions of dollars.

Since he knew the police were coming he should have let them handle it
rather than worrying about the "punks always getting away."

Do we have any evidence except that of the unreliable witness Zimmerman that the alleged beating against the sidewalk even occurred? the back of his head is not the head of a man whose head was allegedly beaten against the sidewalk 25 times. Trayvon had NONE of Zimmerman's blood or DNA on his hands or clothes. Zimmerman's word is completely suspect.

The evidence points to Zimmerman being the agressor, not Trayvon.

Trayvon Martin, in fear for his life, ran to avoid confrontation. Zimmerman pursued him and forced that confrontation.

Under Florida law, Trayvon and Trayvon alone had the unquestionable right to determine when he felt under threat of great bodily harm and possible death, Under Florida law he had the unquestionable right to kill Zimmerman at that point.

Not really. Zimmerman would have to actually be attacking Trayvon in order for self defense to be justified

There were also witnesses who saw Zimmerman on top. pummeling Trayvon.

The large evidence that Zimmerman's account is baldly self-serving and highly questionable has already been cited and you ignore it.

oralloy wrote:

Not really. Zimmerman would have to actually be attacking Trayvon in order for self defense to be justified.

That is flatly untrue. The way the Florida law has actually been interpreted and applied, no actual assault is needed to invoke it, merely the surviving person's word that he felt imperiled.

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.

• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.
• Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury.

• A comprehensive analysis of "stand your ground" decisions is all but impossible. When police and prosecutors decide not to press charges, they don't always keep records showing how they reached their decisions. And no one keeps track of how many "stand your ground" motions have been filed or their outcomes

There is no question that there was a racial element involved in this profiling and this tragic, totally unnecessary death.