George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[Dugout DickStone]

It's going to come down to how that law is worded.

More precisely, it's going to come down to how the jurors understand the law, and whether they decide to faithfully follow it. The judge and the attorneys will try their best to educate the jurors on the law, but that only goes so far. It is quite possible that the jury may just "split the baby" and acquit on murder but convict on manslaughter, which is one reason why prosecutors often overcharge.

And just FYI, here are the laws at issue:

1. Second Degree Murder: There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. (This is where the state's allegations that GZ was a racist POS come into play, because otherwise it's gonna be really hard to prove the "depraved mind" part).

2. Manslaughter: An act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person. (This one is easy. GZ is guilty unless he acted in self defense. There is no dispute that he killed TM).

3. Self Defense: There are a number of statutes that come into play here, but ultimately it will come down to whether GZ reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm or death to himself or another. (This is what the case really boils down to.)

4. Burden of Proof: The state must prove Nos. 1 or 2, AND disprove No. 3, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

GZ had better hope the stand your ground law is at issue and not what you cite.  I hope his lawyer knows better too, for his sake at least.

Ultimately, this will lead to a re draft of that law to prevent people from picking fights so they can get ass beat and then murder the person they picked a fight with.

[star seed 7]

Ok so I haven't followed the case outside this thread, did tm deliver some swift blows and then get up to leave and got blasted? Or did he get shot while still wailing on him?

I'm sure Zimmerman will maintain it was while he was getting wailed on.  Martin hasn't commented.

I believe there are witnesses and forensics to come that will support GZ on this.

[Trim]

Ok so I haven't followed the case outside this thread, did tm deliver some swift blows and then get up to leave and got blasted? Or did he get shot while still wailing on him?

I'm sure Zimmerman will maintain it was while he was getting wailed on.  Martin hasn't commented.

Can't they tell with chowder burns from the gunshot wounds at what distance he was shot? 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/17/autopsy-reportedly-shows-trayvon-martin-died-from-single-gunshot-wound-fired-at/

[Trim]

Ultimately, this will lead to a re draft of that law to prevent people from picking fights so they can get ass beat and then murder the person they picked a fight with.

Really just opens up the wound that we should've been in the BCS 'ship in Miami in early January.  We basically had a license to kill that whole trip.

[wetwillie]

Doesn't add up, feels like he baited him to take the first punch so he could shoot him. 

[Dugout DickStone]

Doesn't add up, feels like he baited him to take the first punch so he could shoot him.

Hadn't considered that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Legal guys. Let's say GZ gets off. What are the chances the Martin family roasts him in a civil suit for wrongful death or whatever? Thinking of like a Goldman family v. OJ thing here.

nearly 100% they try.

It would have a good shot going in their favor.

They will win the court case, but they are kidding themselves if they think they are actually going to see much money. Nobody is going to give Zimmerman a job after this.

[Trim]

Legal guys. Let's say GZ gets off. What are the chances the Martin family roasts him in a civil suit for wrongful death or whatever? Thinking of like a Goldman family v. OJ thing here.

nearly 100% they try.

It would have a good shot going in their favor.

They will win the court case, but they are kidding themselves if they think they are actually going to see much money. Nobody is going to give Zimmerman a job after this.

Somebody will.

http://www.gzdefensefund.com/donate/

[Skipper44]

Someone needs to setup a fundraising site for GZ so the money idiots give him will go to Martin's family after the civil trail.

Also, don't be surprised when GZ becomes a celeb to a certain demo

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

SYG is not an issue in this case.

[Trim]

It's too bad Florida hires/pays prosecutors so poorly.  I could be doing this case and this thread would rival Felix Rex's in insidery news.

Actually, it's a bad idea for the lawyers involved or their families to be commenting on social media or blog sites like this during the trial.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57591650-71/trayvon-martin-trial-spawns-insensitive-instagram-from-defense-lawyers-daughter/

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

#dadkilledit

[Trim]

#dadkilledit

Chick-fil-a ice cream, tho.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's going to come down to how that law is worded.

More precisely, it's going to come down to how the jurors understand the law, and whether they decide to faithfully follow it. The judge and the attorneys will try their best to educate the jurors on the law, but that only goes so far. It is quite possible that the jury may just "split the baby" and acquit on murder but convict on manslaughter, which is one reason why prosecutors often overcharge.

And just FYI, here are the laws at issue:

1. Second Degree Murder: There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. (This is where the state's allegations that GZ was a racist POS come into play, because otherwise it's gonna be really hard to prove the "depraved mind" part).

2. Manslaughter: An act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person. (This one is easy. GZ is guilty unless he acted in self defense. There is no dispute that he killed TM).

3. Self Defense: There are a number of statutes that come into play here, but ultimately it will come down to whether GZ reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm or death to himself or another. (This is what the case really boils down to.)

4. Burden of Proof: The state must prove Nos. 1 or 2, AND disprove No. 3, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

On #1, "depraved mind" is, as the late, great Kenny Santucci from RW/RR fame once said, simply not caring whether one lives or dies.  They don't need to prove some beef Zimmerman had with Martin, or "those people" to put it in Pit terms.

On #3, I linked the statute.  The presumptions come in when one's dwelling/residence/vehicle was entered.  So you're left with this:

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Was George engaged in lawful activity?  Was he attacked while in a place he had a right to be?  If so, did he have a reasonable belief that he needed to shoot Travon to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself?

Yes, GZ was engaged in lawful activity, and he had a right to be there. I don't believe this is in dispute, from a legal standpoint. So youre left with whether GZ had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, just like I said above.

I guess I should clarify that the reason the SYG portion of the above statute does not apply is because of the facts and the defenses theory of the case. If TM was pinning GZ, he couldn't retreat, and if GZ was instead on top of TM, then self defense probably wouldn't apply anyway.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Ok so I haven't followed the case outside this thread, did tm deliver some swift blows and then get up to leave and got blasted? Or did he get shot while still wailing on him?

I'm sure Zimmerman will maintain it was while he was getting wailed on.  Martin hasn't commented.

An eyewitness witness for the prosecution has already testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him when he heard the shot, and that Martin fell to the side.

[Trim]

Yes, GZ was engaged in lawful activity, and he had a right to be there. I don't believe this is in dispute, from a legal standpoint. 

It's undisputed that what Zimmerman did up until Martin stopped him was lawful?

[Trim]

Ok so I haven't followed the case outside this thread, did tm deliver some swift blows and then get up to leave and got blasted? Or did he get shot while still wailing on him?

I'm sure Zimmerman will maintain it was while he was getting wailed on.  Martin hasn't commented.

An eyewitness witness for the prosecution has already testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him when he heard the shot, and that Martin fell to the side.

Good. 

[Trim]

So, I've got a confession.  When I posted this...

looks like GZ almost died 

reminds me of the time trim ran into that sign

I shot up the eff out of that sign once my head stopped ringing.

... I was lying.  Joshing, if you will.  I didn't shoot that sign.  I didn't even have my gun there.  I pretty much never have my gun.  The only times I take it out of its spot in my room are when I need to go to the shooting range and make sure I still know how to use it, and to shoot someone (hasn't happened yet).  So maybe I'm a weirdo or something but to me, when I size up people who arm themselves with a gun and go confront others, I judge (ha!) them to be intending/contemplating shooting others.

I'd expect to be arrested if I walked up and down the sidewalk where I live, strapped, agressively interrogating passersby.  I'd also expect there's a fair chance that before I'm arrested, somebody's gonna try to kick my ass.  And I'd have a tough time saying with a straight face that shooting that person is justified because I was just defending myself.

[Kat Kid]

So, I've got a confession.  When I posted this...

looks like GZ almost died 

reminds me of the time trim ran into that sign

I shot up the eff out of that sign once my head stopped ringing.

... I was lying.  Joshing, if you will.  I didn't shoot that sign.  I didn't even have my gun there.  I pretty much never have my gun.  The only times I take it out of its spot in my room are when I need to go to the shooting range and make sure I still know how to use it, and to shoot someone (hasn't happened yet).  So maybe I'm a weirdo or something but to me, when I size up people who arm themselves with a gun and go confront others, I judge (ha!) them to be intending/contemplating shooting others.

I'd expect to be arrested if I walked up and down the sidewalk where I live, strapped, agressively interrogating passersby.  I'd also expect there's a fair chance that before I'm arrested, somebody's gonna try to kick my ass.  And I'd have a tough time saying with a straight face that shooting that person is justified because I was just defending myself.

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes, GZ was engaged in lawful activity, and he had a right to be there. I don't believe this is in dispute, from a legal standpoint. 

It's undisputed that what Zimmerman did up until Martin stopped him was lawful?

Youre asking the wrong question. The state will ultimately have the burden of proof. So the question is: Is there a shred of evidence, beyond sheer speculation, that GZ was doing something unlawful? I'm not aware of any. Approaching him wasn't unlawful. Approaching while carrying a concealed weapon was not unlawful. Approaching while carrying a concealed weapon and asking "what are you doing here" was not unlawful. I dont believe theres any evidence of who started the fight.

[Trim]

Yes, GZ was engaged in lawful activity, and he had a right to be there. I don't believe this is in dispute, from a legal standpoint. 

It's undisputed that what Zimmerman did up until Martin stopped him was lawful?

Youre asking the wrong question. The state will ultimately have the burden of proof. So the question is: Is there a shred of evidence, beyond sheer speculation, that GZ was doing something unlawful? I'm not aware of any. Approaching him wasn't unlawful. Approaching while carrying a concealed weapon was not unlawful. Approaching while carrying a concealed weapon and asking "what are you doing here" was not unlawful. I dont believe theres any evidence of who started the fight.

You gonna be in town on the 3rd or 4th?

[Trim]

And I'm aware that the State's Attorney's Office in Florida won't win this case.  I'd win it.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

And I'm aware that the State's Attorney's Office in Florida won't win this case.  I'd win it.

I don't think the state should win based on the evidence and burden of proof, but the jury is always the wild card. Women are typically more pro prosecution. I'm curious how they got down to an all female jury. I'm guessing the state used all its preemptive challenges to exclude the white men, and the defense did the same for the black men.

[Dugout DickStone]

 

SYG is not an issue in this case.

Spoken like a non-lawyer

[SdK]

These threads really have a way of solidifying aspersions I have cast.