Zimmerman - Guilty of Murder or Self Defense

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Let the focker walk already. He's inocent.

[drobeski 3,061]

he is being railroaded............still!!!!!

[The Moz 69]

Let the focker walk already. He's inocent.

I was under the impression here that the State had to prove it was NOT self defense -- now that it's actually GZ that basically has to prove his innocence rather than the burden being on the state to prove guilt there is a good chance he faces jail time wether he is innocent or not.

 

Sorry but that affirmative law sucks ass! as it does a lot more to harm the innocent then it does to hurt the guilty.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Did I just hear correctly that they want to add a charge of child abuse since he was 17?

 

How the fukk can they add charges after the defense rests it's case?

[The Moz 69]

Did I just hear correctly that they want to add a charge of child abuse since he was 17?

 

How the fukk can they add charges after the defense rests it's case?

Obama has inserted the DOJ - before this is finished GZ will be spending rest of his day's in G-Bay .

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Obama has inserted the DOJ - before this is finished GZ will be spending rest of his day's in G-Bay .

I'd take prison over green bay any day.

[parrot 789]

Well, the first step is whether you are charged under the circumstances. In most cases, the State would exercise their discretion and not file charges if they believe that you were defending yourself. But lets say you get charged, your attorney files a notice that you are claiming that the killing falls under the self-defense exception. Let's say there are no other witnesses to the incident. Under these circumstances, the burden falls on you to convince the jury that you were attacked, that you defended yourself, and that's the reason the person was killed. You're attorney would put in photos of your injuries, medical records for the treatment you received, and probably put you on the stand to explain what happened. Otherwise, the only evidence is what the State introduces, i.e. that the victim was stabbed with your knife, that you had the victim's blood on your hands, etc.

 

In most self defense cases, you almost have to take the stand to explain why your actions were necessary. In Zimmerman's case, his defense team is trying to rely on the statements of other witnesses to establish the self-defense exception.

What do you think of the State's decision to introduce Zimmerman's taped statements JackARoot? Wouldn't they have been better served keeping things way simpler and saying "Here's what we know; George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin dead at X time, on X date, at X place" and then basically forcing him to take the stand to make his self-defense case. It just seems like it was really dumb for them to introduce that stuff and make half his case for him. But maybe there's something us laymen don't see?

[The Moz 69]

Can anyone explain how Manslaughter applies here? He meant to shoot him and point blank in the chest there's usually 1 outcome. So to me it has to be either SD or Murder -- then again i don't prentend to be an expert on the law.

[cbfalcon 824]

Sorry but that affirmative law sucks ass! as it does a lot more to harm the innocent then it does to hurt the guilty.

 

You just think that in this case.

 

If other people started claiming self defense, I'm sure you'd want them to prove it. For instance, what if Aaron Hernandez claims they just got out of the car to take a leak and Odin had a gun and threatened to kill him. Would you think the State should have to prove Odin didn't threaten to kill him? Or should the defense have to prove Odin was a threat? Obviously that case may not fly, but if we knew just a little less it easily could.

 

It's like asking someone to prove God doesn't exist. Proving something didn't happen is almost impossible. So instead we have to prove things that DID happen.

 

Still think he walks by the way. Beyond a reasonable doubt being the key phrase. I think Zim has shown beyond reasonable doubt that he felt he was at risk.

[DankNuggs 305]

Can anyone explain how Manslaughter applies here? He meant to shoot him and point blank in the chest there's usually 1 outcome. So to me it has to be either SD or Murder -- then again i don't prentend to be an expert on the law.

the argument being that he initated a confrontation that resulted in him killing someone without the justification for SD...

[Mike Honcho 4,164]

I was under the impression here that the State had to prove it was NOT self defense -- now that it's actually GZ that basically has to prove his innocence rather than the burden being on the state to prove guilt there is a good chance he faces jail time wether he is innocent or not.

 

Sorry but that affirmative law sucks ass! as it does a lot more to harm the innocent then it does to hurt the guilty.

 

HE KILLED A KID! Yes, he has to prove that he had no choice, so no it doesn't suck ass.

[JackARoot 2]

What do you think of the State's decision to introduce Zimmerman's taped statements JackARoot? Wouldn't they have been better served keeping things way simpler and saying "Here's what we know; George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin dead at X time, on X date, at X place" and then basically forcing him to take the stand to make his self-defense case. It just seems like it was really dumb for them to introduce that stuff and make half his case for him. But maybe there's something us laymen don't see?

Yeah, I don't know all of the details about that, but I was surprised his taped statements were introduced. IMO it would have been much better to force him to take the stand from the State's perspective.

[IGotWorms 3,446]

The State has to show intent. That's why they brought in Zimmerman's statements and especially the 911 call.

[IGotWorms 3,446]

Also, JackARoot, I think you may be incorrect on who bears the burden of proving self defense.

 

My understanding is that under Florida law, the defense has to raise sufficient evidence of self defense to put the issue before the jury. But if the defense does raise that evidence, then it's up to the prosecution to prove the absence of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

[The Moz 69]

Also, JackARoot, I think you may be incorrect on who bears the burden of proving self defense.

 

My understanding is that under Florida law, the defense has to raise sufficient evidence of self defense to put the issue before the jury. But if the defense does raise that evidence, then it's up to the prosecution to prove the absence of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's Perry Mason to rescue!

 

Zimmerman's chances of seeing Manslaughter just nose dived to maybe 10% tops. 90% full acquittal

[JackARoot 2]

Also, JackARoot, I think you may be incorrect on who bears the burden of proving self defense.

 

My understanding is that under Florida law, the defense has to raise sufficient evidence of self defense to put the issue before the jury. But if the defense does raise that evidence, then it's up to the prosecution to prove the absence of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's possible that the law is different in Florida, especially with the "stand your ground" change. But I think you are stating the same thing in a different way. The defense has to prove the existence of the self-defense elements "by a preponderance of the evidence" - a standard that basically means more likely than not. I'm just saying that I would be skeptical as a juror if the defense is trying to rely on other evidence to meet their burden, when the best evidence the defense could present would be Zimmerman's statement about exactly what happened. They were trying to get this computer animation into evidence as Zimmerman's version of what happened, but the Judge denied that request. It looks to me like the defense is very worried about how credible Zimmerman would sound if he testified.

[The Moz 69]

It's possible that the law is different in Florida, especially with the "stand your ground" change. But I think you are stating the same thing in a different way. The defense has to prove the existence of the self-defense elements "by a preponderance of the evidence" - a standard that basically means more likely than not. I'm just saying that I would be skeptical as a juror if the defense is trying to rely on other evidence to meet their burden, when the best evidence the defense could present would be Zimmerman's statement about exactly what happened. They were trying to get this computer animation into evidence as Zimmerman's version of what happened, but the Judge denied that request. It looks to me like the defense is very worried about how credible Zimmerman would sound if he testified.

What Worms says actually makes sense - like common sense. The other way where the burden was on the defense to prove innocence just didn't add up

[The Moz 69]

like the defense is very worried about how credible Zimmerman would sound if he testified.

May be but could also be the DA has dug himself such a damn hole already why give him the chance at a hail mary to make a come back. Kneel on the ball and melt the clock.

[IGotWorms 3,446]

It's possible that the law is different in Florida, especially with the "stand your ground" change. But I think you are stating the same thing in a different way. The defense has to prove the existence of the self-defense elements "by a preponderance of the evidence" - a standard that basically means more likely than not. I'm just saying that I would be skeptical as a juror if the defense is trying to rely on other evidence to meet their burden, when the best evidence the defense could present would be Zimmerman's statement about exactly what happened. They were trying to get this computer animation into evidence as Zimmerman's version of what happened, but the Judge denied that request. It looks to me like the defense is very worried about how credible Zimmerman would sound if he testified.

I don't believe they have to prove it by a preponderance. I think they just have to make a prima facie case and then the judge instructs the jury that the prosecution must prove the absence of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a fairly low burden--basically, is there any reason why the jury should consider self defense in this case?

 

Putting the defendant on the stand is always very risky. In this case I think the prosecution could easily make a huge deal out of the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story. Also they could hammer the hell out of him on the tiny "scratches" on the back of his head and whether that really justified ending another man's life.

[JackARoot 2]

I've done a bit of research, and it does look like Florida implemented a lower burden for self-defense than the rest of the country. I haven't seen the specific statute, but some articles imply that the defense only has to convince the jury that there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in self-defense. In Indiana (and in common law, and most other states) the defense has to prove the elements of self-defense by a preponderance. Some jurisdictions even use a clear and convincing standard for self-defense.

[Lord4GL 4]

http://youtu.be/UgDuu6i8MtE

 

WTF is that about? Can the judge pester someone who has elected to take the 5th?

[IGotWorms 3,446]

There's nothing unusual about what the judge did. She's trying to make sure Zimmerman is making a knowing and voluntary decision not to testify. If the judge doesn't do that then it could be an issue on appeal.

 

I'm assuming the jury was out of the courtroom when she questioned Zimmerman.

[jerryskids 5,427]

I haven't commented in this thread yet because I'm not really following it other than this thread, so I have no idea if he is guilty or not (but many of you do, and it is fun to watch!).

 

Anyway, Jackaroot brought up a great point that as a juror in a self-defense case, I would want to hear the defendant explain it. But then he and Worms pointed out that Florida apparently has a low burden of proof on self-defense.

 

So my question as an internet-wannabee lawyer is... what will the judge instruct the jury? If she says that they are not to consider Zimmerman's lack of testifying as a negative against him, from everything I've read here he should get off (if they follow the rules). If not, it could go either way.

[The Moz 69]

I haven't commented in this thread yet because I'm not really following it other than this thread, so I have no idea if he is guilty or not (but many of you do, and it is fun to watch!).

 

Anyway, Jackaroot brought up a great point that as a juror in a self-defense case, I would want to hear the defendant explain it. But then he and Worms pointed out that Florida apparently has a low burden of proof on self-defense.

 

So my question as an internet-wannabee lawyer is... what will the judge instruct the jury? If she says that they are not to consider Zimmerman's lack of testifying as a negative against him, from everything I've read here he should get off (if they follow the rules). If not, it could go either way.

If the trial was really about guilt or innocence GZ gets off - rather it never even gets to trial. this "trial" is all about Politicizing race relations - VERY little about guilt or innocence.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If the trial was really about guilt or innocence GZ gets off - rather it never even gets to trial. this "trial" is all about Politicizing race relations - VERY little about guilt or innocence.

This.

 

Heard an interview with the investigating officer who was taken off the case. Said the city manager and mayor were badgering him to just make an arrest.

 

I guess with Obama, Sharpton, and Jackson stirring things up the political pressure trumped the normal legal process.

[peenie 1,703]

hmm, just read zimmerman's police interview transcript.

now i understand his timeline much better.

i thought he said he was in or near his car when the attack happened.

i was wrong.

he also stated that night that he yelled for help, therefore it was him yelling on the tape (he wouldn't know a voice yelling for help was caught on tape, besides, i remember the trayvon's mom said that wasn't her son when she first heard the tape).

based on the forensic evidence, trayvon was leaning over/on top of zimmerman.

therefore, he may have been justified in shooting trayvon ONLY IF he was telling truth absolute truth about that night.

[Voltaire 4,595]

hmm, just read zimmerman's police interview transcript.

now i understand his timeline much better.

i thought he said he was in or near his car when the attack happened.

i was wrong.

he also stated that night that he yelled for help, therefore it was him yelling on the tape (he wouldn't know a voice yelling for help was caught on tape, besides, i remember the trayvon's mom said that wasn't her son when she first heard the tape).

based on the forensic evidence, trayvon was leaning over/on top of zimmerman.

therefore, he may have been justified in shooting trayvon ONLY IF he was telling truth absolute truth about that night.

Who hacked pennie's account?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

hmm, just read zimmerman's police interview transcript.

now i understand his timeline much better.

i thought he said he was in or near his car when the attack happened.

i was wrong.

he also stated that night that he yelled for help, therefore it was him yelling on the tape (he wouldn't know a voice yelling for help was caught on tape, besides, i remember the trayvon's mom said that wasn't her son when she first heard the tape).

based on the forensic evidence, trayvon was leaning over/on top of zimmerman.

therefore, he may have been justified in shooting trayvon ONLY IF he was telling truth absolute truth about that night.

It's weird how when you consider the facts of a case, and not just look at race, somehow the truth comes out.

[peenie 1,703]

i wasn't looking at race!!

you guys are looking at race!!

but, the thing is, we don't know 100% for sure if trayvon approached zimmerman.

based on the girlfriend's account, zimmerman approached trayvon.

[Mungwater 589]

I think manslaughter is the appropriate charge, the guy did kill a kid, whether or not he had to or not is in the jurors hands.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

based on the girlfriend's account, zimmerman approached trayvon.

[peenie 1,703]

and you assume she's lying because???

[Mungwater 589]

and you assume she's lying because???

He's an idiot, guy got out of his vehicle to check a street sign on a community that has like four streets, he got out to follow TM

[KSB2424 3,087]

If you don't think it was murder two by way of the evidence and facts then you must vote for not guilty and not manslaughter. Because by doing so you are saying the evidence points that you believe that it was wholly possible, by the evidence that it most defintely could have been in self defense.

 

A vote for manslaughter is human nature of wanting to somehow compromise. Thats what the prosecution is relying on, not the evidence but playing the legal game and human condition. Which would be wrong in a case like this. Either you think Zimmerman acted in self defense or not. There is no middle ground.

[5-Points 2,801]

He's an idiot, guy got out of his vehicle to check a street sign on a community that has like four streets, he got out to follow TM

Technically he got out to see if he could find out where Martin went. That's not a crime. In fact I think it's expected of a neighborhood watch guy. Follow from a distance and report back. I believe that was his initial intention. Why call 911 prior to committing murder? Martin's friend testified that Martin initiated the verbal confrontation. GZ and evidence indicate Martin also initiated the physical confrontation. The question for the jury is whether or not they believe GZ could have legitimately been in fear of great bodily injury. Whether or not he suffered great bodily injury is irrelevant. He should, legally, be acquitted.

[Voltaire 4,595]

If you don't think it was murder two by way of the evidence and facts then you must vote for not guilty and not manslaughter. Because by doing so you are saying the evidence points to that you believe that it was wholly possible that it was in self defense. A vote for manslaughter is human nature of wanting to somehow compromise. Which would be wrong I a case like this. Either you think Zimmerman acted in self defense or not. There is no middle ground.

There is.

 

GZ put his dumb ass in the situation where he wound up killing a kid. It may not be murder two, killing the kid isn't what he intended. but neighborhood watchmen don't get to stalk and kill innocent people and then just say "'oops, my bad" and expect to walk away.

[KSB2424 3,087]

There is.

 

GZ put his dumb ass in the situation where he wound up killing a kid. It may not be murder two, killing the kid isn't what he intended. but neighborhood watchmen don't get to stalk and kill innocent people and then just say "'oops, my bad" and expect to walk away.

 

The evidence I've read about the trial goes like this. Tell me if I'm wrong.

 

GZ the neighborhood watchman follows this guy (maybe rightfully maybe wrongully). He gets out of his vehicle, calls 911, and while following him loses sight.

After losing sight he is walking back to his vehichle and Trayvon jumps out and confronts GZ. At that point GZ was no longer following him and at no point pulled a gun or tried to fight Trayvon or did anything of the sort. Trayvon attacked (thats the evidence) GZ knocking him to the ground where he was on top of him punching and pounding where GZ pulled his pistol and shot.

 

Is that or is that not what happened, because if so, that is not manslaughter? That is classic self defense. Wether you think the intial watchman activity may or may not have been warranted doesnt matter, at the point of where the confrontation acted both parties were at equal footing until Trayvon attacked.

[jerryskids 5,427]

There is.

 

GZ put his dumb ass in the situation where he wound up killing a kid. It may not be murder two, killing the kid isn't what he intended. but neighborhood watchmen don't get to stalk and kill innocent people and then just say "'oops, my bad" and expect to walk away.

You both have a point. I agree that you can believe that it was not self-defense, and further believe that it was manslaughter but not murder 2.

 

I think KSB's main point is that murder 2 is a horseshiot charge in this case and was included primarily to give the "compromise" option. Question for the lawyers: can the judge direct a not-guilty verdict for the murder charge but not the other charges?

[peenie 1,703]

but i thought he wasn't really neighborhood watch, that he was doing this on his own?

[Vikings4ever 496]

but i thought he wasn't really neighborhood watch, that he was doing this on his own?

That was reported in the beginning when the media was throwing sh*t against the wall and seeing what stuck, but Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch.