Raise your hand if you want to see Zimmerman acquitted.

[trumad]

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:19 PM - Edit history (3)

I doubt Zimmermans supporters here on DU have the guts to do such a thing.

Oh they may hop on this thread and color thier support with a buch of fair trial comments... but not one of them will come in to say he should be aquited.

Edited for spelling

[B2G]

1. First of all, it's 'acquitted"

And secondly, what's wrong with wanting to see justice done, no matter what the outcome? Are we supposed to pick sides based on nothing more than a persons race?

That's not the way to move towards a post racial society.

[geek tragedy]

46. So, you think justice is Zimmerman being found not guilty of any crime here? Come out and say it nt

[B2G]

55. Why don't you just come out and say

you want Zimmerman convicted to matter what the evidence shows?

Both mindsets are pathetic. We have a judicial system for a reason. Amazing to me so many insult those that believe in it.

[geek tragedy]

60. I want him convicted because the evidence shows he killed a human being

in a confrontation he initiated.

If you let Zimmerman walk, it's open hunting season on young black men in Florida.

[B2G]

66. Well if it's OK with you,

I'll wait until I hear all of the evidence before forming a conclusion.

You attitude is one of the main thing that scares me about juries.

[geek tragedy]

71. Do you dispute that he killed Martin or that he

was responsible for their confrontation?

[B2G]

73. I don't dispute he killed him

Whether or not he was responsible for the confrontation and what that confrontation actually entailed are they key points. And based on testimony so rar, that is the key question that is going to decide things for the jury.
.

[geek tragedy]

77. If Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin, would there have been a confrontation? nt

[B2G]

84. That does not mean it was murder. You know that,

otherwise, we wouldn't even be having a trial, which I take it would be a good thing in your eyes.

Sometimes being a criminal justice major makes it hard to post here.

Carry on. I'm done discussing this until after closing statements.

[geek tragedy]

87. Murder or manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.

It's not credible to suggest Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

[Recursion]

91. You can't see a valid SD claim, even a far fetched one?

Not at all?

[geek tragedy]

93. You can't start a fight and then shoot someone if you get the worst of it. nt

[Recursion]

95. two things

I am not yet convinced about who started the fight, though we probably both agree arguing that won't persuade the other.

Also, I'm pretty sure you legally can if, in the process of losing, you reasonably fear for your own life.

[geek tragedy]

100. Relevant Florida statute here:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/

Note that there is a duty to escape/retreat if you start the fight.

[Recursion]

105. Good call, thanks.

So SD would require

1. Martin started the fight, or
2. Z was in a situation where he couldn't retreat.

Then again, both of those are at least conceivable to me.

[geek tragedy]

114. No one's going to hear any testimony that he tried to escape. nt

[CatWoman]

231. you should really be ashamed of yourself

thread after thread, you spread your filth.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

130. I think that's the issue here...

Can Zimmerman convince a jury that a) he was in fear for his life and that b) he was physically unable to escape.

If he's able to do both of those, then I suspect he's likely to be acquitted.

[justanaverageguy]

244. Yes I can

If your reaction is so overwhelmingly over the top to whatever I did to start the fight that I now have to defend my life in light of your overreaction then yes although I started the fight I can shoot you if I'm in reasonable fear for my life.

For example if I call you a lying douche bag asshole and provoke you to some sort of action, but certainly have not put you in fear of your life or imminent danger, I have clearly "started" the fight. If your reaction to that is pulling a weapon to kill me for calling you a name, then I think that although I "started" the fight, you have just escalated the situation to such a point that you have now become the aggressor and I have the right to defend myself.

[aquart]

171. No. None.

It's outrageous chutzpah to make such a defense.

[Renew Deal]

155. Is it possible for the charge to be reduced by the jury?

I think that if Zimmerman gets off, it will be because he was overcharged.

[geek tragedy]

159. Lesser-included offense is an option. nt

[premium]

160. It depends upon the judge's jury instructions,

she can instruct the jury that if the prosecution hasn't proven 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then they can vote for conviction on a lesser charge, like manslaughter if they feel the prosecution proved that charge.
It all comes down to the judge's jury instructions.

[Renew Deal]

161. I hope that happens

Because the murder charge is tough and a lot of people will be disappointed (by the process) if there's no conviction (which I think there should be). Of course, if it turns out that Zimmerman is completely innocent, so be it.

[premium]

166. So be it

and expect the possible civil unrest like what happened after the Rodney King verdict.

[Renew Deal]

184. Mob rule!

[truebluegreen]

176. 2nd degree murder is--I believe--supported by the evidence.

Zimmerman started it. It escalated and a person wound up dead. Zimmerman is responsible, whether or not Trayvon Martin defended himself.

Absent the Stand Your Ground obscenity (which is absent, since the defense is not pursuing it), there is a duty to retreat, if one can.

Zimmerman didn't.

[alarimer]

190. Every jury I've ever been on has made up their minds well in advance of the end of the trial.

But we're not on the jury, so we don't have to hear all the evidence, especially since any evidence brought by the defense is going to be character assassination of the victim.

George Zimmerman is a piece of shit who belongs in jail.

[Boom Sound 416]

186. drama much?

[DrewFlorida]

189. Agreed! It should be Trayvon who had the right to "stand his ground".

Zimmerman is a murderer! It doesn't matter to me what the courts say, he is every bit a murderer as O.J. Simpson is!
I only hope the jury can see through the inept racially biased job the Sanford Police Dept did in collecting evidence and investigating the many inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story. Jim Crow tried to brush this murder under the rug, if not for the loud mouths of those who demanded justice we would not even be having a trial of this murderer.

[BlueStreak]

111. I want to see him convicted of the right crime.

It is pretty clear that Zimmerman pursued Martin and precipitated the encounter.

It is also clear that Martin was kicking Zimmerman's ass, so there really was an element of self defense. I don't find it reasonable that, in that situation Zimmerman could have pulled out the gun to scare Martin off. martin was on top of him pounding him big time. If I had a gun in that situation, I'd be very afraid that the kid would get the gun and kill me. So his choice, realistically, was to either take his beating or to pull out the gun and shoot Martin.

That isn't murder. I don't know what the right charge is, but it is not murder. And on the other hand, it wasn't "stand your ground" either (in the moral, sense, not in the sense of the Florida law) because Zimmerman instigated the trouble. According to the obscene Florida law, this really does seem to meet the "stand your ground" exception, although I guess the defense isn't trying to use that.

This is clearly a complicated case. Anybody who believes this is a clear-cut case one way or the other should take a very serious look at their own objectivity.

[Recursion]

147. "Anybody who believes this is a clear-cut case one way or the other" +1

[aquart]

174. Who testified Martin was ever on top?

[BlueStreak]

181. John Good

[chillfactor]

232. Martin may not have been "beating" Zimmerman.....

he may have been trying to wrestle Zimmerman's gun away from him...

and Zimmerman's "injuries" could well have been the result of the recoil of the gun

let's look at all of the possibilitites before making conclusions

[BlueStreak]

235. Yes, that is possible. But that is not the evidence presented so far.

And I am not aware of any evidence that may yet be presented to establish that point. The prosecution can offer that as a theory, but I think it would actually hurt their case if there isn't any clear evidence pointing that way, because it could come off sounding like wishful thinking or a fishing expedition.

The biggest problem with that theory is that there is a tape that clearly shows somebody screaming for help, which is consistent with the testimony that Martin was on top throwing punches. And the defense will surely try to enter evidence that Martin was an experienced MMA-style fighter (although the judge has already excluded SMS texts to that effect.) It seems to me that will make it very difficult for the prosecution to argue that it came down as you described.

[nomorenomore08]

221. Picking sides based on race? You mean, the same thing Zimmerman's supporters have done?

After all, he hasn't exactly shown himself to be an honorable or trustworthy man. Yet so many seem to take him at his every word, and furthermore label a dead teenager a "thug" when he did nothing worse than smoke pot and (allegedly) film a fistfight.

[Android3.14]

2. My hand is down

That being said, I'll bet a nickel this ends bad.

[avebury]

3. Martin's parents can always go after Zimmerman in Civil Court.

That was the only way that the families of the victims of OJ Simpson ever saw justice.

[premium]

23. I don't think they can,

if the jury rules it was self defense and acquits him, then I believe that FL. law prevents Trayvon's parents from suing him civilly.
I know several states have enacted this law, just not sure about FL.
I hope not.

[Just Saying]

43. OJ was acquitted

And still got sued.

[Heddi]

47. 1) OJ's case was in California

2) OJ didn't use the reasoning of self defense as a reason that Nicole & Ron died

[Just Saying]

51. Do you have a statute to show they can't sue in civil court

If Zimmerman is acquitted?

[premium]

75. I can't seem to find it,

but what I did learn is that if the shooting was ruled justified and shooter was not arrested then shooter cannot be sued civilly, but even if shooter is acquitted, he can be sued civilly.
That's good news for the Martin family if Zman is acquitted, they can sue him back to the stone age.

[premium]

52. That was California,

each state has their own law and I believe that FL. law forbids someone being civilly sued if they were acquitted of the criminal charge.

[Just Saying]

58. Statute?

Anyone?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. Zimmerman never invoked the Stand Your Ground statute.

He's basing his innocence on classic self defense.

Therefore the Martins can sue him in civil court.

[jberryhill]

118. That makes no sense

Because it would depend on "the criminal charge".

If someone is acquitted of first degree murder, that has nothing to do with whether they are civilly liable for some sort of negligent homicide.

Example - I run someone over with my car because I was distracted. The prosecutor thinks I did it on purpose and charges me with murder. I am acquitted.

The facts and standard of proof in that criminal case have NOTHING to do with whether I would be held liable in a civil trial on negligence. Nothing.

[premium]

120. See posts #83. & 90.

776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html

[jberryhill]

133. That's dependent on invoking Stand Your Ground

It doesn't apply here, premium.

[premium]

138. Ok, I stand corrected.

Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. Yeah, but Zimmy never invoked it.

He waived the hearing and is going with classic self defense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Successfully invoking Stand Your Ground is a barrier to civil liability

But Zimmerman didn't invoke it.


776.085?Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1)?It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

[HiddenAgenda63]

162. If he is acquitted via SD...

...and then gets sued civilly, can he THEN invoke the SYD defense and argue immunity from civil prosecution, since it would be a different charge?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

195. I don't believe it works like that

The defendant invokes stand your ground at a hearing prior to trial. If it's granted it provides criminal and civil immunity. I don't believe it can be invoked retroactively.

[arely staircase]

57. they can

and no doubt will

you don't have to be guilty of 2nd degree murder to be negligent in civil court for someone's death. and in fact the bar of proof is much lower - no "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed. just "preponderance of the evidence." That means if the jury finds Z's negligence was the proximate cause of M's death, then Z loses.

[premium]

83. Correct.

The Martin family would only be barred from civilly suing him if the DA had determined that it was a justifiable shooting and Zman was never charged, but because he is charged and being tried, even if he is acquitted, they can still sue him back to the stone age.

[tularetom]

99. Well they can only actually sue him for whatever his net worth is

And he doesn't seem to have amassed a huge fortune so they might have some difficulty finding a lawyer to take the case.

They aren't barred from bringing suit. But it might not be worthwhile.

[premium]

104. Yep,

you have to weigh the benefits against the cost of suing.

[csziggy]

153. They wouldn't bother - Zimmerman doesn't have anything to take

Unless they can take any future donations from his right wing buddies.

See my message above about Trayvon's parents wrongful death suit settlement with the HOA insurance company.

[grok]

90. The statute "stand your ground" is not specific as to when

it is invoked. could be before trial, could be after. Might even be during the trial but I doubt Judge Nelson would allow it, though i think she should.

It was not invoked before trial because it would actually handicap the defence's court strategy. If DENIED

once invoked and affirmed by a florida court, you CANT be sued. that was one of the most important provisions of SYG.

776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html

[BlueStreak]

146. And the irony is that this seems to be a case where that horrible law applies

Clearly Zimmerman created the incident. But before he pulled his gun, he was getting beat up, and evidently didn't have any realistic means of retreat, considering Martin was on top of him pounding away. That seems to easily fit the definition of "stand your ground".

It will be unfortunate if Zimmerman gets aquitted of everything because of that, but that is actually what should happen according to this law.

[truebluegreen]

180. So you think that if someone starts a fight, and is losing it,

he/she can then shoot his/her opponent (the attackee) and get off because of Stand Your Ground?

If so, that law is even more f@cked up than I thought.

[BlueStreak]

218. That's exactly what the law says.

There is no question Zimmerman was the aggressor. There is no question he is a deeply disturbed person. There is no question he had an attitude about young black kids. There is no question he ran Martin down, precipitating a fistfight, and made all sorts of huge mistakes in the process. Up to a certain point, he could have backed off -- and should have. Martin would be alive, and Zimmerman would be a free man today.

All of that is what it is. And in the end, it probably just doesn't matter.

Because it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman picked on the wrong kid. Martin was kicking has ass, and I do think there is enough evidence to at least make the argument that Zimmerman did fear for his life. I believe it was Zimmerman screaming for help. It just doesn't make any sense that Martin would have been screaming because he was kicking Zimmerman's ass. Maybe Martin was just about to get up and leave Zimmerman on the ground. We don't know. Zimmerman couldn't know. What Zimmerman DID know is that there was a gun right there, and if the guy kicking his ass found that gun, maybe he was so worked up that Martin would use it against Zimmerman.

So Zimmerman used the gun first. It is a terrible tragedy, and 100% brought on by Zimmerman. But in the end, I expect there will be several jurors who will conclude that -- at the moment when Martin was kicking Zimmerman's ass, Zimmerman really could have a reasonable fear of losing his own life if Martin got his hands on the gun. From what I have heard, I would have to acquit Zimmerman of any murder charges. I'd have to think about aggravated manslaughter, but that gets us back to that horrible law. The SYG law seems to say that Zimmerman should not be convicted of anything.

It doesn't seem fair, but this really is a very complicated set of circumstances.

[truebluegreen]

223. I don't care if Martin was kicking his ass.

And the law shouldn't either. I think the principle is called "clean hands". Zimmerman didn't have clean hands, he wasn't blameless in how the situation developed, he started it. He was following Martin. He had the gun. If he hadn't been doing that, none of it would have happened. If he had then gotten the worst of it and was killed instead of Martin, racial bias aside, I doubt if Martin could have been convicted. He could reasonably argue self-defense, Zimmerman can't.

I hope he gets a long prison sentence, which he has earned.

[BlueStreak]

224. The defense only has to get one juror who looks at it the way I described. nt

[truebluegreen]

225. I get that. Doesn't make it right.

ETA: to be fair, that would result in a hung jury at best. Certainly not an acquittal.

[csziggy]

152. They already got a settlement from the HOA's insurance company

Insurance companies don't pay off like that if they don't see that they have a liability.

Trayvon Martin's parents settle wrongful-death claim
Homeowners association is thought to have paid more than $1 million
April 5, 2013|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

SANFORD — Trayvon Martin's parents have settled a wrongful-death claim for an amount thought to be more than $1 million against the homeowners association of the Sanford subdivision where their teenage son was killed.

Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, filed that paperwork at the Seminole County Courthouse, a portion of which was made public Friday.

In the five pages of the settlement that were available for public review, the settlement amount had been marked out. Lower in the agreement, the parties specified that they would keep that amount confidential.

When asked during an earlier interview whether the amount was more than $1 million, Crump said: "I have no comment on that subject … I know you did not get that from me."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-04-05/news/os-trayvon-martin-settlement-20130405_1_trayvon-martin-benjamin-crump-george-zimmerman

[Renew Deal]

157. That's an easily winnable case as far as I can tell.

The murder charge is more tenuous.

[B2G]

4. And I could just as easily ask you

if you want to see Zimmerman convicted based on...what exactly? Media reports? Racial factors?

Are you following the testimony?

[alsame]

6. He got out his car carrying

a gun and stalked an unarmed teenager who ended up dead.

[Recursion]

13. And you say that he "stalked" him based on?

Same options as above.

[alsame]

17. Even GZ admitted that he

was following him. Even after the police told him he didn't have to. How did he get close enough for a fight to occur if he wasn't?

[Recursion]

18. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to follow people in the neighborhood I live in

And that doing so was "stalking" them.

What else am I not allowed to do?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Do you routinely "follow people around" ?

I wouldn't recommend it , but that's just me.

[Recursion]

24. Me? No. If I did it wouldn't give them the right to attack me (nt)

[noiretextatique]

30. please stop repeating this outrageous lie

zimmerman's dna was not found on martin's hands. martin's dna was not found on zimmerman's gun. that means zimmerman is a liar.

[Recursion]

32. No, it doesn't

I don't know why you assume that, but it means nothing of the sort.

We don't know who started the fight. We just don't. Wishing that we did does not help. Feeling in our heart that we "know" either party does not help.

[noiretextatique]

192. no zimmerman DNA on his hands does mean

zimmerman is a liar. no way his claims could be true if his dna was not on martin. not a speck of his blood, no skin from the supposed beating, no bruises or cuts on his hands. one small abasion on his one finger of his non-dominant hand. if the lying murderer's claim was true, there should be more evidence of it. no evidence = he's a liar.

[Recursion]

196. Not, it just doesn't. CSI is not real life

A witness has already testified to seeing Martin on top of Z hitting him.

[chillfactor]

233. the CSI tech in this case is real life.....

and the witness said that Trayvon had his back to him..Trayvon could have been trying to wrestle Zimmerman's gun from him and not "beating" him

[OwnedByCats]

217. I agree but may as well

give up trying to tell everybody else that. They all had a front row seat when it happened don't you know?

Nobody knows what truly happened except George and Trayvon. Sadly Trayvon is dead and that's why we're having a trial. Pretending we all know what happened is ridiculous. None of us knew Trayvon, none of us know George and none of us was there to see exactly what happened. The media has been extremely negligent in this too. Forensic science is not perfect all the time. I get the impression they didn't secure all evidence properly - they wrapped Trayvon's hoodie in plastic instead of paper for example. I think we need to wait, hear all evidence and see what the jury comes up with. All this talk about knowing what happened, knowing the people involved is insane IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. But if a person follow strangers there is a good chance one will.

He or she is just as likely to think the person following them is up to no good as vice versa.

[phleshdef]

48. If you, as a stranger, are intentionally following ME around, you better have a fucking badge.

Otherwise, I'm going to consider your actions threatening. Its a form of harassment.

[JustAnotherGen]

154. +1

[burnodo]

198. are you sure you're on the right website?

Zimmerman stalked Martin. He followed Martin. He accosted Martin. Trayvon Martin is dead, not because he confronted some strange man that was stalking him. He's dead because George Zimmerman was a numbnut with a gun and a huge ego.

[Recursion]

199. Are you?

You seem to think following someone and challenging their presence in your neighborhood makes it OK for them to attack you.

[burnodo]

200. a simplistic assessment

did Martin run up to Zim and start attacking him? no...Zim accosted Trayvon. Trayvon was right to defend himself.

[Recursion]

201. Did Z threaten or attack M?

And if you think so, based on what?

[snooper2]

67. I have before, so some dude walking down the alley trying to look through my neighbors fence

I was working in the garage...

Grabbed the 4-way I had handy and when I went out to the alley and he ran between two houses and across a main street-


One other time my wife was in the pool with our daughter and she said some dude was looking over the fence taking pictures. I left from work 7 minutes away (was on my Yamaha) and went down the alley looking for random dude. I saw him a block and a half down over the top of a neighbors fence, stopped the bike and asked what he was doing. He was reading electric meters



I would hardly say it is routine though---

[hack89]

20. "Stalked" has a specific legal meaning

Zimmerman did not stalk Trayvon. It is perfectly legal to follow someone. It is perfectly legal to challenge someone.

[RockaFowler]

40. Then you can't claim self-defense

He was the aggressor

And really Trayvon should be able to claim self-defense!!

[hack89]

54. Depends who threw the first punch

it is not against the law to follow someone and verbally accost them. It just isn't.

[Just Saying]

63. Getting hit doesn't give you the right to shoot your attacker.

And I think most people would say someone following them around in the dark is being aggressive. I'm a woman and I sure as hell think it is.

It is against the law to kill someone.

[hack89]

70. Here is an eyewitness account of the fight

On the trial’s fifth day, Good recounted being 15 to 20 feet away from the fight between Zimmerman and Martin. Although he couldn’t make out the faces of the individuals on the ground, Good said he could make out the color of their clothes. In crucial testimony that buttresses the defense’s argument, Good said the person on top of the fight was wearing a black top like the black hoodie sweatshirt Martin was wearing that night, and the person on the bottom was wearing red. Zimmerman was wearing a similar color that night.

Good said it seemed like the person on the bottom was yelling for help. Good said he saw the person on top “straddling”the person on the bottom, and the person on top was moving their hands in a downward striking motion that looked like what he called a "ground and pound," a term associated with MMA or mixed-martial arts fighting.

"It looked like that position was a ground-and-pound type position, but I couldn't tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces," said Good. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara asked Good to define the term "ground and pound."

"It's usually when someone is on top in a mounted position, I believe, in the dominant position, but like I said the person on the bottom is able to throw punches back, but I did not see any of that," said Good.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/28/questions-still-loom-over-george-zimmerman-trial?hpt=hp_inthenews

This is a little bit more than "getting hit" - how many times does the guy on the bottom have to be hit before he fears for his life?

[ieoeja]

108. And more.

"Good said it was possible the person on top may have trying to hold the person on the bottom down."

[Just Saying]

109. Again, your source is biased

Actually heard this guy testify and he admitted he didn't see any blows land. And he didn't see the entire fight either.

[hack89]

112. CNN is biased? nt

[Just Saying]

117. Oops

Sorry was looking at wrong post.

[aquart]

175. How many times has good changed his story?

How do you account for the total lack of Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon?

[hack89]

177. When I was on a jury, the judge gave us the "CSI" lecture

basically saying that the real world is not like TV and that forensic evidence is very rare in most crimes. He said that laymen have an unrealistic expectation of what forensic evidence will be available.

So my question back to you is "what does the science say?" What is the demonstrated likelihood of DNA transfer? I certainly don't have the background to answer that.

Now, we do have this eyewitness testimony:


An EMT testifying:

"He had a very swollen, bleeding nose. He had lacerations to the back of his head," said Livingston. "We just tried to clean up his injuries so we could see them better."

She also saw two cuts on the back of his head, each approximately an inch long. They also cleaned up the cuts

And we have a cop testifying

Smith says Zimmerman was wearing a red and black jacket.

"The back of it was wetter than the front of it. It was also covered in grass," said Smith.

Zimmerman was also wearing blue jeans.

"The back was wetter than the front," said Smith.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/28/questions-still-loom-over-george-zimmerman-trial?hpt=hp_inthenews

That seems pretty consistent with Zimmerman's story that Travyon was on top of him and beating the crap out of him.

[chillfactor]

234. zimmerman's "injuries" could have been caused by the gun recoiling

why do not people here get that.....the gun was close enough to zimmerman's face to account for his "injuries".....and zimmerman made up the story about being hit to cover his ass...

[hack89]

239. It will be interesting to see what the actual evidence reveals. nt

[premium]

96. Um, yes it does,

if you are physically attacked and in reasonable fear for your life, you are, by law, allowed to defend yourself up to and including deadly force. That's every state in the country.

[Just Saying]

113. Um, no it doesn't.

What you described is not just a punch and frankly, I think your story better describes Trayvon's situation.

[premium]

128. Yes it does,

if you are attacked and in reasonable fear of your life, remember, neither of us were there that night, so we don't know the frame of Zman's mind, then you absolutely have the right to defend yourself up to and including deadly force.
The key phrase is reasonable fear of your life.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's what happened that night, I'm just explaining that you are allowed to defend yourself if you reasonably think your life is in danger, of course, you better be prepared to justify your actions to the police and more importantly, the DA's office.

I know this because I spent 30+ years as a Federal Law Enforcement Officer.

[Just Saying]

173. Sigh. We can keep doing this.

But you joined a conversation where someone said it depends on who threw the first punch. I disagreed that a punch is not enough and now you keep arguing it is if he feared for his life. Understand-I was saying the first punch thrown doesn't necessarily mean the other guy can then pull out a gun and fire.

I know what the self defense statute says but it's rather beside the point as we were discussing who threw the first punch which while relevant to who was the aggressor doesn't give someone justification for deadly force.

If you still don't get it please go back to the post I initially responded to. We were talking about a specific thing and you keep bringing up more info (which I somewhat agree) but is off topic a bit from what we were discussing.

[Bradical79]

134. Yes up to a point.

and when you kill that person you follow and "challenge" odds are you committed murder.

[Skittles]

226. based on the fact that Travyon was where he was supposed to be

AND DOING NOTHING WRONG

[99Forever]

230. Zimmerman is a murdering scumbag. Period.

People making excuses for him and defending him are equally devoid of human decency, courage, or honor. Period.

[PsychoBunny]

98. Exactly. And we all know it

not even sure why there has to be a trial. We all know who's fault it is.

[Just Saying]

45. The evidence.

Is that your hand I see up?

[Zoeisright]

158. Apparently you are not.

I want to see him convicted based on the FACT that he stalked and hunted a teenager and shot him in cold blood.

Do you have logical reasoning skills?

[rug]

5. If the law is followed he should be acquitted of the top charge.

I don't care about Zimmerman but I do care about overreaching prosecutors.

[WinkyDink]

11. Because you've heard all the evidence?

[rug]

15. The evidence so far does not rebut the presumption of innocence.

Since this stupid thread is asking opinions now, rather than at the close of evidence, he must be acquitted on the top count.

If you are ever picked for jury duty, listen to this question during voir dire.

"If you had to vote right now, how would you vote?'

Invariably those potential jurors who consider themselves open-minded will answer, "I can't pick one, I haven't heard any evidence yet."

That's the wrong answer. The defendant has the presumption of innocence. The prosecution has the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you haven't heard any evidence, the correct answer, legally, is not guilty.

In this case, on this record to date, he should be acquitted of the top charge.

[Just Saying]

49. A kid is dead at his hands

He admits to killing him. He has to show he had a legal right to do so.

[galileoreloaded]

145. the prosecuter has to prove he didnt have the right. nt

[Recursion]

148. No, positive defenses place a burden on the accused (nt)

[galileoreloaded]

150. you are right, of course. I stand corrected. nt

[rug]

211. It's an affirmative defense that, once established, shifts the burden back to the prosecution.

[rug]

210. And the prosecutor has to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[nomorenomore08]

238. Okay, sorry. I misunderstood you. Should've kept reading.

[nomorenomore08]

237. So manslaughter rather than murder two?

I guess I can live with that, assuming he gets something close to the maximum (~10 years).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. There's a difference between what I want to happen and what I think will happen.

The moment Zimmerman, the Barney Fife wannabe, ignored Community Watch protocol and the instructions of the police dispatcher and followed Trayvon he became the aggressor.

But i'm a grown up. I realize there is a chasm , sometimes, between what I want to happen and what I think will happen.

I'm not going to get emotionally invested in a guilty verdict. I will be pleasantly surprised if one is reached.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Just for the sake of facts, Barney Fife worked for Andy Taylor 'The Shieriff without a gun'.

Had Zimmerman wanted to be Barney Fife, he'd not have been an armed belligerent asshole. A Dirty Harry wannabe would be a better analogy.

[johnp3907]

197. And Barney kept his bullet in his pocket.

[quinnox]

8. yep. I'm just wondering if they will keep defending Zimmerman when he is found guilty

they will probably be too chicken-shit to do that though because it would expose them too much (for what they are).

[Vattel]

29. What a stupid thing to say.

[quinnox]

34. what part?

Can you be more specific in terms of what problem you have with my post?

[noiretextatique]

37. zimmerman apologists

liek to pretend their support of him has nothing to do with race.

[quinnox]

64. I'm starting to understand that, but I just wanted to see what he meant by saying what I posted was

stupid. Apparently, he doesn't want to clarify or expand on it. Or at least, hasn't so far. Strange.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

212. EXACTLY!!! The denial that race had absolutely nothing to do with what happened is them being

dishonest. Their zeal in defending Zimmerman makes me wonder.

[premium]

9. Flamebait anyone?

Here's an idea, why don't we wait until the verdict is read and then post this asking how many were wishing for that outcome?

Ultimately, it matters not what anyone here wants or thinks, it'll come down to whether or not the prosecution can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, if not then Zman will walk, if so, then Zman will still walk, straight to prison.

[Yo_Mama]

44. Yeah

How could anyone be sure of what the verdict should be before even the prosecution case is laid out?

I would have thought once the trial was on that people would be more interested in the evidence than their own opinions.

[premium]

136. Yep,

and the defense hasn't even presented it's case, and yet, people have already declared him guilty, I know this is only an opinion on their part and carries not legal weight, but as progressives, I thought we were better than this.

I, myself am leaning towards guilty, but my mind can be changed depending upon the evidence.

[OwnedByCats]

219. Well some people had Zimmerman

guilty at the get go, before knowing very much about the case.

I prefer to wait for all evidence in COURT (not counting what the media has said for the last year and a half). That doesn't mean I think he's innocent, but I also won't jump to conclusions on his guilt either. We have trials for a reason. Many people forget that I think.

[William769]

10. Not aquitted, but I have no problem with electocution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Florida doesn't have a electric chair

.

[nyquil_man]

14. It's an option. Nobody chooses it, though.

It has a nasty habit of catching people on fire.

[William769]

16. I know sparky was retired.

I have no problem bringing it back for this person.

[Pelican]

19. Is that for all 2nd degree murder charges?

... or just the ones you are emotionally invested in?

[William769]

25. All murder charges.

BTW I am not emotionally invested, I just don't like dicks that kill innocent people. Kapish?

[Pelican]

28. Hey.. I'm not anti-DP...

It is just a rarity, on this site, to support it in all murder cases.

[William769]

38. I am retired form the State of Florida Dept of Corrections.

I have seen some pretty mean people. That doesn't mean I not a Democrat (hell, I'm Gay to boot!). I know I am in the minority, but I'm used to that being Gay.

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. "I'm retired from the Florida Department of Corrections. I have seen some pretty mean people."

Yeah.

And then there's the inmates.

[William769]

62. My job description was care, custody & control of the inmate population

Job one being protecting society.

I will not apologize for that.

Have a nice day.

[premium]

142. And you shouldn't have to apologize,

I was a Federal Law Enforcement Officer for 30+ years, albeit an armed USFS Ranger, but I still had to deal with my share of unsavory characters, but you couldn't pay me enough money to do the job you did.
Glad you made it through with your sanity and you're enjoying your retirement.

[OwnedByCats]

220. Awfully broad brush there

and to assume this member was like that, not cool.

[Pelican]

107. No worries and good on ya...

Glad to see someone speak their mind openly and intelligently and have a rational conversation in response.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Yeah-I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter in the least.

But the death penalty???

I oppose the death penalty but I understand the argument that the death penalty should be reserved for the "worst of the worst" Under what framework can some wannabe Barney Fife with a suspected racial animus and a handgun that he recklessly used be considered the "worst of the worst" ?

[William769]

42. Yes.

He was able to take a life. Is his life not worth as much as the one's who were killed by the "worst of the worst"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. So If a guy comes home and finds his wife in bed with another guy and shoots him

should he get the death penalty just as the guy who kidnaps a four year old girl rapes her, tortures her , and kills her ?


I would think most reasonable folks would say they both should be punished but the child rapist/murderer should receive a more severe punishment.

Let's take my hypothetical a step further. If the father of the dead victim kills the child kidnapper/rapist/murderer should he get the death penalty too?

[William769]

65. I stand by what I said murder is murder.

And no life is any less significant than another based on the who committed the murder & for what reason.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. There were 15,000 homicides in the United States last year.

There were forty three executions in the United States last year.


Would you be comfortable with four hundred times more executions?

[William769]

89. If convicted of murder? Yes.

[Fla Dem]

163. Still Capital Punishment in Florida...Death by Lethal Injection n/t

[ksoze]

21. I would like an innocent person acquitted of the charges

I lost my time machine, so cannot comment.

[kestrel91316]

26. Well, he is as entitled to a fair trial just the same as everybody else. That said, I hope that

after his fair trial the jury finds him guilty as hell.

[1-Old-Man]

27. I want the Jury to come up with a fair verdict and for those not on the Jury to respect it.

And to be quite honest about it anyone who is not sitting on the Jury really doesn't know jack shit of any importance at all about the case at hand and their opinions are utterly meaningless.

[Vattel]

33. Based on the evidence I have seen, he should be acquitted.

But I haven't seen all of the evidence yet.

[noiretextatique]

35. i think he should burn in hell, even if he is acquitted

the coward will have to live with the knowledge of what he did every day of his miserable life.

[DrDan]

36. I have been following the testimony

seems to me the state and the defense been winning points pretty equally. And that is based on the state's case only (so far).

Do I want to see Zimmerman aquitted? Yes - if that is where the evidence leads.

Of course there are some of us feel the evidence should be the basis for guilt - not mob-mentality.

[stevenleser]

41. Zimmerman deserves life in prison without parole.

Based on the snippets I've heard about the trial, I have no idea if he will get what he deserves or not.

[hfojvt]

50. you rang?

I think Zimmerman was assaulted and therefore should be acquitted. I am quite sure that Trayvon had time to run home, and yet seemingly chose not to do so. I have already stated such a number of times.

But I don't know that it takes a lot of guts to make a post on a quasi-anonymous message board. It wouldn't be the first time I was assailed with the slings and arrows from a confederacy of, er, detractors. ( to all my detractors, and you know who you are and so does the NSA )

I don't like being wrong any more than the next person.

So yes, I hope that the facts of the trial prove that I am right.

I am not, however, gonna riot in the streets if he is convicted of something. It won't impact me any more than when the Ravens beat the 49ers. There will still be toilets for me to clean tomorrow.

[quinnox]

56. Fair enough, but question for you

If Zimmerman hadn't got out of his car and followed Martin, would Martin have died that night?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. I will never get past that fact

That's what began this awful cascade of events.

Where I depart from some of my DU brethren is the severity of the charges. I think Zimmerman profiled Trayvon and then followed him in violation of Community Watch protocol and the dispatcher's instructions and then got in a fight with a unarmed guy and the unarmed guy ended up dead. But I don't think Zimmerman was a 21st century Joseph Paul Franklin who wanted to kill black guys.

[quinnox]

79. fair enough, I just am finding it odd that the ones I reply too don't want to seem to answer

my questions. Hmm. That is two so far in this thread.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. I don't see (figuratively speaking) how someone can argue the killing was justified in this instance

I'm just not convinced it was murder. Manslaughter ; definitely.

Zimmerman followed a stranger at night in violation of Community Watch protocol and the dispatcher's instructions and a fight ensued and the stranger ended up dead.

If he heeds protocol and specific instructions Trayvon is still alive.

[quinnox]

103. I can understand why one would prefer manslaughter as the charge, but I'm thinking they must have

had good reasons for making it second degree murder instead. Hopefully by making it such a serious charge, instead of manslaughter, that doesn't harm their chances of convicting him. Time will tell.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. Manslaughter is a lesser included charge

Jeff Weiner, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who practices in Miami, said an Arthur hearing “is not a mini-trial, but it’s a very good preview of the evidence that the state has at this point.”

Mr. Weiner suggested that the prosecutor might have “overcharged” to retain the option, should she feel a murder conviction is slipping away, of asking the judge to instruct the jury to consider lesser offenses, like manslaughter. It is also possible, he said, that she might be trying to coax Mr. Zimmerman to the negotiating table to plead guilty to such a lesser charge. But, he added, it is impossible to say whether it is overly tough, since evidence has not yet been produced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html?_r=0

[quinnox]

119. huh, interesting

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Prosecutors routinely overcharge

To scare you into a plea to a lesser offense or to give the jury an out in the way of a compromise verdict on the theory the "defendant did something wrong. We just don't believe it is as bad as what the prosecutors say he did."


I'm trying to think of a concrete example. Charging a person with possession of cocaine and intent to distribute and pleading it down to simple possession.

[quinnox]

129. I see

Luckily, I haven't had to deal with anything like this personally, so thanks for the information, this is new to me.

[trumad]

139. oh thats easy

Because they are cowards.

[snooper2]

82. If the girl hadn't gone to that party and got drunk

she wouldn't have been raped



See how that works?

[quinnox]

88. so in other words, you don't want to answer it either

hmm. I guess thinking Zimmerman has no responsibility and is innocent takes that kind of denial.

[ieoeja]

123. You do know you just did that ass backwards?

Post you responded to:

If the killer hadn't pursued the victim, he would not know be dead.

You respond:

If the victim hadn't been there, she would not have been raped.

You turned that completely around. A correct analogy would have been:

If the rapist hadn't gone to that party and got drunk, he wouldn't have raped the girl he met there.

[quinnox]

125. Nicely done, I thought something smelled fishy about that analogy

[hfojvt]

208. except you turned it around as well

if the "killer" had not been attacked, there would have been no killing, nor any victim. Trayvon would have been the victim of a drive-by following.

Is the victim the one who got punched?

Or the one who got shot AFTER he punched somebody? And not just punched somebody. Actually knocked them to the ground, jumped on him and kept on punching?

Being punched makes you a victim. So if a woman kills somebody who is attempted to rape her, should she be charged with manslaughter? Or does somebody have a right to defend themself when they are being attacked, even if they are not necessarily in danger of being killed?

[hfojvt]

92. of course not

but what difference does that make?

Because, the way I see it, Zimmerman getting out of his car = he has done nothing wrong.

whereas

Trayvon (as I think it happened, not that I know for sure) knocking Zimmerman down and getting on top of him and punching him = doing something wrong. Something, which, had Trayvon not done that, he would probably be alive today.

Doesn't make his death any less tragic. I think everyone should get to live to at least age 42.

[quinnox]

97. ok, well to me, it makes a huge difference

and puts a great deal of responsibility for what happened that night squarely on Zimmerman. But of course you are entitled to your opinion.

[hfojvt]

121. if I was Zimmerman I would feel awful

I would think I shoulda done this or shoulda done that, but the bottom line would still be - if he hadn't started beating on me, then he would be alive today.

Years ago some kids were smashing fluorescent bulbs in the alley behind my house, and I came out the back door and chased the two of them half a block until they went in a neighboring house. Now, if instead of running, then had turned and attacked me, and say I was armed and shot one of them. Then you could say "If only I had not left my house they would be alive" and that would be true, but it would also be true "if only they had not attacked me, they would be alive".

[JoePhilly]

183. The kids you chased we're actually

Doing something wrong. So you confronted them.

Martin wasn't doing anything wrong. And Zimmerman had no reason to confront him.

[RockaFowler]

144. Why did he get out of his car, though??

There was no need. The dispatcher told him we don't need you to do that. So getting out of his car was what started all of this. And Trayvon would be alive today had he just done what he had been told do to.

Doesn't Trayvon have the right to defend himself?? Someone was chasing him for no reason. I doubt Trayvon would have started anything because he was walking home minding his own business when Zim decided to confront him.

[hfojvt]

207. he got out of the car for an abvious reason

to be able to assist the police. To be able to tell them "he went that way".

the dispatcher told him, we don't need you to do that AFTER he was already out of the car. So he was not told "we don't need you to follow" until he was already following.

Trayvon did not NEED to defend himself, He was not trapped. Zimmerman could not have run him down. Trayvon had a one minute head start. Zimmerman was on the phone and said "shit, he's running" and then was on the phone for another minute, saying "I don't know where he went" and answering other questions. Being followed is not something a person needs to defend themself from. It is not in the same league as being knocked to the ground and hit.

If somebody follows you or even confronts you, there is nothing to defend from. So far, they are only walking and talking. What is there to defend from?

[Captain Stern]

101. The answer is no.

Now, a question for you:

If Zimmerman had stayed home, instead of driving to Target, would Martin have died that night?

[quinnox]

106. not sure what you are referring to

I'm no expert in all the details of the case, but I do know Zimmerman was told to stay put by the 9/11 dispatcher, and instead of obeying them, he got out of his car and followed Martin. I haven't a clue what a Target store has to do with it.

[hfojvt]

127. just a factual point though

Zimmerman got out of his car and was already following Trayvon on foot when the dispatcher asked "Are you following him?" and then said "okay, we don't need you to do that.". That's on the tape of his call.

well, I, being a helpful sort of bear, will often help out even when people do not need my help.

and secondly, as a taxpaying citizen, I do not consider police, who I employ, to be the boss of me. and "we don't need you to do that" is not much of an imperative.

[Captain Stern]

135. My understanding is that Zimmerman was on the way home from Target when he saw Martin.

So, if Zimmerman hadn't gone to Target, Martin would most likely still be alive.

Going to Target is perfectly legal. So is following someone, regardless of whether or not a dispatcher tells you not to.

If Zimmerman really thought Martin was acting suspiciously, he should have just stayed in the car while he called the cops. That would have been the smart thing to do. However, not doing the smart thing isn't the same thing as doing something illegal.

In my opinion, the only things that are going to matter in this case are the events that occurred after Martin & Zimmerman encountered each other. That's the first point where one of them did something illegal.

[Vattel]

168. Why do you believe that Zimmerman followed Martin after he got out of his car?

He says that he had lost sight of Martin and wasn't trying to find him. He says he was walking back to his car when Martin confronted him. I don't know whether he is lying and neither do you.

[Apophis]

204. Wow.

Just...wow.

[backscatter712]

59. My hand's down. Zimmerman's a fucking murderer. n/t

[Kingofalldems]

68. He wouldn't have followed Trayvon if he didn't have his little gun.

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

No denying that. Some gun lovers will not address this question and slam DU with clever pro Zimmerman posts.

[Peregrine]

69. I think he is guilty of manslaughter, but I do want him to get completely off. Why?

Because DU has gone off the deep end on this. This trial means absolutely noting in the larger scheme of things, but DU has decided that if he is found not guilty that this will start open season on minorities. DU has all of the answers and are looking for anything which might be racist.

[Pathwalker]

81. You want him to get off because of DU? Seriously?

Posts on DU are beside the point when it comes to justice, or injustice regarding the outcome of this trial, or at least they should be.

[WinkyDink]

209. Your post is completely and utterly baseless.

[L0oniX]

72. Super smelling (been out on the road all day) flame bait.

BTW spell check is your friend

[HardTimes99]

110. +1 - nt

[Captain Stern]

74. I don't "want" to see Zimmerman acquitted.

Nor do I "want" to see him found guilty.

What I hope to see is a fair verdict from a jury that has been exposed to all of the relevant evidence via competent jobs by both the prosecution and the defense. If that happens, I'm fine with whatever verdict the jury reaches.

[hugo_from_TN]

80. Based on what I've seen & read so far, he should be acquitted.

My first comment on the trial, which is getting way too much coverage (IMO).

[hollysmom]

86. I am not sure they have the right charge here.

But since I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one, I will let the others work on this case

Note this does not mean I ever find the law fair or fairly applied or fairly prosecuted.

I know how I feel, but that is not how you prosecute a case. I still feel the police who did not notify the family also deserve to be brought up on negligence charges.

[Prism]

102. My impression is that 2nd degree is overreach.

However, given Zimmerman's initiation of events, it seems like manslaughter or negligent homocide would be appropriate convictions should the evidence justify them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

132. Does FL law give the jury any flexibility?

Some states allow the jury to determine was degree of culpability the defendant has.

[Prism]

143. If the judge allows it

I got my information on this from here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-faces-second-degree-murder-charge-in-florida.html?_r=0

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

149. Unless Martin's lawyer is massively incompetent

I'll bet he gets manslaughter. Without a witness, it's going to be a matter of character assassination (on both sides) to get anything more or anything less.

[Prism]

151. I think Good's testimony threw 2nd right out the window.

Is that his name? The man who put Trayvon on top during the fight. Given that testimony, I just cannot imagine a 2nd degree charge sticking beyond reasonable doubt. I guess we'll get a sense of it once the prosecutor makes a request.

[Renew Deal]

165. This is not Martin's lawyer

It is the local prosecutor.

[PsychoBunny]

115. I am not going to like the verdict

no matter which way it goes. I am sure they will have screwed up something.

[Nye Bevan]

124. Based on the train-wreck of a prosecution so far,

he should certainly be acquitted of murder.

[naaman fletcher]

140. Well,

I don't think it's second degree murder, I think it's manslaughter and I hope he is convicted on that.

That being said ill bet he's acquitted. People on this site aren't watching with an open mind. The prosecution is going horribly wrong.

There has been almost nothing presented that disputes the Zimmerman account of the events beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ZombieHorde]

141. I suspect we're being manipulated, trumad.

There is nothing political about this case, yet it is highly politicized. Shootings happen all the time here in the US, but this one is special somehow? This is more worthy of tribalism than all the others? Iffy self-defense claims must be relatively common. Is this about justice, or is this about the media making money? The outcome of this trial will not touch 99.99% of the US population, except through media entertainment, in any manner. No matter what happens, our lives will be the same.

What do you think? Why are we hearing so much about this one killing?

[Inkfreak]

203. Of all the postings on this subject that I've read

You are the only one to ask that question. And I think it is an excellent one. But that makes sense, zombiehordes often have a knack for getting to the meat of the matter.

[Zoeisright]

156. Fuck no.

That pig hunted down and killed a kid who was walking through a neighborhood. I just wish there was a hell so that trash Zimmerman would burn in it.

[RedCappedBandit]

164. Zimmerman belongs in prison. He initiated the confrontation, and killed a kid.

What the fuck.

[ksoze]

172. Who actually confronted who is stil in question

Rachael said Trayvon actually approached and spoke to Zimmerman first. he may have been following him, but appears Trayvon questioned him first.

[Xyzse]

167. I don't, but I wouldn't be surprised

The Stand Your Ground Law needs changing.
If one instigates a fight or looks for conflict they get what's coming to them.

When a fight happens, it really only stops if they get stopped, someone can't fight any more, or both walk away.

If you are in a fight, the idea is to knock the other person out, otherwise you have no idea if they will keep coming at you.

That law really is for bullying cowards that love to dish things out on people but can't handle it when someone actually pushes back.

[Nye Bevan]

169. If by "not one of them", you mean "several", your prediction was accurate (nt)

[MrSlayer]

170. Does he actually have supporters?

Seriously, are there people here that are rooting for this guy?

[trumad]

179. yep

But they are to cowadly to admit it.

[BlueStreak]

182. If you would take time to read instead of just hurling insults

you would see that there are people who have posted in this thread with objective comments based on the facts that have been presented in the case rather than just being prejudiced as your posts indicate you are. In my judgment, being prejudiced is the cowardly position.

[Renew Deal]

185. I know that we've had trolls sign on to defend him

There are also people that don't believe this case is 100% clear cut. The only acceptable opinion to some people on DU is "guilty." The case just isn't that simple and the "if he was white" stuff that's thrown around is race baiting BS.

[aquart]

214. He got out of his car with a loaded gun.

And picked a fight with a kid minding his own business. I would happily see him hacked up with a cuticle scissor for that.

[Apophis]

205. Closeted racists and outright racist people hope Zimmerman is acquitted.

[MrSlayer]

206. Yeah I realize that.

I'm talking about here on this site. Are there open Zimmerman supporters here? I don't see it.

[JI7]

246. yes he does, a good number have just recently signed on to DU

to support him. they don't post about any other issues.

[brush]

178. He killed an unarmed kid. He should be put on death row, not acquited. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

229. Have you seen all of the evidence on both sides?

Because if you haven't, saying he should be put to death is demented.

[brush]

240. Maybe so

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

But that's how I feel. He took a life through an action he initiated. He should have stayed in his truck and just observe as Neighborhood Watch members are instructed to do by police.

And he not only broke that guideline, he broke the most major no-no of all, he carried a firearm while allegedly on neighborhood watch. If not for those two things, especially the firearm part, Martin would still be alive.

Seems he was determined that this particular punk was not going to be one that got away, if I may paraphrase his call to the police dispatcher.

[Boom Sound 416]

187. is he charged with any crime

other than 2nd degree murder, such as weapons chargers, etc?

[ileus]

188. If he's innocent sure.

Maybe he's guilty, maybe he's not.


I suppose the ole "Tis better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6." saying applies here. Of course he only has 6 female jurors...

[toddwv]

191. I think Zimmerman was definitely at fault and likely instigated physical contact.

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2013, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

This qualifies as assault and is reason enough for someone to feel threatened enough to defend themself, in this case Trayvon Martin.


But I think Zimmerman will be acquitted since the charges are 2nd degree murder. It's unfortunate and just sets a REALLY bad precedence, but that's how it's going to go down.

[hamsterjill]

193. I have an opinion as to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. I think he's guilty.

I don't KNOW anything, so I don't know that he should or should not be acquitted.

It is up to the jury to make that call.

I do know FOR SURE that *I* (personally) want George Zimmerman to receive a fair trial. To deny that to George Zimmerman is the same as denying it for any American. I have some concerns about the ability for him to receive a fair trial with the media involved.

[bike man]

194. "Edited for spelling" Do it again

"Oh they may hop on this thread and color thier support with a buch of fair trial comments... but not one of them will come in to say he should be aquited."

[Eleanors38]

202. My "fair trial comment:" I support a fair trial and await its outcome. nt

[madinmaryland]

213. Nevermind...

Kind of like the dozens of Marlin's fans that actually show up to support their team.

[NaturalHigh]

215. Okay, I'll raise my hand.

From the evidence that has been presented so far, I don't think the prosecution has much of a case. Yes, Zimmerman deserves a fair trial, and I think a fair trial will acquit him.

[ChiciB1]

216. HOPE HE GETS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED HERE IN FLORIDA!

BUT this is Florida. If I started explaining how I feel about this piece of crap, I'd never stop talking.

In fact I'm so mad, I wish they would just stick his butt in prison RIGHT NOW! That's how upset I am! Fair or not, he's IS a "creepy cracker"! Yes, politically incorrect... I DON'T care. Self Defense???? Yeah that's the ticket!

And I'm white myself!!!

[Township75]

222. If the state can't prove the case then I hope he is acquitted

Is that close enough?

[Beacool]

227. I don't think that it's a question of wanting to see Zimmerman go free.

After all, he provoked the confrontation and an unarmed young man died. The problem is that the prosecutors overcharged him and it's going to be hard to prove that Zimmerman had the intent to kill.

[Beacool]

241. This is what I was referring to, The Guardian says it much better.

George Zimmerman's attorneys are sowing seeds of reasonable doubt

Have prosecutors overreached with a second-degree murder charge, which requires proof of 'ill will' or 'hatred'?

---------

In the days following Martin's shooting, Sanford police did not hold or charge Zimmerman. Then, Florida governor Rick Scott, acting in response to political pressure generated by marches, rallies, demonstrations and editorials, in Sanford and across the country, appointed a special prosecutor who indicted him on second-degree murder charges.

Predicting any jury verdict is chancy, especially after only a week of testimony. But in this case gaining a second-degree murder conviction may be especially problematic. Under political pressure, some observers believe, prosecutors may have miscalculated in charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder. In doing so, they may have overreached, given that second-degree murder requires proof of "ill will" or "hatred" and "an indifference to human life".

A lesser charge, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, carries a lighter burden of proof, only that the accused acted with "culpable negligence", in a manner that demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life. However, if the defence thinks their case is going badly, they can request that presiding judge Debra Nelson offer jurors the alternative of finding Zimmerman guilty of the lesser charge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/george-zimmerman-murder-trial-week-one

[Gravitycollapse]

228. He should be convicted or acquitted on the evidence in court.

As the trial is not over yet, literary none of us can know for certain one way or the other.

[Orsino]

242. Raise your hand if you want Jones back. n/t

[sister.neurotica]

243. Zimmerman acquittal

I think there are three different questions here:

1) Will he be acquitted?

2) Should he be acquitted?

3) Is second degree murder the appropriate charge?

1) I believe he will be acquitted of second degree murder. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and there is far more than a reasonable doubt at this point. It matters little whether he suffered one blow or many. It does not even matter whether he was on the top or the bottom. They both both may have been rolling around, sometimes on the top and sometimes on the bottom. There was indeed a fight. Zimmerman had some wounds and probably got his head pounded onto the pavement at least once. It is a reasonable expectation that many people would be in fear of their lives after that happened. It does not matter who started it. If he was in fear of death or serious bodily harm he had the right to defend himself with his gun. Perhaps he was not in fear of life. Perhaps he was. I do not know. Zimmerman is the only living person that knows the answer to that. But I believe there is a significant chance that he was in such fear. I would therefore say he should be acquitted. I suspect the majority of the jurors will agree with that. I expect him to be acquitted of 2nd degree murder.

2) Should he be acquitted of second degree murder?

For the reasons stated above I do.

3) But is he guilty of something else? Yes, I think he created a dangerous situation by going after Martin while carrying a gun. Perhaps involuntary manslaughter is what it fits. But, Florida law recognizes manslaughter of a child as "aggravated manslaughter" and Martin, at age 17, was technically a child. To me, some type of manslaughter conviction would be a reasonable charge and he probably should be convicted of that. It looks as if he could go to jail for up to 30 years for aggravated manslaughter because it is a first degree felony.

[In_The_Wind]

245. Hello ~ sister.neurotica

FWIW ... Personally I think that Zimmerman should be found guilty.


[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL] to DU

[JohnnyBoots]

247. Yes, he should

I've said this on numerous threads. I would be surprised if he wasn't. Why is that such a controversial opinion? Do we all need to walk the the uninformed party line?