Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum
Pap and Seder: George Zimmerman – GOP Hero
Ring of Fire’s Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder discuss George Zimmerman’s recent appearance at a gun show, in which he showcased his celebrity status by signing autographs and meeting “fans.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Wonder how many of his "fans" wish they could do the same.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)PorridgeGun
(80 posts)Even if the killing were justified its obviously nothing that would make any reasonable person want to get autographs from the shooter. Z's motivation is no more complex than a $100 bill; the rest of these idiots are frightening.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)is made a spokesperson for the NRA? It's gotta happen!
spin
(17,493 posts)The simple fact is that there was reasonable doubt. Based on what I watched of the trial, if I had been on the jury I would have also ruled Zimmerman not guilty. That doesn't mean innocent. It simply means that the prosecution failed to prove Zimmerman guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That's the way our system works. Obviously the media thought Zimmerman was guilty but I am not an advocate of trial by the press. Perhaps some here will disagree but I will suggest that although our system of justice has its flaws, some serious, it's better than the alternatives.
Had there been surveillance video or a witness that saw the beginning of the altercation that led to the shooting, Zimmerman might have been in jail today.
It is in my opinion it is quite possible that the cop wannabe George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin in an aggressive and authoritarian manner. Testimony at the trial showed that Zimmerman was not a skilled fighter and Trayvon was not the little kid in the pictures we often see but a much larger young adult. Perhaps Zimmerman insisted that Trayvon wait for the police to arrive and when Trayvon refused, Zimmerman flashed his concealed weapon to intimidate, which is illegal in Florida. If so Martin had good reason to fear for his life and it could be argued that he stood his ground and attacked Zimmerman to disarm or incapacitate him.
Unfortunately Trayvon did not survive to tell his side of the story. There's an old saying, "Dead men tell no tales."
I have had a concealed weapons permit in Florida for well over 15 years. I realize that I am not a cop nor am I a vigilante. I don't go looking for trouble but instead try my best to avoid it.
For some reason Zimmerman found Trayvon suspicious and he contacted the police. That's fine. There was no need to do anything further. Period!!!
So to me, Zimmerman is no hero. I feel at best he is a fool. Unfortunately he painted those who legally and responsibly carry concealed in the state of Florida in a very bad light. If I met George Zimmerman the last thing I would want from him is his autograph!
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)And that is exactly what happened in the Zimmerman trial, Trayvon Martin was judged as guilty until proven innocent.
There was no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, none at all. Now there are some sick fucks who try to claim he was justified in doing so, but none of them have proof that Martin was guilty of what Zimmerman accused him of.
This is why our self defense laws are so messed up, they give the victims no rights what so ever. Zimmerman took every single one of Martin's rights away in an instant, yet for some sick and twisted reason people try to argue that Zimmerman's right to kill outweighs every last one of Martin's rights.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty and Zimmerman sure as hell never proved Martin guilty. No one appointed Zimmerman as judge, jury, and executioner and this idea he should be able to play this role and not have any accountability for his judgment makes me sick. If you take a person's life the burden should be on you to prove the person whose life you took guilty, a system that forces us to prove the victim innocent is unjust and anyone who defends such a system is a sick and twisted person and unfortunately far too many gun nuts fit that description.
spin
(17,493 posts)First you will note that I am not a Zimmerman supporter. Quite the opposite.
Zimmerman Trial Update: George Zimmerman Not Guilty Says Expert
***snip***
As far as Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, Dershowitz declared on Steve Malzberg’s Newsmax TV show that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as a matter of law: “I would say there’s reasonable doubt. I would say nobody knows who started the initial fight. Remember, it’s monumentally irrelevant who’s morally guilty here, whether or not Zimmerman was a racist and racially profiled, and shouldn’t have been doing it, and didn’t listen to police — that’s all irrelevant under Florida law.”
Continued Dershowitz: “The case begins when the first blow is struck essentially And we don’t know who struck the first blow. We don’t know if Trayvon Martin came out from behind of a dark area and jumped him and got him down. And as long as we don’t know that, [and] we don’t know whose voice it was who was yelling, ‘Help me! Help me!’ That’s reasonable doubt …”
***snip***
Dershowitz added that he is no member of the George Zimmerman fan club even after the jury renders its verdict: “I might not want to be friendly with George Zimmerman at the end of the case … I certainly would not declare him innocent. There’s a big difference between declaring him innocent and declaring him not guilty.”
Not proven would be a more accurate way to describe the potential outcome of a case of this kind. The not-proven terminology (which is more descriptive of many trial outcomes) is used by Scottish courts, he explained, to draw a more precise distinction with not guilty or an innocent finding.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/841218/zimmerman-trial-update-george-zimmerman-not-guilty-says-expert/#IHeJKcuHVWfdg2oc.99
Zimmerman verdict no surprise to many lawyers
***snip***
Randy Reep, a criminal defense lawyer in Florida, said the case put the criminal justice system in the spotlight, "blemishes, warts and all." Unlike Jealous and Ciccariello-Maher, Reep said he thinks the system worked.
"In watching the case, it is clear to me the jury got it right," Reep said. "The prosecution team did the very best with what they had, they just did not have the facts on their side. At least enough facts."
***snip***
Kimberly Priest Johnson, a defense attorney in Dallas, said the state's charges outweighed the evidence in this case, "and the jury confirmed that."
She noted that no legal decision can end the tragedy of a young man's death. "The case does prove, however, that our jury system works, and the rule of law prevails over public opinion," Priest Johnson said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-lawyers-verdict/2516065/
NEWS ANALYSIS
In Zimmerman Case, Self-Defense Was Hard to Topple
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
Published: July 14, 2013
SANFORD, Fla. — From the moment George Zimmerman held up his arms and told the police that he had shot Trayvon Martin, one fact was undisputed: an unarmed black teenager lay dead.
***snip***
From the start, prosecutors faced a difficult case — weak on evidence and long on outrage. Mr. Zimmerman had the power of self-defense laws on his side, and was helped by a spotty police investigation and prosecutorial missteps. The initial investigation foundered when the local prosecutor balked at bringing charges, convinced that overcoming the self-defense claims would prove impossible.
But six weeks after the killing, his replacement, Angela B. Corey, from the Jacksonville area, charged Mr. Zimmerman with second-degree murder, a tall order.
At the trial, the fight between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman that preceded the shooting produced a muddle of testimony — and grist for reasonable doubt. It remained unclear who had thrown the first punch and at what point Mr. Zimmerman drew his gun. There were no witnesses to the shooting and no definitive determination of which man could be heard yelling for help in the background of a 911 call....emphasis added
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/in-zimmerman-case-self-defense-was-hard-to-topple.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Embarrassment Of The George Zimmerman Verdict
The result of a verdict today in a criminal trial is that everyone with a twitter or Facebook account gets to let the world know how ignorant they are of the criminal justice system. I know, First Amendment. But your ignorance shows again when you mention that. The First Amendment protects you from the government, it doesn't protect you on twitter or Facebook from people calling you out for your ignorance.
***snip***
As for the case, I think it's terrible that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. That's a tragedy. I don't think he had to shoot him, and had one or two things been different (he didn't get out of his car, didn't have a gun, on and on), we wouldn't be here. I keep hearing Trayvon Martin would have killed George Zimmerman, I don't think so, but I wasn't there.
You weren't there either. You don't know what happened, exactly. As much as you want to believe you were there and know what happened, exactly, you weren't, and you don't.
Not knowing exactly what happened requires a not guilty verdict, no matter how angry or outraged you are. The jury didn't free Zimmerman because they thought he was a good guy or because they weren't sad that a young boy was killed (jurors were rumored to be crying during the state's rebuttal), they found him not guilty because the facts and the law required them to do so. ...emphasis added
http://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-embarrassment-of-george-zimmerman.html
I have no problem with the fact that you feel Zimmerman should have been found guilty. I also do.
I definitely wanted to see Zimmerman have his day in court. That happened. Many, but obviously not all, legal experts agree with me that the prosecution failed to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our system of justice definitely has its flaws. Sometimes a guilty person escapes justice. This may be such a case.
Our basic argument appears to me to be largely based on if Blackstone's formulation which was largely the basis for our criminal law is valid or not.
Blackstone's formulation
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
Perhaps you will realize that I am not defending Zimmerman's actions but am instead defending the principles our criminal law is founded upon.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)"Legal experts" don't decide what is just and what is unjust. The idea that a person should be able to shoot and kill another person without any burden to prove the guilt of the person whose life they took is unjust.
The current self defense laws give absolutely no consideration for the rights of the person who was shot. The victim deserves a fair trial as well, a system in which the burden is on us to prove the victim innocent is sickening.
Taking a person's life is a very serious thing, and the sick fuck NRA sponsored politicians who wrote our laws treat the victims lives like they don't matter one bit. The laws allow a killer to take a life without even having to prove that taking the life was necessary. I'm sorry but if you kill a person, you sure as hell better be able to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that such a killing was necessary.
Innocent until proven guilty should apply to the victim as well, and the fact that it doesn't shows why our self defense laws need to be rewritten to put a greater burden on the shooter to prove that the person they killed truly was guilty.
Fuck any of the "legal experts" who try and justify these killings.
spin
(17,493 posts)That's fine.
Do you support a system when a person is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent?
I don't. I would hate to have to face a trial where it was up to me and my attorneys to convince a jury that I was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases the authorities already have the advantage. A juror often assumes the defendant must have done something wrong or he would not have been charged.
Recently a number of people who stood trial and ended up in prison have been freed because DNA evidence or new evidence showed that they did not commit the crime.Louisiana's longest-serving death row prisoner walks free after 30 years
By Dana Ford, CNN
updated 9:23 AM EDT, Wed March 12, 2014
***snip***
Ford, Louisiana's longest-serving death row prisoner, walked free Tuesday after spending nearly 30 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit.
***snip***
New information corroborated what Ford had said all along: that he was not present at nor involved in the November 5, 1983, slaying of Isadore Rozeman, the project said.
"We are very pleased to see Glenn Ford finally exonerated, and we are particularly grateful that the prosecution and the court moved ahead so decisively to set Mr. Ford free," said Gary Clements and Aaron Novod, Ford's attorneys.
They have argued his trial was compromised by the unconstitutional suppression of evidence and by inexperienced counsel.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/us/louisiana-glenn-ford-freed/
Innocent man: How inmate Michael Morton lost 25 years of his life
By Josh Levs, CNN
updated 2:53 PM EST, Wed December 4, 2013
***snip***
Christine, his wife, was attacked and killed at their home in Williamson County, Texas, just outside Austin. Michael Morton was at work at the time. Still, authorities suspected him.
"Innocent people think that if you just tell the truth then you've got nothing to fear from the police," Morton says now. "If you just stick to it that the system will work, it'll all come to light, everything will be fine."
Instead, Morton was charged, ripped away from his boy, and put on trial. The prosecutor, speaking to the jury in emotional terms with tears streaming down his face, laid out a graphic, depraved sexual scenario, accusing Morton of bludgeoning his wife for refusing to have sex on his birthday.
"There was no scientific evidence, there was no eyewitness, there was no murder weapon, there was no believable motive," Morton says. "... I didn't see how any rational, thinking person would say that's enough for a guilty verdict."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/index.html
After decades in prison over murders, DNA evidence frees 2 New York men
By Ben Brumfield, CNN
updated 12:29 PM EST, Sun February 9, 2014
Two men behind bars for more than half their lives over a triple murder walked free this week after DNA evidence tore holes in their convictions.
***snip***
After reviewing DNA evidence, District Attorney Kenneth P. Thompson said the previous convictions for the 1992 murders in Brooklyn would most likely not stand up in court again and agreed the two men should be freed.
"Anybody looking at this evidence with an open mind would see that there is no chance in the world that Tony murdered his mother and these two little girls," his lawyer Zachary Margulis-Ohuma said.
And that goes beyond the DNA evidence alone. Margulis-Ohuma was convinced Yarbough was innocent years before.
At least one false confession detectives coerced out of a scared teenage boy over 20 years ago led to the convictions
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/08/justice/new-york-convicted-men-released/
Nor do I believe in trial by the press as that leads to a lynch mob mentality.
As I have stated, I believe that our criminal justice system has its problems but far more innocent people would end up in prison if we did away with the presumption of innocence.
It is, however, an interesting debate.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I never said anything about scrapping our legal system, rewriting self defense laws is not the same as scrapping the legal system.
Nor did I suggest the accused should be treated as guilty until proven innocent.
What I do believe is that murder should be a crime and the state should have the burden to prove a person killed another, because Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin there is no DNA evidence that would exonerate him.
There are situations in which crimes can be justified, but in these situations the killer should have the burden of proving justification. Killing the person is the crime and that is what the state should have to prove, but there is no reason they should have to take the killer's word that he was justified in taking the life.
It is called an affirmative defense and it is a legal precedent that goes back years but is being abandoned in order to protect gunners who kill. The burden on the state is to prove the killer is responsible for the death, if the killer wants to claim the killing was justified the burden should be on him to justify it.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.
Roman law
The sixth century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat[1]—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies".[2] It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul. When this rule is applied to criminal process (whether or not that was done in Roman law itself), it places the burden of proof upon the accuser, which has the corollary that the accused is presumed to be innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
Innocent Until Proven Guilty:
The Origins of a Legal Maxim
Kenneth Pennington
***snip***
We can know exactly when the maxim formally entered American law: through a Supreme Court decision of 1894, Coffin vs. U.S. A lower court had refused to instruct the jury that "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty". The appeal to the Supreme Court was based in part on the lower court's refusal.
Although the lower court rejected the maxim, the judge did instruct the jury that "Before you can find any one of the defendants guilty you must be satisfied of his guilt as charged in some of the counts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt." The lower court then instructed the jury at great length on the doctrine of reasonable doubt and its relationship to evidence. The Supreme Court saw its task as determining whether the lower court had violated the defendants' rights by not instructing the jury on presumption of innocence and whether reasonable doubt was essentially the same as presumption of innocence.
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm
What does the presumption of innocence mean?
The presumption of innocence is an important part of our criminal law system. Basically it means that if you are accused of a crime, you don’t have to prove you are innocent. Instead, it is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. In other words, unless the prosecutor can prove you committed the crime, you are entitled to be acquitted or found “not guilty”. Not only does the prosecutor have to prove you are guilty, they have to prove you are guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”.
These are deliberate feature of our system designed to protect the rights of individuals when the state accuses them of a crime. The rationale is that it is better that the guilty go free than that the innocent be convicted. This has always been what set out system apart from totalitarian regimes or earlier systems like trial by ordeal – where witches were thrown in the river and if they drowned they were innocent.
But our system is not without controversy. Many victims of crime see the system as being stacked in favour of the accused person, rather than protecting their rights. And despite all of the protection in the system there are still miscarriages of justice where innocent people are convicted.
No system of criminal justice is perfect, the best that they can do is try and strike the right balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. The presumption of innocence is one of they ways our system tries to strike this balance....emphasis added
http://affordingjustice.com.au/what-does-the-presumption-of-innocence-mean/
The state has far more resources than the average individual. Doing away with the presumption of innocence would lead to many cases where a prosecutor would charge a person with the commission of a crime although there was little evidence. The jury would be instructed that the burden of proof would be on the defendant. He and his attorneys would have to investigate the crime and subpoena expert witnesses to testify that he could not have done the crime. The cost of such a defense would be enormous and mot likely would fail. Ten innocent people might be convicted for every Zimmerman. I would hate to be a member of a minority community under such a system.
Also if for some reason the state disliked you, the state could simply charge you with a crime and at the minimum break you financially. (Of course I suspect that often happens even today.)
What you are suggesting is that any killing involving self defense have far different standards applied than any other murder case. That would indeed fit the agenda of the gun control movement and I am somewhat surprised that I haven't heard this idea mentioned more often. Perhaps it will catch on.
Currently the standard for self defense involves the reasonable man doctrine.
Judicious Use Of Deadly Force
***snip***
Ayoob teaches a formula for determining the circumstances under which we would be justified in employing deadly force. The formula is both simple and yet complex. Deadly force is justified when you are confronted with “an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm” to either yourself or other innocents, whose innocence and situation you are totally certain about. You can’t intervene with deadly force in a situation you come upon without knowing what’s really happening. Don’t make assumptions based on what seems to be happening. The danger must be clear and present, immediate and unavoidable. This formula is based on English Common Law and Dutch/Roman Law, and it applies in all fifty states. It is determined by three criteria which can be remembered by the acronym A.O.J. Think “Administration Of Justice”. The situation must meet all three criteria.
A = Ability. The person deemed to be a threat must possess the ability or power to kill or maim.
O = Opportunity. The person deemed to be a threat must be capable of immediately employing his power to kill or maim.
J = Jeopardy. This means that the person deemed to be a threat must be acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude beyond doubt that his intent is to kill or cripple.
All of the above are judged by the doctrine of the “reasonable man”. That is, what would a reasonable and prudent person have done in that situation knowing what the defendant knew at the time? After the fact information is inadmissible into the equation. Your defense of self-defense is affirmative if you knew all of the above at the time you employed deadly force....emphasis added
http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/free-resources/judicious-use-deadly-force/
Under the current system it is not all that easy to simply claim self defense.
The Reasonable Man Doctrine
By Marty Hayes JD on March 23, 2010
***snip***
In a self-defense trial, the jury will be tasked with the chore of deciding if the amount of force used was reasonable. In order to have a chance of success, you will need to take them on a slow trip down the road to what it means to be a responsible armed citizen, and why, given your background, experience and training, the choices you made when you were forced to use deadly force in self-defense were reasonable.
But before you get a chance to utter a word in court in your defense (other than the words “Not guilty, your honor” that you said at the preliminary hearing), the prosecution will have had their way with the witnesses they decided to call, the police officers whom they play golf with on Saturday afternoons, and all under the watchful eye of the judge, whom they financially supported in the last election.
So, when it becomes your turn to show your side of the case, you had better have it planned out well in advance and in as much detail as time and money will allow. First, your attorney will have cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, and perhaps gotten some of the prosecution’s evidence disallowed through legal objections. That helps, but blowing a hole in the prosecution’s case isn’t likely going to be enough, because you probably have already met the elements of the crime you are being charged with. You did purposely shoot the other guy, right? If so, then that one simple fact likely proves you guilty, absent the circumstances of self-defense. It is those circumstances that a reasonable person (a juror) must know, feel and fully understand in order to vote for your acquittal.
***snip***
Each self-defense case is unique, but they all have one common theme: to show to the jury that your action, i.e., the horrible act of shooting and killing or shooting and maiming another, was actually justified because it was the reasonable thing to do. And most importantly, to show that they (the jury) would have done the same thing if they had been in your shoes. Keep that foremost in your mind when deciding if you need to pull the trigger in self-defense.
http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/the-reasonable-man-doctrine/
I see no reason to chip away at the presumption of innocence that has existed in our legal system for many ,many years merely to target those who legally carry concealed and insist that the defense for killing in self defense be held to a far higher standard than any other violent crime.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)There should be a presumption of innocence when it comes to proving whether or not a person killed another person, but the state did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. Self defense is an affirmative defense however and the burden of proof is generally supposed to be on the defendent to provide justification when using an affirmative defense.
A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.[4]
snip
In an affirmative defense the burden of proof is generally on the defendant to prove his allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses (claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)), for which the defense has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
That is the legal standard we have used in the past and that is the legal standard which we should be using now, but is not being used in these recent Stand Your Ground cases. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendent killed a person, but if the defendent claims the killing was justified the burden of proof needs to be on the defendent to justify it.
spin
(17,493 posts)which you often mention in your posts. Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O’Mara, approached the case as simple self defense.
In a July 16, 2013 speech in the wake of the jury verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of charges stemming from the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized stand-your-ground laws, saying they "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."[58] The relevance of the stand-your-ground provision of the self-defense law to the Zimmerman case has been questioned, however, because Zimmerman claimed he was restrained at the time of the shooting and had no option to retreat.[59] Although Zimmerman's defense team did not use the "stand your ground" defense during their trial and instead opted to use "self-defense" as their official defense,[60] Circuit Judge Debra Nelson's instructions to the jury included the statement that he had no duty to retreat as per Florida's stand-your-ground law.[61]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
The only time the stand your ground law came into the Zimmerman trial was in the jury instructions delivered by the judge. That's currently a Florida requirement.
Analyzing jurors' verdict in loud music trial isn't easy
Associated Press
Monday, February 17, 2014 10:29am
***snip***
In both the Dunn and Zimmerman trials, lawyers decided not to pursue a pretrial immunity hearing allowed by Florida's stand-your-ground law. But in each case, jurors were told by the judges that they should acquit if they found the defendant had no duty to retreat and had the right to "stand his ground."
That phrase is part of standard instructions given jurors when they weigh a case involving a claim of self-defense.
But the state's stand your ground law was technically not part of either trial.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/analyzing-jurors-verdict-in-loud-music-trial-isnt-easy/2165929
Interestingly Mark O'Mara wishes to change the requirement for jury instructions in such cases.
George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Wants To Reform Florida Stand Your Ground Law
BY NICOLE FLATOW ON MARCH 3, 2014 AT 11:31 AM
***snip***
Mark O’Mara said he plans to propose a rule limiting when juries would be instructed on the notorious self-defense law, which allows deadly force with no duty to retreat. The law first came up in the killing of Trayvon Martin when police cited the law as a reason for not initially charging Zimmerman. After national outcry, Zimmerman was charged 44 days later, and Zimmerman’s lawyer later opted not to specifically raise the Stand Your Ground defense at trial.
But the law was included in the instructions given to the Zimmerman jury. And the comments of several jurors after their deliberations suggest the law was central to their decision to acquit Zimmerman. O’Mara seemed to agree that the law could have affected the outcome in comments to Reuters last week, and said it confused the jury.
While O’Mara didn’t cite the Stand Your Ground law during trial, he nonetheless blamed Martin for Zimmerman’s shooting, saying during closing arguments that the unarmed teen “did, in fact, cause his own death.”
O’Mara said he doesn’t like the implication that the Stand Your Ground law played a role in the acquittal, and argues Zimmerman didn’t need it to make his self-defense case. The Stand Your Ground provision is now part of standard jury instruction language on the “justifiable use of force” and included whenever a case involves self-defense claims, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/03/3345661/george-zimmermans-lawyer-reform-florida-stand-ground-law/
(In passing the title of the article above is somewhat misleading. O'Mara is not suggesting changing the SYG law but merely changing jury instructions.)
I personally favor rewriting the SYG law in Florida to help eliminate the miscarriages of justice that have occurred in Florida due to ambiguities in the wording. Unfortunately this is unlikely. It's far more likely that the law will be expanded to allow brandishing and weapon and even warning shots. I see no real problem with showing that you are armed if attacked as often the attacker will flee. Warning shots are in my opinion foolish and can endanger others.
One thing I find confusing in our discussion is that you feel we should go back to using affirmative defense as was used in the past.
Self defense often is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman used an affirmative defense.
Why Did the Jury Acquit George Zimmerman of Killing Trayvon Martin? #Zimmermantrial
Posted on July 16, 2013
***snip***
Not guilty isn’t the same thing as innocent. We shouldn’t put too much faith in this jury verdict. This case is different from a lot of cases in that Zimmerman relied on an affirmative defense. That means the burden was actually on the Defense to prove to the jury that he was justified. There was no doubt as to the ID of the shooter, and Zimmerman never denied doing it. He always maintained that he did it in self-defense. The evidence corroborated Zimmerman’s version of the events. The evidence at trial convinced a jury that he was justified. ...emphasis added
http://crimcourts.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/why-did-the-jury-acquit-george-zimmerman-of-killing-trayvon-martin-zimmermantrial/
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)He has the presumption of innocence. The state must prove its case.
I do believe that when a killing is in self defense the accused does need to give a plausible explanation as to why he did the killing. But once the defendant gives a plausible explanation, the state does need to prove its case. The state didn't do that in the Zimmerman case. The evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's claims, and base on the evidence, there was a reasonable possibility that Zimmerman was correct.
Even though it's possible that GZ is totally guilty, the jury couldn't find him guilty. The evidence just wasn't there. That's why the prosecution conducted such a weak case. It wasn't their fault.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)A judge and jury need to prove the person they sentence to death guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no moral justification for saying a gunner should not have to meet the same burden.
There was not a weak case against Zimmerman, he admitted to killing Martin, there was no reasonable doubt. He killed Trayvon and that is an undisputed fact. The only people who say he should not be found guilty are the ones who say his murder may have been justified, and anyone who thinks this murder is justified is a sick and twisted murder supporter who is probably racist as hell. Every last person who defends this shit disgusts me.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)but not everybody has. It's a good thing you were not on that jury. You've skipped the evidence and you have gone straight to the name calling. We have enough people already in our prisons and we don't need juries convicting their fellow citizens based on faith.
When someone's head is being pounded into the cement there is no time for a trial. All evidence indicates that GZ was being assaulted when he shot TM.
Whether TM or GZ started the actual confrontation is open to debate. But absent any supernatural psychic abilities, it's impossible for us to know. The jury lacked these psychic abilities so they had to find him not guilty. The only physical evidence was that GZ was assaulted and the best eye witness saw TM assaulting GZ.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You are trying to justify murder, that is the bottom line. You can protest what I am saying all you want but I mean every word of it. You are no better than the people who defended the lynching of black people in the south back when that was legal, and yes there really was a time in which that was legal just like stand your ground is legal today.
Trying to justify murder of an unarmed black kid by a guy who admited to following that kid just minutes prior to the murder is sickening. You can alert on my post and complain all you want, but I really do view people who try and defend this murder the same way I view KKK members so go put on your hood before you respond back.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)but it wasn't the crime of the century or even criminal.
After TM left the road and walked on the sidewalk between the buildings TM had plenty of time to get to the house where he was staying before the confrontation (about four minutes). Unless TM hid near the truck and GZ found him at his hiding place, it would have had to have been TM that confronted GZ. The confrontation wasn't far from the truck. If TM assaulted GZ then TM was guilty of a crime.
It's not necessary for you to call me a racist for lacking your psychic abilities. I've called people racist for disagreeing with my anti-war views so I'll avoid any alerts.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You may want to believe there is a justification for following and then killing an unarmed kid, but there is not. I have heard all the same justifications you are using now from murder supporters on many occassions, but all decent people can see why your justifications are so sickening. There is literally no group I despise more than Zimmerman apologists, they really are the modern day KKK as far as I am concerned.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)you're skipping the evidence and going straight to the name calling. At least when I called someone a racist I had great evidence to back up my position.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I have plenty of evidence that it is not justifiable to follow and kill an unarmed teenager and there is indisputable evidence that Zimmerman did this. You are trying to convince me that this murder was justified, but it was not. I heard Zimmerman's bullshit story a million times, but even if his story were true I would not support him killing an unarmed kid. He followed the kid, he killed him. People who try to justify it sicken me.
