Trayvon Martin Killing Lead Prosecutor Says George Zimmerman Could Walk

[shadowrider]

The nationwide clamor for an arrest notwithstanding, the lead prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case tells ABC News that convicting his killer, the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, could prove difficult.

"The stand-your-ground law is one portion of justifiable use of deadly force," veteran State Attorney Angela Corey said. "And what that means is that the state must go forward and be able to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt… So it makes the case in general more difficult than a normal criminal case."

Zimmerman shot Martin dead the night of Feb. 26, after following him for several minutes. Zimmerman told police Martin looked suspicious because he was wearing a hoodie, and when he confronted him the two fought -- ultimately resulting in a single bullet in Martin's chest.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=16000239&sid=81&p=2

[shadowrider]

1. I've said all along the prosecutor needs to be very, very, very careful

about what charges (if any) are filed.

[eShirl]

2. I thought EVERY case had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

"... the state must go forward and be able to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt… So it makes the case in general more difficult than a normal criminal case."

[pipoman]

4. I thought the same thing, and you're right,

the threshold always has been beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. I'm not sure what this quote means, or what she is trying to say..

[COLGATE4]

15. There's a huge technical difference here

because of Florida's SYG law. Traditionally, the plea of self-defense means that the person admits having done the act but pleads justification, i.e. "I did it to save my life". That is what's called an affirmative defense in the law and it means that the person claiming it must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, with Florida's SYG, it's up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. Kind of hard when there are no witnesses besides Zimmerman.

[Callisto32]

30. Not exactly accurate.

SOMETIMES it is up the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

Florida Statute § 776.013:
(2)?The presumption (the presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(c) ?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity.....

But one of many exceptions, a very large one.

[COLGATE4]

51. Doesn't change the question

nor the answer.

[Kennah]

68. Not really, they just need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was the aggressor

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

It is not really in doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin. If they can prove he was the aggressor, then the claim of self defense fades away.

I am still wondering why this beyond a reasonable doubt is different from other beyond a reasonable doubt.

[COLGATE4]

76. It's not. But you're not appreciating just how high a

standard 'beyond reasonable doubt' is to meet, particularly when the only witness is the shooter.

[Kennah]

87. I do concede ...

... that without video or a series of witnesses who saw aggression or pursuit, then this is a circumstantial evidence case.

However, when one thinks circumstantial evidence, think Scott Peterson.

[COLGATE4]

88. Different case, different facts. And in Scott

Peterson's case there was a great deal of circumstantial evidence which, although many people do not understand it to be so, is in fact evidence which is every bit as valid as other types of evidence.

[Callisto32]

24. ABC should be ashamed.

This is why you take a bench trial.

Because you have seen how stupid the average person is about burdens of proof, and what they mean.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Yeah but what would the lead prosecutor know about how SYG applies to this case?

1. This is not a 2nd Amendment issue.
2. These laws are stupid and ill-considered and predictably lead to exactly what happened to Trayvon Martin.
3. Responsible gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment absolutists have an obligation to speak up and speak out against these laws and the conflation being made on the right between 2nd Amendment rights and SYG vigilante justice laws.

[shadowrider]

5. The "Lead Prosecutor" I assume went to law school

and is looking at this from a LEGAL perspective and not on an emotional level.

I trust her legal judgment over mine, and yours.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Sarcasm apparently not your strong point.

We have been told repeatedly here and in GD and LBN that this law did not apply to the Martin killing. The lead prosecutor says it does, I'm just helping out some of you here with your next excuse for why SYG does not apply.

More to the point the supposedly liberal Democratic gun enthusiasts here really do have an obligation to distance themselves from SYG.

[Callisto32]

26. SYG does NOT protect those engaged in unlawful activity.

If the story as we now have it is mostly true, it looks like there are strong arguments to be made that Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity, thereby negating any protection he may have under Florida Statute § 776.013 et seq.

Whether or not the law applies is an argument for the lawyers to make at trial, and each lawyer will say it "applies" or "does not apply" based on whether each would be helpful/harmful to the case. What the lawyers say does/does not apply right now is nothing more than a statement of their positions, which will be repeated in opening statements. At this point, nothing the lawyers are saying has much authority on its own, and that will remain so until after the proceedings.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. According to the lead prosecutor it applies to this case.

[AH1Apache]

38. That's a damn shame

because if Zimmerman had followed the dispatchers instructions and stayed in his car, we wouldn't be having this conversation and the young man would still be alive.

[eqfan592]

64. The dispatcher had no legal authority to give those instructions.

Unless the law is completely different in Florida on this issue. I agree, it is a shame that Zimmerman hadn't followed those instructions nonetheless, because then none of this would have happened.

[eqfan592]

65. Actually, you've been told repeatedly that the law wouldn't not apply to the killing...

...based on the evidence being circulated by the MSM, which is pretty much all we have to go on right now. The special prosecutor is almost certain to have evidence to go on beyond this, which means its possible that there is evidence that Zimmerman was actually acting in self defense.

Everything else you said is insulting garbage that demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills on your part, and thus will not be responded do beyond this.

[safeinOhio]

35. Then you'll go with this Columbia law professor view on SYG laws.

video is 1/3 down in article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0322/Will-Trayvon-Martin-case-spur-rethinking-of-Stand-Your-Ground-laws-video

So, no argument with a professor emeritus?

[pipoman]

10. The SYG laws are in place for a very good reason..

Traditionally if someone is shot or otherwise killed the person who is still alive is charged and the jury decides, whether it was a defensive killing or a criminal killing. Or at very least a grand jury decides if charges apply. If a person is charged with a serious crime the cost of a defense will be tens of thousands, their job, their standing in the community, and a couple years of their life, not to mention unbelievable stress and likely depression.

There have been many, many people who were going about their lives peacefully, suddenly attacked by someone trying to take something from them, or simply attacked because they looked like an easy target, defended themselves justifiably, and end up in personal and financial ruin or even in jail because of a over zealous prosecutor or police, or because of the wording of the criminal statute. These laws are in place to keep this from happening.

A person who is attacked doesn't have an hour to think through their response, they have to respond instantly. Why should a group of people, or an individual for that matter, be able to second, third, and forth guess someone who had to respond in a split second? If this law is repealed, how do you protect people who were obviously defending themselves from an attack?

edit..Understand, I am not claiming this one case to be defensive, or justified, I am commenting on the overall reason for the law without regard to this instance.

[COLGATE4]

16. If you decide to take someone's life

you had damned well better be prepared to justify it. That's been our law for a couple of hundred years and it's worked remarkably well. SYG was a solution in search of a problem, much like Voter ID is in search of real 'voter fraud'.

[pipoman]

19. I don't believe that a person

who defended themself from an unprovoked attack should loose 2 or 3 years of their life, their life savings, their home, their kid's college fund, their job, and their standing in the community because of another persons desire to victimize them.

[COLGATE4]

47. That's a false argument. You can't start with the

premise that the legal system we've had in place for over 200 years typically punishes a person who acts in legitimate self defense. There are cases, sure. But they are a miniscule percentage of the overall cases.

[gejohnston]

52. what happened to

it is better to let five guilty walk than one innocent go to prison?

[COLGATE4]

56. Doesn't affect what I'm saying at all, except

to reinforce my belief that being tried under the standard law of self defense doesn't put the person in such jeopardy as some would have you believe. Precisely so that more guilty people walk free than innocent people are put in jail. A person should have nothing to fear from the law the way it was before Florida SYG.

[gejohnston]

58. you have more faith in the system

than I do. I think the burden of proof should always be on the state or plaintiff without exception.
If you are going to have a DTR outside the home law, civil immunity if crime victim proves their case is a must. If not civil immunity, it should be loser pay.
Plus, the attacker's family will have to meet a higher burden of proof than the typical civil trial.
Plus, the attacker's (the dead guy) criminal record and any history of violence should be admissible.
Plus, if the plaintiff uses allegations without proof (Like the Bernhard Goetz case. Ron Kuby and the media falsely accused Goetz of racism when the criminal trial clearly showed that he was defending himself) the defendant should be able to counter sue.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Remember Bernard Goetz.

That was legitimate self-defense. Cabey, years later, admitted in an interview that they were attempting to rob Goetz. Goetz had to go through a trial, was found not-guilty (except of the charge of carrying an illegal gun), and was later sued in civil court. By that time he was completely broke and didn't bother to defend.

[COLGATE4]

75. You can always point to an aberration where the local

populace decided to practice jury nullification, like the case with Goetz. But remind me again - how long ago was Goetz?

[pipoman]

72. Yeah, because we haven't changed any other laws in that 200 years, huh?

The prevalence of civil suits has increased dramatically since the beginning. The SYG laws had more to do with limiting civil liability and reigning in prosecutors who have no common sense or a burr under their saddle than anything else. So now you are interested in percentages, but wish to change legislation on SYG based on this one anecdote?

[COLGATE4]

74. SYG was a solution to a problem that really

didn't exist. It sounded good to the politicians, and was cheap brownie points with the NRA one-issue voter and the generally fearful. And you don't understand how law evolves in this country. Generally the law is constantly evolving through case law - the Common Law principle. That's how the law of self defense (among almost all the others) evolved. Here, however the law didn't evolve - it was just abruptly changed by the Fla Legislature. The fact that they changed it doesn't mean the decision was correct or even wise. And now we get to live with the unintended consequences.

[X_Digger]

32. Who says anyone "decided to take someone's life"?!?

That'd be murder.

[Cirque du So-What]

41. Zimmerman had a gun

therefore he's the 'deciderer.' As we're reminded in this forum ad nauseam, guns don't kill people, yunno; it's the person with a finger on the trigger.

[X_Digger]

42. I was asking about intent..

If you decide to kill someone, that is murder, by definition.

Shooting someone to stop an attack and they subsequently die? Is homicide, possibly justifiable given the circumstances. If not justifiable, you get into all kinds of different charges, from negligent homicide, to murder 2, etc etc. (Different states have different names for the levels.)

Important difference.

[COLGATE4]

46. No. It's merely homicide. Murder is a legal

subset of different types of homicide. If you decide to kill someone in self defense, you may have 'murdered' the person but the law excuses it.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Exactly. Thanks for writing that.

I tried writing a similar response but gave up.

Stand your ground is still a good law, even with the occasional Zimmerman. People who legitimately kill in self-defense should not be destroyed for doing so.

[safeinOhio]

36. There few if any cases like you mention.

If you want to change a law because of a few incidents then you may also want to look at CCW laws as there are many cases of CCW holders committing felonies.
Damn argument can be used against what believe, so be careful using that line of argument.

Feel free to produce as many cases as you wish to justify SYG laws because of the claims you made.

"There have been many, many people who were going about their lives peacefully, suddenly attacked by someone trying to take something from them, or simply attacked because they looked like an easy target, defended themselves justifiably, and end up in personal and financial ruin or even in jail because of a over zealous prosecutor or police, or because of the wording of the criminal statute. These laws are in place to keep this from happening."

For each one you can cite, I'll site a bunch of CCWers acting illegally. Most of the cases where a person was convicted for failure to retreat were not attacked by some stranger trying to rob them. They are about arguments between neighbors or people in a relationship or some kid trespassing.

[pipoman]

69. Really? Many?

Seems even the Brady's had a hard time finding any. Remember their 2 year study finding, what was it, 10 cases or something? Then on closer inspection there were suicides, people never charged, and people not convicted on their list leaving like, wasn't it 1 case in 2 years? Let's see the stats. They aren't there, statistically CCW is very safe. We should never legislate based on anecdote, statistics..numbers should be how we legislate, if we are going to legislate based on anecdote we would have no freedom at all...virtually evey freedom results in something bad for a statistically small amount of people...always have..

Again, fire away with the abundance of stats pointing to a need to repeal SYG and CCW laws, I'll look and consider..

[bowens43]

6. of course he could walk

the gun lobby and their supporters have done everything they can to ensure that murdering innocent people is both easy and consequence free.

Make no mistake, this child died because guns and ammunition are so readily available. This jackass who murdered this child should not have been able to have a gun. Period. No one outside of law enforcement has a legitimate reason to own a hand gun.

They should be banned completely and absolutely.

[pipoman]

20. Enough with the "child",

it does nothing but add intellectual dishonesty to this incident. Seventeen year olds are not children, and are in fact among the age demographic most likely to commit violent crime. Not saying this is the case in this incident, but referring to this young man as a child is just not accurate.

* Six percent of those convicted of violent felonies
were under age 18, and 25% were under age 21. Ten
percent of murderers were under 18, and 30% were
under 21.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

A "child" is generally defined as pre-pubescent.

[safeinOhio]

37. Same article says

"* Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest
record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a
felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of
those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest
record."

So, should the press call Zimmerman a person with a couple of arrest for violence every time he is mentioned? He is the one with a record of a couple of arrest.

[pipoman]

70. And this has what exactly to do with anything I wrote?

Does this somehow, in twisted world, prove that 17 tear old people are, in fact, children? Are you sure you are responding to the right post?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Any other civil rights you want to see strictly controlled and only in the hands of the Government?

[CAPHAVOC]

29. If so

You should work for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Then the government could confiscate all firearms from civilians. The 1st Amendment could also be repealed and people could be jailed for hate speech. And even the 5th Amendment. That way the guilty could never be found innocent. A trifecta.

[rl6214]

43. And another authoritarian has spoken

This "child" was 6'3". This "child" was 17, not 6. Even though he was followed, this "child" decided to attack the person following him when he turned his back on the "child" according to witnesses.

In order for this to be "murder" this act would have to be premeditated and need to have a motive, not be a reaction to having ones head slammed into the pavement.

"No one outside of law enforcement has a legitimate reason to own a hand gun. They should be banned completely and absolutely."

Another authoritarian gun ban, anti-gun zealot has spoken.

[shadowrider]

44. Amazing, isn't it?

[still_one]

8. Maybe they need a new lead prosecutor. Who was stalking who? /nt

[rl6214]

45. Following is not stalking

He (zimmerman) should have left it alone and not followed Martin but it was not stalking.

[still_one]

60. To me there is a very thin line between the two /nt

[rl6214]

83. In any case of stalking I have ever heard of, the stalker has actually known the stalkee

In this case zimmerman did not know Martin.

[RDANGELO]

9. I think what could happen here

is that ,because of the stand your ground law, there is no conviction, but he could be sued in civil court, since his actions lead to Martin's death.

[Cirque du So-What]

11. I am not a lawyer

but from what I've seen bandied about concerning Florida law, there can be no civil suit unless the defendant has been convicted of the crime associated with it. But that's just hearsay AFAIC.

[pipoman]

12. Most of the SYG laws include language

protecting someone who uses it from civil liability of the family of the dead person. The intent is that if SYG is used, the person was innocent, attacked, and defended themselves, and shouldn't be subjected to a frivolous civil suit which could financially ruin that person just in the cost of defense.

[safeinOhio]

39. If a reasonable person can shoot some one

then 6 reasonable people in a jury should decide that. If some one kills your kid, would your right to take him to court because the killer calls it a "frivolous civil suit" be tossed out?

[pipoman]

71. I completely disagree

A person who obviously was defending themself shouldn't have to mortgage their house, cash in their retirement, and sell their assets to defend themselves in court. A criminal defense will cost tens of thousands of dollars. The family of a person acting unlawfully shouldn't be allowed to further victimize the intended victim of their loved one. You do realize that criminal and civil defense teams are very, very expensive no? Do you like re-victimizing victims for years after their initial victimization?

The truth is, with the case at hand, that SYG has little if anything to do with Zim not being charged with a crime and everything to do with no witnesses. Without SYG, and no witnesses, Zim could still claim what ever he wanted to claim with nearly the same effect.

[zipplewrath]

13. Nope

I mean, never say never, but the SYG law was written to prevent civil suits where a criminal suit can't or doesn't go forward.

[COLGATE4]

17. He can be sued in Civil Court

and they'll win, particularly since he's admitting the shooting. But the question is whether there's a whole lot to collect against.

[Lurks Often]

18. Not unless Zimmerman is charged and found guilty

Under the Florida law, Martin's family can NOT file suit in a civil court against Zimmerman UNLESS he is found guilty in a criminal case.

[X_Digger]

33. Well, they can *file*

But it'll never get past preliminary motions.

[COLGATE4]

53. You're correct. Florida SYG prohibits the kids family

from going after Dirty Harry unless the convict him. Too bad.

[eqfan592]

66. I really do love how you just assume Zimmerman is guilty.

So many in the public have gotten so worked up over this now that they can't even allow for the possibility in their own minds that Zimmerman ISN'T guilty. And now people are using the media to get people even more fired up and enraged, no longer demanding justice but demanding vengeance. I shudder to think what may happen if charges aren't filed or if they are filed but a not guilty verdict is reached.

[COLGATE4]

77. I don't 'assume' Zimmerman is guilty.

But the facts as we know them to date make me believe he is. We are neither of us jury, but we are entitled to our opinion. That's mine.

[COLGATE4]

78. Now, the 'horror' scenario. I 'shudder to think of

what may happen... a not guilty verdict is reached'. Probably about the same that happened with Casey Anthony.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Same with Castle Doctrine

[COLGATE4]

14. Unfortunately I believe she's right on.

And it's a crying shame.

[gejohnston]

31. I don't think so

She is assuming he will get a fair trial. I honestly do not think he will. Partly because the jury pool has been poisoned. Partly because the Casey Anthony trial was not that long ago. It was the perfect example of convicted by media. But in court, the State had no case. The average Floridian did not know that, and the media never corrected itself outside of the one sentence just before the weather. The identities of the jurors released and the jurors started getting death threats.
What does this have to do with Zimmerman?
If I am one the jury, and the State can't prove its case. I'll go one more step and say the media was mostly full of shit. My duty is to acquit. I will also be thinking:
I will be called a racist by both the left and the right.
good chance I will get death threats like the Casey Anthony jury
Being old enough to remember Rodney King, there is a chance my vote could lead to very violent civil disobedience.

My duty to the system, or my duty to protect my self, family, and community?

[COLGATE4]

48. False choice. You don't have to decide between

your duty to the system or the duty to protect self, family and community.

[gejohnston]

50. not in the minds of the jurors

he might walk on appeal, but he is not going to get a fair trial.

[COLGATE4]

57. You haven't got much faith in the idea of

trial by a jury of your peers. I do, having seen how it works for 25+ years now. Sometimes it miscarries, but in a very large percentage of cases, more than most people might believe, juries do in fact do their duty and render a correct verdict.

[gejohnston]

59. I have served on juries

we did our duty. I have faith in my peers most of the time. But then, they were not media circuses with a racial component.

[COLGATE4]

61. They you agree with me that juries generally DO

do their duty. You have just confirmed that almost every citizen called to jury duty does it conscientiously and with the best possible faith. I very much agree with you on that. Don't let one bad example ( ex. O.J. Simpson, although which BTW was a comedy of errors on the part of the Prosecution, not just decided because of race) convince you to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[gejohnston]

62. in the OJ case,

I would have voted the same way. Being a white guy from Hooterville, I saw the reasonable doubt not only because of Marsha Clark, but because IIRC, you had racist cops driving around town with blood vials that should have stayed in SID custody. If I saw that, I'm sure those city folks could see it even more clear.
A better example would be the the cops that were using Rodney King for night stick practice.

[COLGATE4]

79. Again, the point is that we can all dredge up 2 or 3

cases where it seems obvious the jury decided to go with their passion of the moment rather than discharge their duty as charged by law (one poster brought up the Bernard Goetz case, one so old it has a beard now) to 'prove the point'. I don't believe in a criminal justice system as broad as ours that a couple of wrongly decided cases provide sufficient reason to change a law and system which has served us remarkably well over a very long period.

[gejohnston]

84. what difference does age make

those are only the ones that make national attention. To be honest I'm not so sure. I have been here long enough to see faux liberals clutch their pearls and insist on railroading some guy who not only was obviously self defense, he was wounded by the attacker before he shot the bad guy. Just how was the Goetz jury nullification? As I understand the case, he would have been legal under DTR.
In the Casey Anthony trial, I don't think the DA would have one with a lesser charge. The State could not even prove that the kid was murdered.

[COLGATE4]

85. My point is that, in trying to justify the SYG law

you point to a jury nullification case that's (if memory serves) about 55 years old. They just don't happen that frequently. The jury refused to convict Goetz of attempted murder even after he blasted away at a bunch of kids on the subway (dark-skinned kids, if you get my drift) and left one in a wheelchair for life. He was treated as a home town 'hero' in NYC. As to the Casey Anthony case, I was only responding to the cry that, if Zimmerman walks (as I believe he will) Central Florida will go up in flames. If it didn't for Casey Anthony it sure as hell won't for a white dude who blasted an African American kid. And in Casey Anthony's case I firmly believe the State could have gotten a conviction for Negligent Homicide, but they got greedy and tried for the big splash. It didn't work. Casey's lawyer wasn't particularly good, but the Prosecution trying to prove Murder stuck in the jury's craw and they did the right thing.

[gejohnston]

86. it was not jury nullification

you point to a jury nullification case that's (if memory serves) about 55 years old. They just don't happen that frequently. The jury refused to convict Goetz of attempted murder even after he blasted away at a bunch of kids on the subway (dark-skinned kids, if you get my drift) and left one in a wheelchair for life.

Bullshit. It was an attempted robbery. Two of the survivors publicly admitted robbery was their motive. That made the shooting was legal under New York law at the time. By the way, the federal investigation showed that there was no evidence that it was because of fear and not race. With the same amounted evidence, I could say that he was railroaded during the civil trial because of race. I don't have any evidence of that.
In the previous year in NYC, Austin Weeks also shot one of two attackers in a subway. Was he a racist who just wanted to blow a way a white kid? I don't think so. The grand jury did not indict even for the illegal gun. I do know that makes Kuby and Sharpton full of shit.

Casey Anthony's case I firmly believe the State could have gotten a conviction for Negligent Homicide, but they got greedy and tried for the big splash. It didn't work. Casey's lawyer wasn't particularly good, but the Prosecution trying to prove Murder stuck in the jury's craw and they did the right thing.

Casey didn't need a good lawyer. I doubt if the DA could have made negligent homicide charge stick. The State could not prove cause of death, they could not show time of death. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing to convict someone of any kind of homicide, you have to at least show one took place. The DA had nothing. The DA fed the media a bunch of bullshit. The media and Floridians ate it up and went for seconds. He not only was greedy, but stupid as well.
Even if she were convicted, it would have been a mistrial because the DA withheld exculpatory evidence. The only thing the DA could prove was that Casey was the last person who admitted to seeing the kid alive. Race was not an issue.

There was a SYG case last year in Tampa that never made it past the local news. Since it was a stabbing, it was not on Brady's radar. Basically, middle school kid stabbed bully in self defense. SYG was not really an issue, because the killer was surrounded by the bully's buddies. So, he would have walked under duty to retreat. The could not understand how their angel could be murdered. Never mind that:
The bullying has been reported on several occasions, so the parents knew about it and did not teach Jr that bullying is uncivilized.
the bully beat and put the killer in the hospital on an earlier occasion (never did pay the hospital bill when sued)
according to all of the witnesses, bully and his friends were in the process of doing the same
The bullies parents whined about the "injustice" and wanted to sue for wrongful death. The old law would have permitted that. The old law should not have permitted it. Put the burden of proof on the state, and have civil immunity if justifiable is proven in a duty to retreat (outside of the home) law, I might support it.

If the media accounts of Zimmerman are correct or mostly true, he will not walk. He was the aggressor, that made SYG void. On the other hand, if he backed off and Martin counter attacked, then that is another issue. Either way, he is not going to get a fair trial.

[COLGATE4]

89. A colleague of mine told me long ago

to never argue legal issues with a non-lawyer. To quote him, "it's like trying to teach a pig how to sing - it doesn't get you anywhere and all it does is irritate the pig". I am beginning to see his point.

[gejohnston]

90. maybe, but

I researched the facts of the cases. I pointed out the facts, not the law.

[COLGATE4]

49. You can't compare this case to Casey Anthony.

In C.Anthony the Prosecution screwed up big time. It should never have tried Casey "Mom of the Year" for murder. There just wasn't evidence to prove it, and the jury did its job. Had the prosecution not jumped at the case like an excited puppy after a ball (smelling sweet political reward) it could have charged her with a lesser included offense, something like Negligent Homicide and IMO won a conviction. Like it or not, her case was a good example of why the jury system works in our country. 12 members of her peers saw that the State failed to make its case, and seeing as they bet everything on the Big Kahuna and nothing else, she walked.

[gejohnston]

54. I'm comparing media circus, not the facts.

I'm comparing the reactions to juries. It was an example of trial by media. The average Floridian knew is what the DA leaked. The jury correctly said he had no case. The corporate media fanned outrage, caring about ratings and money more than the truth, and the jurors started getting death threats.
This is how it will compare to Casey Anthony if the DA fucks up, or the media generated outrage is based on bullshit. Facts of the case won't won't matter. If the DA proves his case, great. If not, Zimmerman is an expendable asshole who is going down anyway because:
The jurors don't want to be falsely accused of being racist
The jurors don't want death threats
The jurors don't want the media and political/economic backlash
The jurors don't want the Orlando metro area to go up in air pollution

[COLGATE4]

55. It's possible. However, I wouldn't be at all

surprised for the defense to request (and get) a change of venue.

[independentpiney]

21. I'm afraid this may be a long, hot summer nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. If nothing else, this SYG

stuff won't be spreading anytime soon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. It will be renamed and recoded

"No duty to retreat" most likely will continue to expand

[safeinOhio]

40. We will soon see.

Being pushed here in Ohio by rightwing ALEC. My guess is it is now dead.

[eqfan592]

67. Even with all the negative media attention...

...the law continues to hold popularity among the majority of Americans based on very recent polling. They may hold off on pushing anything until people get past their "outrage" and start thinking like rational adults again, but dead? Not likely.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. Isn't there a legal difference between SYG and pursuing a person?

Once Martin walked away from whatever altercation took place WHY was it OK for Zimmerman to then pursue him and continue to prolong and further antagonize the situation?

[slackmaster]

80. Yes, certainly. There is also a big gray area that covers stalking, pursuing, and following.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. none of which have anything to do with the SYG statute. correct? It is two separate statutes

right?

Once, Zimmerman began pursuing then a different legal angle is involved. NOT the SYG law.

am I understanding this correctly?

on edit: in other words HOW can Zimmerman use SYG as his legal defense?

[slackmaster]

82. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sufficiently familiar with Florida law to begin to answer any of that