Just wondering....

[markw]

That short line of text between my name and avatar pretty much what I think of you.

Buh-buy ...cwybaby

[JohnMichael]

I am sorry this thread stopped due to bad behaviors. I am wondering as the trial is coming to an end before verdict what does everyone think today? I want to read opinions regarding the trial and not each other.

[Hyfi]

I think he is gonna walk. I hope otherwise but that is my gut feeling. I do hope he loses a civil suit or worse. I do wonder why this case continues to be the main news article while so many worse things and murders go on daily. I have my conspiracy theories on that but will reserve for now.

Aside from GZ being a complete Ahole, which he should be tried and convicted, the real injustice may be that Martin called a Latino a Cracker.

[JohnMichael]

I think this case is interesting in that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that George shot Trayvon. The real interest is why he made so many bad choices that led to the death of Trayvon. Self defense or murder and I think it was murder.

[Hyfi]

It would have been self defense if GZ sat in his car and TM attacked him there. The fact that he followed and kept stalking makes it a bit otherwise. I would have stopped and decked his ass too if he was harassing me in my own neighborhood.

[Feanor]

It would have been self defense if GZ sat in his car and TM attacked him there. The fact that he followed and kept stalking makes it a bit otherwise. I would have stopped and decked his ass too if he was harassing me in my own neighborhood.

I think Zimmerman will walk because it hasn't been proven that he didn't act in self-defence; (notice the double negative here).

Racism doesn't matter; hoodyphobia doesn't matter; police wannabe doesn't matter. It isn't against the law to disregard a 911 operator's suggestion, (maybe it should be). Nor is it against the law to confront a potential malfeasant, (maybe it should be). What is against the law is to pin a person to the ground and beat his/her head against the concrete. Are we sure this happened? No. OTOH, are we sure it didn't happen? No, not from the evidence I've heard.

There is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defence, therefore he must be acquitted - QED.

Zimmerman was emboldened to approach Martin against the 911 guy's advice because he was (a) lawfully armed with handgun, (b) almost certainly aware of Florida Stand-you-ground laws.

[JohnMichael]

Did Trayvon think he was in danger and needed to stand his ground? Can he not safely walk to the store for skittles? George was safe in his car until he got out to follow Trayvon. Trayvon was being followed by someone he did not know. First he was followed by vehicle and then on foot. I am sure Trayvon was fearful and ready to protect himself.

[dean_martin]

I think Zimmerman will walk because it hasn't been proven that he didn't act in self-defence; (notice the double negative here).

Racism doesn't matter; hoodyphobia doesn't matter; police wannabe doesn't matter. It isn't against the law to disregard a 911 operator's suggestion, (maybe it should be). Nor is it against the law to confront a potential malfeasant, (maybe it should be). What is against the law is to pin a person to the ground and beat his/her head against the concrete. Are we sure this happened? No. OTOH, are we sure it didn't happen? No, not from the evidence I've heard.

There is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defence, therefore he must be acquitted - QED.

Zimmerman was emboldened to approach Martin against the 911 guy's advice because he was (a) lawfully armed with handgun, (b) almost certainly aware of Florida Stand-you-ground laws.

Those things DO matter in trying to determine GZ's intent or what was in his mind when he acted. That's why the murder charge is going to the jury. There's just enough evidence of ill will, spite and/or hatred (an element of the crime) to let the jury decide.

As far as self-defense goes, that's a question for the jury too because the evidence isn't clear. There is some subtle "burden shifting" on an affirmative defense. The minority view is that the defendant carries the burden of proof on self-defense by a preponderance (more likely than not) of the evidence. The majority view is that evidence of self-defense must be examined along with all the evidence. IOW, the fact-finder is not supposed to examine the evidence of self-defense, if any, in a vacuum. Lack of self-defense is not an element of the crime of murder. Therefore, the state does not have to "disprove" it, but if there is evidence of self-defense, then the evidence taken as a whole must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a tricky and sometimes superficial legal analysis to reconcile the fact that lack of a legal "defense" to a crime is rarely an element of the crime (each element OF THE CRIME must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt) with the state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What if the jury finds it difficult to believe that GZ pulled his gun while his shoulders/arm pits were pinned by Martin? A wild tale inconsistent with common sense is not reasonable doubt.

The lesser-included charge of Manslaughter: On this charge, I can see the jury not giving much weight to the "self-defense" defense even if they think the defense precludes a guilty verdict on murder.

[markw]

It would have been self defense if GZ sat in his car and TM attacked him there. The fact that he followed and kept stalking makes it a bit otherwise. I would have stopped and decked his ass too if he was harassing me in my own neighborhood.

Granted, Z was a ashhole but, if he didn't throw the first punch, well...

As to Martin, throwing a punch to get Z off is ash and walk away would be one thing but to sucker punch him, knock him down, get on top of the out-of shape Zimmerman, straddle him, and power-pummel him without any sign of letting up is a different matter entirely. Even by the farthest strech of the imagination does that far exceed any "stand your ground" interpertation.

That now sort of puts Zimmerman in the victim seat and he was defending himself.

It was funny to see the prosecurion change their story from where, in the beginning, Zimmernam was on top but towards the end, they were showing, with the dummy, Martin on the top. Cerdibility issues? Nah, not in the least.

Basically, this was two ashholes, and one is dead. Life goes on.