Just wondering....

[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.

[Feanor]

that ist's

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.

Since you are a lawyer I defer to your insight about "subtle burden shifting", even as I note that you say it's the minority view that the defendant carries the burden of proof.

However in Canada the burden of self-defence does generally shift to the defendant. I'm told the Stand-your-ground is derive from the so-called "castle doctrine", but here in Canada the castle doctrine isn't recognized, that is, it is always a Canadian's responsibility to retreat from, or evade, a potential attack even in his own home, ("castle"). Certainly in Canada if a neighbour watch volunteer shot anybody, however likely that the latter was an actual malfeasant, he would be charged with murder ipso facto. No volunteer would be issued a carry permit; if he was carrying a gun unlawfully, there would be strong presumption that he came to the situation with the intended to used it.

I'm pretty sure that if you shoot an intruder in your house in Canada, you will be charged with manslaughter (at least) and the burden will be yours to proof it was self-defence. Also it virtually certain that you will be charged with a firearms offence since gun storage requirements here make it virtually impossible to quickly access a gun to use for self-defence.

[Hyfi]

There would have been no need for either to resort to self defense if GZ followed the simple instructions he was given. He created the situation. Period! How can you stalk and follow someone against direct instructions from the police, and then when the stalkee ends up turning the tables he then cries self defense and scared for his life. He should have just taken the beating he deserved and then filed assault charges.

[markw]

There would have been no need for either to resort to self defense if GZ followed the simple instructions he was given. He created the situation. Period! How can you stalk and follow someone against direct instructions from the police, and then when the stalkee ends up turning the tables he then cries self defense and scared for his life. He should have just taken the beating he deserved and then filed assault charges.

I don't think he's under any legal obligtion to follow the orders of a 911 operator. As for turning the table, I don't think the kid had any legal right to start a physical altercation, much less pin and pummel anyone. If such was the case, it's not Z's fault that he had to resort to the gun, which he ws legally allowed to carry, to protect himself.

Betcha of the kid knew he had a gun he wouldn't have started in throwing punches. That's the risk people take when CCW permits are out there. They may start in with the wrong guy, like this kid did.

[JohnMichael]

I don't think he's under any legal obligtion to follow the orders of a 911 operator. As for turning the table, I don't think the kid had any legal right to start a physical altercation, much less pin and pummel anyone. If such was the case, it's not Z's fault that he had to resort to the gun, which he ws legally allowed to carry, to protect himself.

Betcha of the kid knew he had a gun he wouldn't have started in throwing punches. That's the risk people take when CCW permits are out there. They may start in with the wrong guy, like this kid did.

Well as neighborhood watch George should have not been carrying and should have stayed in the car. George was stalking Trayvon and that would have put me on guard. The verdict is in and I am pissed.

[Feanor]

Well as neighborhood watch George should have not been carrying and should have stayed in the car. George was stalking Trayvon and that would have put me on guard. The verdict is in and I am pissed.

The Zimmerman verdict is just and as I predicted. The jury correctly concluded that it was not proven that GZ did not act in justified self-defence.

I personally served as a juror in a case, (sexual assault), where the accused was probably guilty, but the the requirement here in Canada as in the USA is "guilty beyond reasonable doubt", and there was reasonable doubt.

I say again with emphasis that the big contributors to this tragedy were (1) George Zimmerman is an a$$hole -- but that isn't a crime: police-wannabe-ism & profiling are bad things but don't constitute 2nd degree murder; (2) legal permits that allowed GZ to carry a concealed weapon; (3) stand-your-ground laws, which GZ was aware of and that emboldened him to approach Martin armed as he was.

I hear that Martin's family could launch a civil suit for "wrongful death": sounds like they have good case.

[markw]

Well as neighborhood watch George should have not been carrying and should have stayed in the car. George was stalking Trayvon and that would have put me on guard. The verdict is in and I am pissed.

I'm sure you'll get over it. Remember, following someone is not a crime and Z had a legal right to carry. Now, if Martin had used his words instead of his fists to express is displeasure, this whole thing could have been avoided. Simple as that.

As for the MSM* lynching Z all along, my initial point in tis thread, this link pretty much sums it up. So how does it feel to have been played like a violin? Like it or not, he was no angel, and I'm sure Obama would be proud to call him his son.

* Main Stream Media for those who are unaware.

[Hyfi]

So Mark, if there were no eyewitnesses, and only a one sided story where the defendant was not even questioned, who can prove that TM threw the first punch OR got on top of GZ and pummeled him with intent to kill him? One witness says the big guy was on top while another says the opposite.

The fact that GZ "Stalked" TM gave the kid enough to worry that he may be in danger and it appears that he tried to protect himself.

Also interesting how GZ shot TM in the heart and not any other spot on the body, that would not have been a "Kill" shot.

Now, just about anyone with a brain knew how this was going to play out, without ever watching TV or reading the press. I knew GZ would walk but did not want him to. Again, GZ should have just taken his due beating and pressed proper charges, he should not have been able to kill the kid and walk away.

I also believe that the whole reason that the media and govt supporters sensationalized this case is because they want to continue keeping the racial lines divided and tension always available for good stories. The Gov also loved how the media blew this all out because it took the focus off of Snowden, Syria, and other issues that hurt americans more than just another dead idiot punk.

On the plus side, properly licensed gun owners with permits have less to worry about if the same situation comes up. Shoot to kill, then never take the stand and with absolutely no credible witnesses, there is nothing that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.