Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[The Commish]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

They have to decide if a broken nose is "great bodily harm" to them

It lowered the bar significantly for what is considered great bodily harm, which I don't see how the prosecution overcomes. If it can be reasonably argued that Zimmerman already recieved great bodily harm or was at least well on his way, you have to rule that it was reasonable to use self-defense.

There was no bar set.....the defense went to great lengths to argue that the SC of Florida left it open ended for a reason.

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

What if Martin farted on Zimmerman when he was straddling him and pounding on him?

New meaning to "Stand your ground"

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

30 years, huh?

Expert witness: Zimmerman had no other options.

Serino: I believed he was telling the truth when he said, "I was hoping someone was videotaping it." After I told him it was videotaped and he breathed a sigh of relief.

 

[Johnnymac]

I don't believe Z had his head banged onto the concrete. The injuries imo do not reflect that. I think he profiled the kid, followed him, and started the fight. He should do time in prison imo. I hope the jury sees it this way.

 

[The Commish]

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimmerman was fearful of some remote, prospective injury.

Actually that argument did come up here in the likes of "He was getting beaten up and Martin wasn't going to stop until he killed Zimmerman"....we've really heard it all in this thread

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

I also believe he is guilty of manslaughter and should get 5-10 in the joint. Chance for parole in a few years with good behavior. You have to send a message, otherwise everyone is going to pull a gun and claim they were just defending themselves.

 

[Joe McGee]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

I didn't say whether the Judge was right or wrong in any of her decisions, merely that she is biased for the State.

You only believe this because you are biased for the defense.

Looking at her legal rulings, including their merits and subsequent benefits for each party, is absolutely the best way to tell whether the judge is "biased." And this judge just made a pivotal ruling on a close issue in the defendant's favor. I strongly doubt a truly biased judge would have done that.

Yes, I am biased for the defense. Her animosity for West was evident before this trial even started. I feel that several times her behavior has clearly indicated her bias for the prosecutor's office.

That said, she does have to cover he own butt and she is trying very hard to close potential loopholes for an appeal. There are several reasons she might rule for the defense even if she is bias for the State.

I don't know enough about the law to look at the merits for all of her rulings. She comes across as bias against the defense. You are free to feel otherwise.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimmerman was fearful of some remote, prospective injury.

Actually that argument did come up here in the likes of "He was getting beaten up and Martin wasn't going to stop until he killed Zimmerman"....we've really heard it all in this thread

That would still be imminent.

 

[financewonk]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

Are you sure that's the schedule? Greta said last night that the prosecution gets to present a preliminary closing argument today, which is immediately followed by the closing arguments from the defense, and then the prosecution presents their full closing argument the following day. All the panelists said that the schedule was a big advantage for the state.

Trial schedules are often constantly changing.

Does the prosecution still get to have the final word? If not, this is another nice outcome for the defense, eh?

I think I heard the judge indicate the Prosecution gets to rebuttal the Defense closing argument.

Yes, that wouldn't change. That's essentially the rule in some jurisdiction because the burden is on the state, not the defense, so the rationale is the state should get the final say.

Will they get a night to prepare the rebuttal, or will it immediately follow the closing arguments by the defense? The legal analysts all said that the original schedule was a big advantage for the state, as they will get the final word, have a lot of preparation time, and jurors generally have short memories.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimmerman was fearful of some remote, prospective injury.

Actually that argument did come up here in the likes of "He was getting beaten up and Martin wasn't going to stop until he killed Zimmerman"....we've really heard it all in this thread

Zimmerman was given no means for escape.

Martin showed no signs of stopping.

Not sure why you find that funny, that's the law.

 

[Bob Magaw]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

 

[The Commish]

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimmerman was fearful of some remote, prospective injury.

Actually that argument did come up here in the likes of "He was getting beaten up and Martin wasn't going to stop until he killed Zimmerman"....we've really heard it all in this thread

That would still be imminent.

Sorry....I thought that's why Jo Jo was arguing with you because you left imminent out. Full disclosure, I don't really read what he's saying. I was just responding to your comment in this quote. When I read "remote, prospective injury" the theory that Martin may continue beating on him or find his gun at some point and shoot him etc fit that description. What do you mean by "remote, prospective injury"?

 

[timschochet]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

Which is why I indicated the state's strategy of asking for the lesser included was sound strategy if they felt the trial went poorly for them. Nuts on this board aside, I think Zimmerman and the underlying circumstances here rub the majority of the wrong way. And, given that humans like compromise and jurors are humans, I could definitely see a conviction to the lesser charge.

Except- I know something about this that the jurors may not know, or at least aren't supposed to discuss- and that is that the state of Florida has mandatory minimums which make the sentencing for manslaughter nearly equivalent to that of murder 2, especially if a gun is used. If Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter, he's not going to spend a few years in prison, he's going to spend several years in prison. So it's not exactly a compromise. As an aside I really hate mandatory minimum laws.

 

[The Commish]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in the rain, between the houses, looking at the houses. If we're being intellectually honest here, it's safe to assume that he saw someone he didn't know and allowed prior events of break-ins and burglary cloud his judgement, but this thread is relatively devoid of that kind of thinking.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

As is evident by this judge, women don't like men yelling at them. Bernie shouldn't yell his entire closing to a jury of 6 women.

I think people don't like to be yelled at by any gender.

These jurors are going to have nightmares of Dr. Phil yelling at them tonight.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So as predicted State is going the emotional route in their closing focusing on feelings instead of relying on evidence.

 

[Joe McGee]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in and out of people's yards high on drugs in the rain.

 

[timschochet]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

 

[RCon]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

Which is why I indicated the state's strategy of asking for the lesser included was sound strategy if they felt the trial went poorly for them. Nuts on this board aside, I think Zimmerman and the underlying circumstances here rub the majority of the wrong way. And, given that humans like compromise and jurors are humans, I could definitely see a conviction to the lesser charge.

If the state got lesser charges included after the trial, that seems pretty unfair. Seems like the defense should be able to know what the charges are before presenting their case.

 

[Zow]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

I didn't say whether the Judge was right or wrong in any of her decisions, merely that she is biased for the State.

You only believe this because you are biased for the defense.

Looking at her legal rulings, including their merits and subsequent benefits for each party, is absolutely the best way to tell whether the judge is "biased." And this judge just made a pivotal ruling on a close issue in the defendant's favor. I strongly doubt a truly biased judge would have done that.

Yes, I am biased for the defense. Her animosity for West was evident before this trial even started. I feel that several times her behavior has clearly indicated her bias for the prosecutor's office.

That said, she does have to cover he own butt and she is trying very hard to close potential loopholes for an appeal. There are several reasons she might rule for the defense even if she is bias for the State.

I don't know enough about the law to look at the merits for all of her rulings. She comes across as bias against the defense. You are free to feel otherwise.

Okay, I gotta follow the other lawyers and express frustration here. Of course we are each entitled to our own opinion, but I don't understand why it is so difficult for you (and others) to not listen at all to the opinion of someone whose job it is to deal with criminal trials and appeals every day! I am not giving you my personal perception of this judge, instead I am giving you an opinion formed by dealing with over a hundred trials in front of over a dozen plus different judges.

I'm a defense attorney with no dog in this fight. I see and deal with these types of cases everyday. I also see and deal with judges every single day. I get that you seem to be more personally invested and that investment has led to to think that the judge is personally biased. However, I am telling that, personal dislike for the defendant aside, there is simply no way this judge is actually biased against the defendant based on her patterns of rulings in this case.

The general rule of thumb during a trial, if you think you have a biased judge, is that if a judge sides mainly with the defense on issues of law, the judge thinks the defense is going to lose and is trying to prevent appeal issues. If the judge gives the state everything they want, it's because the judge thinks the state is going to struggle to prove their case.

In any event, neither of that is going on here. We have a case where it is fair to say the evidence isn't super strong for the state and we have a big issue come before the court without each side of the issue having merit. Essentially then, the judge can do what she wants as she can probably legally justify either decision. Accordingly, if she were at all biased towards Zimmerman, given that things have gone so well for Zimmerman she could have easily found against him. But she didn't. This leads me to believe that she is a judge of judicial integrity and can put aside her personal distaste for a party and make sound, unbiased legal decisions.

 

[The Commish]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in and out of people's yards high on drugs in the rain.

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

Zimmerman didn't mention the drugs OR the race in his comments. Replies like this are pointless.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimmerman was fearful of some remote, prospective injury.

Actually that argument did come up here in the likes of "He was getting beaten up and Martin wasn't going to stop until he killed Zimmerman"....we've really heard it all in this thread

That would still be imminent.

Sorry....I thought that's why Jo Jo was arguing with you because you left imminent out. Full disclosure, I don't really read what he's saying. I was just responding to your comment in this quote. When I read "remote, prospective injury" the theory that Martin may continue beating on him or find his gun at some point and shoot him etc fit that description. What do you mean by "remote, prospective injury"?

Anything over the course of the beating is imminent. If I'm beating your ###, whatever concerns you have about the entire extent of the ### beating is imminent. It's not some vague fear of some remote possibility of me beating your ### in the future. That's the imminence requirement.

Assume that what actually happened is that Trayvon heard Zimmerman give the dispatch his name and address. And Trayvon stepped out of the shadows and said, "You'll be sorry George Zimmerman of 1313 Mockingbird Lane," and then made a throat slashing gesture.

Zimmerman may be able to argue that he was legitimately afraid that Martin was going to kill him, but the fear wouldn't be of imminent harm. It would be of some future harm, so he would not be entitled to use deadly force.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

 

[Zow]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

Are you sure that's the schedule? Greta said last night that the prosecution gets to present a preliminary closing argument today, which is immediately followed by the closing arguments from the defense, and then the prosecution presents their full closing argument the following day. All the panelists said that the schedule was a big advantage for the state.

Trial schedules are often constantly changing.

Does the prosecution still get to have the final word? If not, this is another nice outcome for the defense, eh?

I think I heard the judge indicate the Prosecution gets to rebuttal the Defense closing argument.

Yes, that wouldn't change. That's essentially the rule in some jurisdiction because the burden is on the state, not the defense, so the rationale is the state should get the final say.

Will they get a night to prepare the rebuttal, or will it immediately follow the closing arguments by the defense? The legal analysts all said that the original schedule was a big advantage for the state, as they will get the final word, have a lot of preparation time, and jurors generally have short memories.

I don't know. They certainly could. And I'd agree that is an advantage for the state as naturally more time to prepare for a rebuttable against arguments just heard.

Should all just depend on scheduling though as there is really no requirement either way - although I like the defendant's objection here because it actually makes an interesting appeal issue because of the potential advantage and could create some new case law. Hard to imagine it not being harmless error though.

 

[The Commish]

We really need a warning on the title of this thread for the lawyers.....you guys don't come in here expecting honest discussion. Minds are made up and have been since the trial began. Your attempts at logic will be resisted at all costs.

 

[timschochet]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

30 years, huh?Expert witness: Zimmerman had no other options.

Serino: I believed he was telling the truth when he said, "I was hoping someone was videotaping it." After I told him it was videotaped and he breathed a sigh of relief.

To be honest JoJo- even though I do think he's guilty of manslaughter, 30 years is way too unjust. I would prefer a few years tops. That's why I hate these mandatory minimums. Given the choice I would rather see GZ walk than get 30 years in prison. He's guilty IMO, but not THAT guilty.

 

[The Commish]

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimmerman was fearful of some remote, prospective injury.

Actually that argument did come up here in the likes of "He was getting beaten up and Martin wasn't going to stop until he killed Zimmerman"....we've really heard it all in this thread

That would still be imminent.

Sorry....I thought that's why Jo Jo was arguing with you because you left imminent out. Full disclosure, I don't really read what he's saying. I was just responding to your comment in this quote. When I read "remote, prospective injury" the theory that Martin may continue beating on him or find his gun at some point and shoot him etc fit that description. What do you mean by "remote, prospective injury"?

Anything over the course of the beating is imminent. If I'm beating your ###, whatever concerns you have about the entire extent of the ### beating is imminent. It's not some vague fear of some remote possibility of me beating your ### in the future. That's the imminence requirement.

Assume that what actually happened is that Trayvon heard Zimmerman give the dispatch his name and address. And Trayvon stepped out of the shadows and said, "You'll be sorry George Zimmerman of 1313 Mockingbird Lane," and then made a throat slashing gesture.

Zimmerman may be able to argue that he was legitimately afraid that Martin was going to kill him, but the fear wouldn't be of imminent harm. It would be of some future harm, so he would not be entitled to use deadly force.

Gotcha....thanks!

 

[Zow]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

Which is why I indicated the state's strategy of asking for the lesser included was sound strategy if they felt the trial went poorly for them. Nuts on this board aside, I think Zimmerman and the underlying circumstances here rub the majority of the wrong way. And, given that humans like compromise and jurors are humans, I could definitely see a conviction to the lesser charge.

If the state got lesser charges included after the trial, that seems pretty unfair. Seems like the defense should be able to know what the charges are before presenting their case.

Since lesser included are by definition elements of the charges already filed, an argument could be made the defense was already put on notice.

 

[timschochet]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in and out of people's yards high on drugs in the rain.

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

Zimmerman didn't mention the drugs OR the race in his comments. Replies like this are pointless.

Youre right.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Woz - you cannot adequately rule on if this judge has acted biased towards state or defense unless you have been watching this trial.

She's on record as saying Trayvon's text messages could not be authenticated even though they were stored behind two passwords since any 7 year old can get into "those things". West even pointed out FDLE couldn't crack his passwords over the course of 1 year.

I don't think she offered West a single side-bar the entire trial, if she did, she denied at least 90% of his requests. She denied West the opportunity to counsel his client when she decided to swear him in and put Zimmerman's answers on the record.

I don't have the objection/sustained count but I wouldn't be surprised if she sustained 2-3x as many state objections than she did defense objections.

All I'm saying is unless you have watched 75-80% of the trial like the rest of us you really shouldn't assume there is no bias going on.

 

[Zow]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

Which is why I indicated the state's strategy of asking for the lesser included was sound strategy if they felt the trial went poorly for them. Nuts on this board aside, I think Zimmerman and the underlying circumstances here rub the majority of the wrong way. And, given that humans like compromise and jurors are humans, I could definitely see a conviction to the lesser charge.

Except- I know something about this that the jurors may not know, or at least aren't supposed to discuss- and that is that the state of Florida has mandatory minimums which make the sentencing for manslaughter nearly equivalent to that of murder 2, especially if a gun is used. If Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter, he's not going to spend a few years in prison, he's going to spend several years in prison. So it's not exactly a compromise.As an aside I really hate mandatory minimum laws.

Good point Tim, as that is the rub - and is an definitely a factor for the lawyer on each side to consider for strategy purposes. Nonetheless, the lawyers bank on the jury not knowing the punishments so the "compromise" issue is still present.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

30 years, huh?Expert witness: Zimmerman had no other options.

Serino: I believed he was telling the truth when he said, "I was hoping someone was videotaping it." After I told him it was videotaped and he breathed a sigh of relief.

To be honest JoJo- even though I do think he's guilty of manslaughter, 30 years is way too unjust. I would prefer a few years tops. That's why I hate these mandatory minimums.Given the choice I would rather see GZ walk than get 30 years in prison. He's guilty IMO, but not THAT guilty.

Thanks, props.

 

[17seconds]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

30 years, huh?Expert witness: Zimmerman had no other options.

Serino: I believed he was telling the truth when he said, "I was hoping someone was videotaping it." After I told him it was videotaped and he breathed a sigh of relief.

To be honest JoJo- even though I do think he's guilty of manslaughter, 30 years is way too unjust. I would prefer a few years tops. That's why I hate these mandatory minimums.Given the choice I would rather see GZ walk than get 30 years in prison. He's guilty IMO, but not THAT guilty.

If I could just give him a sentence I'd give him 6 years. Significant punishment for being careless and killing someone who was beating his ###. He gets out when he's 36, has to deal with having the criminal record, but his life isn't over.

 

[RCon]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

Which is why I indicated the state's strategy of asking for the lesser included was sound strategy if they felt the trial went poorly for them. Nuts on this board aside, I think Zimmerman and the underlying circumstances here rub the majority of the wrong way. And, given that humans like compromise and jurors are humans, I could definitely see a conviction to the lesser charge.

If the state got lesser charges included after the trial, that seems pretty unfair. Seems like the defense should be able to know what the charges are before presenting their case.

Since lesser included are by definition elements of the charges already filed, an argument could be made the defense was already put on notice.

Not sure I understand what this means, sorry.

 

[Zow]

We really need a warning on the title of this thread for the lawyers.....you guys don't come in here expecting honest discussion. Minds are made up and have been since the trial began. Your attempts at logic will be resisted at all costs.

I should have just stayed away, but I can't help but think or want to try to resolve issues between non-lawyers when I could easily do so or help to educate people not learned in law as to what they are actually seeing so that they have more respect for the system/trial process. I guess all I have done though now is give a bunch of legal info at no cost and neglect providing it to the people actually paying me for it/to do it.

 

[Joe McGee]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in and out of people's yards high on drugs in the rain.

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

Zimmerman didn't mention the drugs OR the race in his comments. Replies like this are pointless.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

It's in the very first paragraph of the transcript - this guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We really need a warning on the title of this thread for the lawyers.....you guys don't come in here expecting honest discussion. Minds are made up and have been since the trial began. Your attempts at logic will be resisted at all costs.

Some of the more active posters in this thread had their minds made up in the first day or two after this story broke.

 

[The Commish]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

30 years, huh?Expert witness: Zimmerman had no other options.

Serino: I believed he was telling the truth when he said, "I was hoping someone was videotaping it." After I told him it was videotaped and he breathed a sigh of relief.

To be honest JoJo- even though I do think he's guilty of manslaughter, 30 years is way too unjust. I would prefer a few years tops. That's why I hate these mandatory minimums.Given the choice I would rather see GZ walk than get 30 years in prison. He's guilty IMO, but not THAT guilty.

If I could just give him a sentence I'd give him 6 years. Significant punishment for being careless and killing someone who was beating his ###. He gets out when he's 36, has to deal with having the criminal record, but his life isn't over.

His life's significantly diminished especially after civil cases are executed and judgements rendered.

 

[The Commish]

We really need a warning on the title of this thread for the lawyers.....you guys don't come in here expecting honest discussion. Minds are made up and have been since the trial began. Your attempts at logic will be resisted at all costs.

I should have just stayed away, but I can't help but think or want to try to resolve issues between non-lawyers when I could easily do so or help to educate people not learned in law as to what they are actually seeing so that they have more respect for the system/trial process. I guess all I have done though now is give a bunch of legal info at no cost and neglect providing it to the people actually paying me for it/to do it.

Actually...since you, YankeeFan and Ramsay started posting, it made things much better. So I appreciate it, but I don't have an axe to grind either. It's gotten so bad at times that even though I agree that this guy's gonna get off murder 2 I am STILL being asked to take my blinders off. This thread will be one for the ages.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Bernie is all over the place, looks pretty desperate.

 

[The Commish]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in and out of people's yards high on drugs in the rain.

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

Zimmerman didn't mention the drugs OR the race in his comments. Replies like this are pointless.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

It's in the very first paragraph of the transcript - this guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.

It's clear he wasn't sure he was on drugs. He just knew that he wasn't acting right and offered up drugs as a possible reason. You stated it as if Zimmerman knew he was on drugs for a fact. There's a difference.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in and out of people's yards high on drugs in the rain.

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

Zimmerman didn't mention the drugs OR the race in his comments. Replies like this are pointless.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.htmlIt's in the very first paragraph of the transcript - this guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something.

TOAST

 

[The Commish]

We really need a warning on the title of this thread for the lawyers.....you guys don't come in here expecting honest discussion. Minds are made up and have been since the trial began. Your attempts at logic will be resisted at all costs.

Some of the more active posters in this thread had their minds made up in the first day or two after this story broke.

Yeah, I forgot the word "before" there "since before the trial began"

 

[The Commish]

Bernie is all over the place, looks pretty desperate.

I'd pay for a live feed to watch you watching this trial and posting in this thread

 

[jon_mx]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

30 years, huh?Expert witness: Zimmerman had no other options.

Serino: I believed he was telling the truth when he said, "I was hoping someone was videotaping it." After I told him it was videotaped and he breathed a sigh of relief.

To be honest JoJo- even though I do think he's guilty of manslaughter, 30 years is way too unjust. I would prefer a few years tops. That's why I hate these mandatory minimums.Given the choice I would rather see GZ walk than get 30 years in prison. He's guilty IMO, but not THAT guilty.

If I could just give him a sentence I'd give him 6 years. Significant punishment for being careless and killing someone who was beating his ###. He gets out when he's 36, has to deal with having the criminal record, but his life isn't over.

His life's significantly diminished especially after civil cases are executed and judgements rendered.

The civil cases are no slam dunks.

 

[financewonk]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

He was walking in the rain, between the houses, looking at the houses. If we're being intellectually honest here, it's safe to assume that he saw someone he didn't know and allowed prior events of break-ins and burglary cloud his judgement, but this thread is relatively devoid of that kind of thinking.

Greta said that it was a terrible decision by the judge not to allow the jurors to see what the crime scene looks like at night. She visited the scene at night, and stated that her range of sight was no more than 5 feet. This was confirmed by one of the panelists, who is firmly in the Martin camp, and both stated that it would have huge implications on witness reliability, fear that GZ/TM felt, etc.

 

[timschochet]

Ironically, it was the pro gun folks in Florida who pushed for the mandatory minimums- Jeb Bush signed them into law a few years back with the slogan "if you use a gun in a crime you do serious prison time" (or some rhyme like that). Now they may reap what they have sown here if GZ is indeed convicted of manslaughter...

 

[T Bell]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Bernie is all over the place, looks pretty desperate.

I'd pay for a live feed to watch you watching this trial and posting in this thread

Live Feed of Judge Nelson listening to Don West's objections

 

[timschochet]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

I don't think the jurors will ever hear about that.