Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Jojo the circus boy]

Jail

Book it.

For the rioters? Agreed.

 

[timschochet]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Wasn't the statute quoted earlier that did include that if you were the aggressor there was in fact such a duty to retreat? How isn't that part of the instructions?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

MOM crushing it (shocking coming from me I know)

A good prosecutor in a 2nd degree murder trial will use words such as "with certainty", "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not words like "maybe", "coulda", "you figure it out"

ouch

 

[timschochet]

Under Florida Law, you can't initiate a confrontation then claim self-defense.

This was over a long time ago, he's going to jail.

You might want to read the Florida Law instead of listening to the media. I would suggest you google it.

Here is one article to start with

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Did you go to Hamline? Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity. This doesn't apply.

What unlawful activity was that? And please link us to your proof that Zimmerman "initiated a confrontation", or any law that uses the words "initiated a confrontation".. You know you have a pretty poor argument when you have to camouflage your wording and pound square pegs in round holes..

How about you start with Florida Statutes 784 instead of a news article.

He got out of his car and pursued Martin even when the police told him not to (we have evidence of that).

He got close enough to touch the kid (we have evidence of that).

We was not acting lawful, he was harassing and stalking the kid.

You are way out of your league here with all of the armchair lawyers that have been going at it for 400+ pages.There is no evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed Martin

He's much less out if his league for arguing with armchair lawyers than you have been for arguing with real lawyers.

 

[Arizona Ron]

You think the female jurors like an arrogant man? This guy is basically talking down to the jury. He's not doing a good job with this closing.

 

[Rayderr]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

 

[jon_mx]

Wasn't the statute quoted earlier that did include that if you were the aggressor there was in fact such a duty to retreat? How isn't that part of the instructions?

Nothing shows Zimmerman was the aggressor. Besides, if you are lawfully there, you have no duty to retreat, on the ground beiand it is tough to retreat when you are pinned down on the ground being punched.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You think the female jurors like an arrogant man? This guy is basically talking down to the jury. He's not doing a good job with this closing.

are you a woman? Do you prefer it when BDLR was screaming for over an hour throughout his closing?

 

[timschochet]

MOM crushing it (shocking coming from me I know)

A good prosecutor in a 2nd degree murder trial will use words such as "with certainty", "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not words like "maybe", "coulda", "you figure it out"

ouch

That's a pretty dumb and desperate argument. The reason prosecutors use those phrases in most murder trials is that they're trying to convince the jury that the accused committed the act of killing the victim. In this case that is not in question.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Under Florida Law, you can't initiate a confrontation then claim self-defense.

This was over a long time ago, he's going to jail.

You might want to read the Florida Law instead of listening to the media. I would suggest you google it.

Here is one article to start with

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Did you go to Hamline? Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity. This doesn't apply.

What unlawful activity was that? And please link us to your proof that Zimmerman "initiated a confrontation", or any law that uses the words "initiated a confrontation".. You know you have a pretty poor argument when you have to camouflage your wording and pound square pegs in round holes..

How about you start with Florida Statutes 784 instead of a news article.

He got out of his car and pursued Martin even when the police told him not to (we have evidence of that).

He got close enough to touch the kid (we have evidence of that).

We was not acting lawful, he was harassing and stalking the kid.

You are way out of your league here with all of the armchair lawyers that have been going at it for 400+ pages.There is no evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed Martin

He's much less out if his league for arguing with armchair lawyers than you have been for arguing with real lawyers that haven't watched the trial

fixed that for you

 

[jon_mx]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

If the Martin folk would quite repeating outright lies, it would be unnecessary to say. If Zimmerman is so guilty, why not keep the case state against him honestly, instead of the spun up media lies?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Wasn't the statute quoted earlier that did include that if you were the aggressor there was in fact such a duty to retreat? How isn't that part of the instructions?

Nothing shows Zimmerman was the aggressor. Besides, if you are lawfully there, you have no duty to retreat, on the ground beiand it is tough to retreat when you are pinned down on the ground being punched.

That's a fact question. I'm talking about a jury instruction.

I think he's confusing the jury right now.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

MOM crushing it (shocking coming from me I know)

A good prosecutor in a 2nd degree murder trial will use words such as "with certainty", "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not words like "maybe", "coulda", "you figure it out"

ouch

That's a pretty dumb and desperate argument.The reason prosecutors use those phrases in most murder trials is that they're trying to convince the jury that the accused committed the act of killing the victim. In this case that is not in question.

Hahahah, Ok tim. According to you, the state only needs to prove that Zimmerman killed Martin.

 

[pantherclub]

Under Florida Law, you can't initiate a confrontation then claim self-defense.

This was over a long time ago, he's going to jail.

You might want to read the Florida Law instead of listening to the media. I would suggest you google it.

Here is one article to start with

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Did you go to Hamline? Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity. This doesn't apply.

What unlawful activity was that? And please link us to your proof that Zimmerman "initiated a confrontation", or any law that uses the words "initiated a confrontation".. You know you have a pretty poor argument when you have to camouflage your wording and pound square pegs in round holes..

How about you start with Florida Statutes 784 instead of a news article.

He got out of his car and pursued Martin even when the police told him not to (we have evidence of that).

He got close enough to touch the kid (we have evidence of that).

We was not acting lawful, he was harassing and stalking the kid.

You are way out of your league here with all of the armchair lawyers that have been going at it for 400+ pages.There is no evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed Martin

He's much less out if his league for arguing with armchair lawyers than you have been for arguing with real lawyers that haven't watched the trial

fixed that for you

some of us, you know, work

 

[timschochet]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

They didn't need to, because 99% of people outside of this thread believe, correctly, that there really is no difference between the police and a 911 operator, and that what was said was an instruction.

 

[jon_mx]

MOM crushing it (shocking coming from me I know)

A good prosecutor in a 2nd degree murder trial will use words such as "with certainty", "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not words like "maybe", "coulda", "you figure it out"

ouch

That's a pretty dumb and desperate argument.The reason prosecutors use those phrases in most murder trials is that they're trying to convince the jury that the accused committed the act of killing the victim. In this case that is not in question.

They still have the burden proof it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not sure how any honest person can claim the prosecution did that. People may feel that it was not self-defense, but there is nothing that shows it.

 

[jamny]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

 

[Rayderr]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

They didn't need to, because 99% of people outside of this thread believe, correctly, that there really is no difference between the police and a 911 operator, and that what was said was an instruction.

Ask that 99% (btw, 82% of all statistics are made up) if a 911 operator can arrest them,

 

[Arizona Ron]

Under Florida Law, you can't initiate a confrontation then claim self-defense.

This was over a long time ago, he's going to jail.

You might want to read the Florida Law instead of listening to the media. I would suggest you google it.

Here is one article to start with

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Did you go to Hamline? Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity. This doesn't apply.

What unlawful activity was that? And please link us to your proof that Zimmerman "initiated a confrontation", or any law that uses the words "initiated a confrontation".. You know you have a pretty poor argument when you have to camouflage your wording and pound square pegs in round holes..

How about you start with Florida Statutes 784 instead of a news article.

He got out of his car and pursued Martin even when the police told him not to (we have evidence of that).

He got close enough to touch the kid (we have evidence of that).

We was not acting lawful, he was harassing and stalking the kid.

You are way out of your league here with all of the armchair lawyers that have been going at it for 400+ pages.There is no evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed Martin

He's much less out if his league for arguing with armchair lawyers than you have been for arguing with real lawyers that haven't watched the trial

fixed that for you

some of us, you know, work

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Under Florida Law, you can't initiate a confrontation then claim self-defense.

This was over a long time ago, he's going to jail.

You might want to read the Florida Law instead of listening to the media. I would suggest you google it.

Here is one article to start with

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Did you go to Hamline? Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity. This doesn't apply.

What unlawful activity was that? And please link us to your proof that Zimmerman "initiated a confrontation", or any law that uses the words "initiated a confrontation".. You know you have a pretty poor argument when you have to camouflage your wording and pound square pegs in round holes..

How about you start with Florida Statutes 784 instead of a news article.

He got out of his car and pursued Martin even when the police told him not to (we have evidence of that).

He got close enough to touch the kid (we have evidence of that).

We was not acting lawful, he was harassing and stalking the kid.

You are way out of your league here with all of the armchair lawyers that have been going at it for 400+ pages.There is no evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman stalked Martin

There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed Martin

He's much less out if his league for arguing with armchair lawyers than you have been for arguing with real lawyers that haven't watched the trial

fixed that for you

some of us, you know, work

What kind of lawyer are you?

 

[jon_mx]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

They didn't need to, because 99% of people outside of this thread believe, correctly, that there really is no difference between the police and a 911 operator, and that what was said was an instruction.

It was a police dispatcher. A police officer has the training and authority to give an order. A police dispatcher is prohibited from giving orders. How is that not different. One is a lawful order. One is not. 99% of people are really ####### stupid if your lie of a stat is correct.

 

[timschochet]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

They didn't need to, because 99% of people outside of this thread believe, correctly, that there really is no difference between the police and a 911 operator, and that what was said was an instruction.

It was a police dispatcher. A police officer has the training and authority to give an order. A police dispatcher is prohibited from giving orders. How is that not different. One is a lawful order. One is not. 99% of people are really ####### stupid if your lie of a stat is correct.

Whatever you say. Let's see if the defense offers up this argument.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I think that without the instruction that the aggressor has a duty to retreat and has a higher burden before being able to use deadly force and with the stand your ground language being included, that he walks.

Did I misread the statute posted by Ramsay earlier? How wasn't that language also a part of the instructions?

 

[Arizona Ron]

I always love the "you're not a lawyer" comments. I don't need to be a lawyer to know the law and/or have an opinion on it. Lots of "Internet Lawyers" around here.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

They didn't need to, because 99% of people outside of this thread believe, correctly, that there really is no difference between the police and a 911 operator, and that what was said was an instruction.

Do you mean the Non-Emergency Number dispatcher, Sean Noffke, who said he would not as a call-taker give a direct order to either follow or not follow?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I always love the "you're not a lawyer" comments. I don't need to be a lawyer to know the law and/or have an opinion on it. Lots of "Internet Lawyers" around here.

 

[DaVinci]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

They didn't need to, because 99% of people outside of this thread believe, correctly, that there really is no difference between the police and a 911 operator, and that what was said was an instruction.

"We don't need you to do that" is not an instruction.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Another jab at BDLR and Mr. Guy - MOM: " 'These #######s, they always get away.' I was going to play the tape the way they say it, but I won't because it is irrelevant, it's not evidence, listen to the way Mr. Zimmerman says it on the tape, use your own ears."

 

[timschochet]

I think that without the instruction that the aggressor has a duty to retreat and has a higher burden before being able to use deadly force and with the stand your ground language being included, that he walks.

Did I misread the statute posted by Ramsay earlier? How wasn't that language also a part of the instructions?

You may be right. But I still don't think it will matter. IMO, this case comes down to whether or not the jury believes Zimmermans narrative. If they generally believe him, he will be acquitted. If they don't believe him, then they will overlook reasonable doubt and SYG and convict him of manslaughter.

 

[ATC1]

Under Florida Law, you can't initiate a confrontation then claim self-defense.

This was over a long time ago, he's going to jail.

You might want to read the Florida Law instead of listening to the media. I would suggest you google it.

Here is one article to start with

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Did you go to Hamline? Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity. This doesn't apply.

What unlawful activity was that? And please link us to your proof that Zimmerman "initiated a confrontation", or any law that uses the words "initiated a confrontation".. You know you have a pretty poor argument when you have to camouflage your wording and pound square pegs in round holes..

How about you start with Florida Statutes 784 instead of a news article.

He got out of his car and pursued Martin even when the police told him not to (we have evidence of that).

He got close enough to touch the kid (we have evidence of that).

We was not acting lawful, he was harassing and stalking the kid.

JFC, the Police never told him any such thing. The 911 operator did. 911 operator <> police.

TM runs, The operator asks him what TM is doing, which way he is running and asks for an address. GZ gets out because TM is out of site. We hear wind. Operator - are you following. GZ "yes". Operator - "We don't need you to do that." GZ - "ok" Wind does die down as in his statement he turns and goes back to his car.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

 

[jon_mx]

THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT THE POLICE! IT WASN'T AN ORDER!!

Here's a request- if the defense fails to make either of these completely insipid arguments during the closing today, can we finally eliminate them from our discussion?

Why would they make those "completely insipid arguments"? The prosecution never said that it was the police that told ZImmerman not to follow Trayvon.

They didn't need to, because 99% of people outside of this thread believe, correctly, that there really is no difference between the police and a 911 operator, and that what was said was an instruction.

It was a police dispatcher. A police officer has the training and authority to give an order. A police dispatcher is prohibited from giving orders. How is that not different. One is a lawful order. One is not. 99% of people are really ####### stupid if your lie of a stat is correct.

Whatever you say. Let's see if the defense offers up this argument.

It is not being said in court, so the point doesn't need to be said. But the lie is repeated here on a daily basis.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Jesus, I hate this board software. Post above was cropped.

In other words, if "deadly force" is force "likely to result in death or great bodily harm," then a homicide is only justifiable in self-defense if the defendant had a reasonable belief that the victim was going to use "deadly force" against him.

Now, the defendant can conceivably reasonably believe that even if the victim did not use deadly force against him. But it presents a real challenge.

If George Zimmerman had killed Trayvon Martin by punching him in the nose, I doubt the defense would be arguing that he was justified in using deadly force. I'm sure they would argue that Zimmerman didn't use "deadly force" at all.

 

[jon_mx]

Under Florida Law, you can't initiate a confrontation then claim self-defense.

This was over a long time ago, he's going to jail.

You might want to read the Florida Law instead of listening to the media. I would suggest you google it.

Here is one article to start with

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

Did you go to Hamline? Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity. This doesn't apply.

What unlawful activity was that? And please link us to your proof that Zimmerman "initiated a confrontation", or any law that uses the words "initiated a confrontation".. You know you have a pretty poor argument when you have to camouflage your wording and pound square pegs in round holes..

How about you start with Florida Statutes 784 instead of a news article.

He got out of his car and pursued Martin even when the police told him not to (we have evidence of that).

He got close enough to touch the kid (we have evidence of that).

We was not acting lawful, he was harassing and stalking the kid.

JFC, the Police never told him any such thing. The 911 operator did. 911 operator <> police.

TM runs, The operator asks him what TM is doing, which way he is running and asks for an address. GZ gets out because TM is out of site. We hear wind. Operator - are you following. GZ "yes". Operator - "We don't need you to do that." GZ - "ok" Wind does die down as in his statement he turns and goes back to his car.

That shows Zimmerman stopped the pursuit and let Martin get away. Then after talking to the operator some more Zimmerman was asked for the address, and he went to find it. What is so difficult.

 

[jamny]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

 

[jon_mx]

I think that without the instruction that the aggressor has a duty to retreat and has a higher burden before being able to use deadly force and with the stand your ground language being included, that he walks.

Did I misread the statute posted by Ramsay earlier? How wasn't that language also a part of the instructions?

You may be right. But I still don't think it will matter.IMO, this case comes down to whether or not the jury believes Zimmermans narrative. If they generally believe him, he will be acquitted. If they don't believe him, then they will overlook reasonable doubt and SYG and convict him of manslaughter.

You can't just overlook reasonable doubt and convict someone. I mean a jury can conceivably do it, but it would be ignoring the law.

 

[The Commish]

Do any of us really know what's going on in the heads of 6 women?

#### no!!!!!! This whole discussion is laughable.

 

[The Commish]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

 

[jon_mx]

Do any of us really know what's going on in the heads of 6 women?

#### no!!!!!! This whole discussion is laughable.

No, but we can bet on it. I don't believe any gun-owning self-defense conscious woman would convict Zimmerman. Worst case for Zimmerman is a hung jury. Any takers for $100?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. When I've done mock trial exercises, I'm always terribly depressed when I watch the jury deliberations.

 

[jamny]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

Doesn't the deadly force in that section apply to the force GZ did to TM?

 

[jon_mx]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

I am not following your reasoning for removing the fear of great bodily harm from the equation.

 

[Rayderr]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

the anti-Zimmerman crowd was going with "There's no black people on the jury!" before the trial even started in case they found him innocent.

 

[The Commish]

jon putting on an irony clinic

So are we back to trying to suggest this is a SYG case again?!?!?!?! I didn't read who made the comment, so if it's Jo Jo, forgive me...we can move on.

 

[jon_mx]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

the anti-Zimmerman crowd was going with "There's no black people on the jury!" before the trial even started in case they found him innocent.

That is actually a huge win for the defense. There was a CNN jury panel of about 14 people with about half of them blacks. The panel was split about 9-5 for a guilty verdict, with all 7 of the blacks voting to convict. Just a small sample size, but finding a black person who would find Zimmerman not guilty would be a long shot.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

what's with the moment of silence? has to be some lawyer trick, right?

 

[Arizona Ron]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

the anti-Zimmerman crowd was going with "There's no black people on the jury!" before the trial even started in case they found him innocent.

I'm actually glad there are no black people on the Jury. Less likely for it to turn even more of a racial issue when he's convicted in the next few days.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So who wants to guess that defenses sidebar this morning was warning the judge and prosecutors that'd he'd be taking a 5min break but not really, so don't interrupt it?