Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

[Swing 51]

Haven't been following closely. Is Zim's defense based on Stand Your Ground law? I thought his lawyers decided against using that as a defense?

 

[The Commish]

DEFENSE SIDEBAR IN THE MIDDLE OF CLOSING!@@@@@@@@#!@!$#!@~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that was strange

clear bias

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Anyone opined yet that Martin's folks may want a not-guilty verdict here? Generally people cannot profit off of their crime, so there would be little to no assets to go after in a civil case. Not guilty gets him doing a round of talk shows and a much better chance of significant assets for a civil case.

They already got their millions off of suing the apartment complex and selling Trayvon T-shirts. They're set for life.

How was the Apt. complex responsible and how much did they win?

I've only heard it was for over a million, I believe the terms are under NDA so you won't find out the details unless it is released.It was discussed earlier that since this was a private complex they had the right to refuse Sanford police from performing regular patrols, so not sure if that was a factor.

 

[The Commish]

Haven't been following closely. Is Zim's defense based on Stand Your Ground law? I thought his lawyers decided against using that as a defense?

It's a self defense case

 

[Joe McGee]

Good really needs to stop saying hate in his heart. Murder 2 is out. Let it go - it just makes you look less credible.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Question for the trial lawyers:

Closing arguments: prosecution goes first, then defense, prosecution gets a rebuttal. First of all, is this standard for all criminal trials? If so, why? It certainly seems to favor the prosecution in general. What is the thinking behind this?

This has been explained in this thread. The prosecution must bear the burden of proof, so they get the last word.

But then why not give the defense the first shot, then have the prosecution go, rather than allowing the prosecution to speak twice?

That would give the defense a chance to respond to the State's argument and the State no chance to respond to the defense's argument.

This is how just about all legal process works. Look at a witness examination. The party offering the witness presents the testimony, the opposing party crosses, and the presenting party gets rebuttal to address the cross.

In civil practice if I make a motion, the non-moving party gets an opposition, and I then get a reply to address the points raised in the opposition.

The party that is "asking for something" (a ruling on evidence, a judgment, a conviction) always bears the burden of persuasion and always gets a chance to address the opposition argument last.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

DEFENSE SIDEBAR IN THE MIDDLE OF CLOSING!@@@@@@@@#!@!$#!@~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that was strange

clear bias

It also wasn't Don West.

 

[Joe McGee]

Anyone opined yet that Martin's folks may want a not-guilty verdict here? Generally people cannot profit off of their crime, so there would be little to no assets to go after in a civil case. Not guilty gets him doing a round of talk shows and a much better chance of significant assets for a civil case.

They already got their millions off of suing the apartment complex and selling Trayvon T-shirts. They're set for life.

How was the Apt. complex responsible and how much did they win?

I've only heard it was for over a million, I believe the terms are under NDA so you won't find out the details unless it is released.It was discussed earlier that since this was a private complex they had the right to refuse Sanford police from performing regular patrols, so not sure if that was a factor.

The parents turned down a $1 million offer to settle. That's why it is speculated to be more than $1 million.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Well thats that.....wait n see now

 

[timschochet]

Question for the trial lawyers:

Closing arguments: prosecution goes first, then defense, prosecution gets a rebuttal. First of all, is this standard for all criminal trials? If so, why? It certainly seems to favor the prosecution in general. What is the thinking behind this?

This has been explained in this thread. The prosecution must bear the burden of proof, so they get the last word.

But then why not give the defense the first shot, then have the prosecution go, rather than allowing the prosecution to speak twice?

That would give the defense a chance to respond to the State's argument and the State no chance to respond to the defense's argument.

This is how just about all legal process works. Look at a witness examination. The party offering the witness presents the testimony, the opposing party crosses, and the presenting party gets rebuttal to address the cross.

In civil practice if I make a motion, the non-moving party gets an opposition, and I then get a reply to address the points raised in the opposition.

The party that is "asking for something" (a ruling on evidence, a judgment, a conviction) always bears the burden of persuasion and always gets a chance to address the opposition argument last.

Thank you.

 

[Zow]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

Eh, I take this as legal strategy by the defense attorney to cover all potential angles to hammer home that legally the defendant is not guilty. This is often done when the defendant's credibility may be at issue, yet there's still a good defense to the state's case in chief. Lines like "even if you do decide that the [defendant's] story is entirely believable and you lean more towards believing the state witnesses, you still should find [defendant] not guilty because...."

It's essentially hedging your bets and I like to do it with juries to show that I'm not some paid mouthpiece who is forcefeeding them some trumped up story and instead can sympathize with factual discrepancies and objectively analyze the case. If I have picked the right jury for this strategy, it usually works well - especially in like DUI cases.

That makes sense.

And without watching a minute of the trial. I must be a magician!

 

[timschochet]

Six angry women?

 

[Jackstraw]

I just feel sorry for Zimmerman. He has been the true victim in all of this.

http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-msnbc-is-trayvon-martins-dead-body-753370712

Our gun laws are a joke. Doubtless Zimm gets off to hunt again. It's a travesty that what went down that night is legal.

Get a gun. Mess with someone till they retaliate. Blow them away. Tell everyone how scared you were. Wash rinse repeat. Legal Shmegal.

I wish I could say I was surprised but nothing surprises me any more in this insane country.

Despicable link. Way to prostitute the kid's body in the name of page views.

Yes lets get back to the real point of the whole story. What was it again? Oh yeah we can kill people and its totally cool because freedom. Certainly not a dead 17 year old kid.

 

[jamny]

Six angry women?

I was thinking that this morning.

 

[tdoss]

So prosecution is going with "Won't somebody please think of the children"?

Yeah, the whole "child" thing is pretty ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. My oldest daughter is 13. 4 years from now, she will still be a child. You have a son- will you regard him as an adult at age 17?

My son is 17...I have been telling him more times than not that he is no longer a child.

 

[GroveDiesel]

FWIW, one of the interesting things to me was that the state presented 5 phone calls Zimmerman had made previously to try to paint him as a racist profiler. But it turns out that 2 of those calls were just to report that he saw a suspect that someone else had described previously as being black. And it turned out that the young black male was indeed responsible and eventually caught. And that there's a good chance that Zimmerman's second phone call may have lead police to the latent fingerprint that helped catch the kid.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Well thats that.....wait n see now

BS...now the speculation/spin really starts!

 

[CrossEyed]

So prosecution is going with "Won't somebody please think of the children"?

Yeah, the whole "child" thing is pretty ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. My oldest daughter is 13. 4 years from now, she will still be a child. You have a son- will you regard him as an adult at age 17?

There are more than two phases (adult and child) of human development. A 17 year old is not a child.

 

[Joe McGee]

Very interesting blog post from a lefty legal analyst:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter

How offensive that the Martin family lawyer is now coming out and saying it doesn't matter who is screaming on the tape. What a snake.

 

[CrossEyed]

Very interesting blog post from a lefty legal analyst:http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter

How offensive that the Martin family lawyer is now coming out and saying it doesn't matter who is screaming on the tape. What a snake.

Redundant.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Was there any mention to the jury by the defense on the introduction of the lessor charge of manslaughter and more support of lack of evidence?

 

[3C's]

Something about this thread reminds me of all of the election threads prior to November 6th.

Are you predicting a conviction?

Better yet, has Nate Silver made a prediction. Guy is money.

 

[17seconds]

Good really needs to stop saying hate in his heart. Murder 2 is out. Let it go - it just makes you look less credible.

They are hoping for a compromised verdict. Ask for too much, empower the jury to make their own decision that it's a lesser charge.

I thought his closing was good. Started out a bit over dramatic with the whole "what's in your heart?" thing, but he is talking to a group of mothers so I can't fault him for that.

 

[financewonk]

So prosecution is going with "Won't somebody please think of the children"?

Yeah, the whole "child" thing is pretty ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. My oldest daughter is 13. 4 years from now, she will still be a child. You have a son- will you regard him as an adult at age 17?

There are more than two phases (adult and child) of human development. A 17 year old is not a child.

A legal analyst for CNN pointed this out last night: It wasn't long ago that a Florida teen could be tried as an adult, and was eligible for the death penalty. Now they are considered to be children.

 

[3C's]

These lady lawyers on CNN are nice to look at.

 

[17seconds]

So is the general consensus here that Zimmerman is going to be found guilty or not? I want to know if I need to take my little brother in at my house for a few days if he's found not guilty and the riots start.

I'd give it a 5% chance of being convicted of murder 2

and a 25% chance of being convicted of manslaughter

it's only that high because I'm thinking back to the wacky juries of the past. anything is possible

and since I'm throwing out percentages... Personally I'm about 60% certain he actually committed manslaughter after following this whole thing. If I were on the jury I'd say not guilty on everything because of reasonable doubt and the inability of the prosecution to prove anything happened other than GZ's account.

Now I'm 5% murder 2, 40% manslaughter

Not due to the closing argument - I was thinking this last night.

 

[kentric]

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 best stick with the loan business Ron. You're realy striking out on this one. I do agree with "He got close enough to touch the kid" The evidence of that is TM punching Z in the nose.

 

[timschochet]

Here are my predictions, set firmly down so that you guys can make fun of me when I am wrong on all counts:

1. The jury will deliberate until Tuesday. On Tuesday late afternoon, they will come back into the courtroom and find George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges. When asked to explain, they will say that they suspect he was lying, but that they could not fully eliminate reasonable doubt.

2. The verdict will spark anger, especially among African-Americans. There will be peaceful protests, and a few acts of violence. There will be no widespread riots. However, Fox News will play up the violent acts.

3. George Zimmerman will disappear into obscurity. No talk shows, no books, no speaking engagements. He will simply vanish from public view.

 

[Zow]

DEFENSE SIDEBAR IN THE MIDDLE OF CLOSING!@@@@@@@@#!@!$#!@~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

okay, that's strange

 

[Zow]

So prosecution is going with "Won't somebody please think of the children"?

Yeah, the whole "child" thing is pretty ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. My oldest daughter is 13. 4 years from now, she will still be a child. You have a son- will you regard him as an adult at age 17?

There are more than two phases (adult and child) of human development. A 17 year old is not a child.

A legal analyst for CNN pointed this out last night: It wasn't long ago that a Florida teen could be tried as an adult, and was eligible for the death penalty. Now they are considered to be children.

Two separate issues and the majority of time a 17 year old would be in juvenile court. The analyst's point is completely misleading.

 

[Slapdash]

Something about this thread reminds me of all of the election threads prior to November 6th.

Are you predicting a conviction?

IDK, I have mostly been following this thread for the lulz.

I certainly don't think it is such a shut case as many here do. Just interesting that many of these people were all over the election threads talking about Romney as a sure thing.

Translation: I'm just here to keep my notebook updated for future threads so I can reference this thread.

Same as day one, guy.

 

[17seconds]

Do juries deliberate through the weekend usually?

If so I don't think it will go until Tuesday. I have a feeling this jury wants to get through deliberations quickly and it doesn't require that much deliberation. Maybe a day or 2 only because... it's 6 women. There's no way 6 women come in an out of there in a matter of a couple hours.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

1. The jury will deliberate until Tuesday. On Tuesday late afternoon, they will come back into the courtroom and find George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges.

I'll take the under.

How late can they return tonight?

Can they return on a Saturday or even a Sunday?

Depend on answers to the above questions, I'd say 75% chance they come back today (assuming there is not a hard cutoff like 5PM but later say like 9-10PM), or 25% Monday (assuming they cannot return on Saturday or Sunday).

 

[phishphan]

Here are my predictions, set firmly down so that you guys can make fun of me when I am wrong on all counts:

1. The jury will deliberate until Tuesday. On Tuesday late afternoon, they will come back into the courtroom and find George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges. When asked to explain, they will say that they suspect he was lying, but that they could not fully eliminate reasonable doubt.

2. The verdict will spark anger, especially among African-Americans. There will be peaceful protests, and a few acts of violence. There will be no widespread riots. However, Fox News will play up the violent acts.

3. George Zimmerman will disappear into obscurity. No talk shows, no books, no speaking engagements. He will simply vanish from public view.

so we'll get the verdict today, there will be mass pandemonium, and Zimmerman is the next American Idol. Got it.

 

[Joe McGee]

Here are my predictions, set firmly down so that you guys can make fun of me when I am wrong on all counts:

1. The jury will deliberate until Tuesday. On Tuesday late afternoon, they will come back into the courtroom and find George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges. When asked to explain, they will say that they suspect he was lying, but that they could not fully eliminate reasonable doubt.

2. The verdict will spark anger, especially among African-Americans. There will be peaceful protests, and a few acts of violence. There will be no widespread riots. However, Fox News will play up the violent acts.

3. George Zimmerman will disappear into obscurity. No talk shows, no books, no speaking engagements. He will simply vanish from public view.

Serious questions -

1. What planet do you live on?

or

2. What do you smoke?

 

[GroveDiesel]

The truth is that this only became the story it became because of the false narrative pushed by the Martins' lawyers and the media. It's really a run of the mill tragedy where we'll never truly know how things played out that night. But I don't think there's any evidence that Zimmerman is racist. I don't think that not charging him was a travesty of justice as the state's case seems really weak. And Martin certainly isn't the purely innocent kid he was initially portrayed as.

Does that mean Martin deserved to die or that it's not possible that Zimmerman went too far? Certainly not. Both Martin and Zimmerman clearly made bad decisions that night that ended in tragedy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

They get back from lunch at 2. The judge will take a half hour reading the instructions. They get into deliberations by 2:45, 3:00 to be safe. My bet:

They are done by 4:30 today. Not guilty on all charges that matter. The state's case really boils down to this - a 17 year old boy is dead. Someone should pay. And while we have nothing that makes this clear cut for you, the guy in that chair is the one that pulled the trigger, and let's be honest - he clearly did something wrong.

At least, that's how it has felt since the very beginning and that didn't change. And that shouldn't be enough to convict him of anything.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The truth is that this only became the story it became because of the false narrative pushed by the Martins' lawyers and the media. It's really a run of the mill tragedy where we'll never truly know how things played out that night. But I don't think there's any evidence that Zimmerman is racist. I don't think that not charging him was a travesty of justice as the state's case seems really weak. And Martin certainly isn't the purely innocent kid he was initially portrayed as.

Does that mean Martin deserved to die or that it's not possible that Zimmerman went too far? Certainly not. Both Martin and Zimmerman clearly made bad decisions that night that ended in tragedy.

I think it's more about how it was initially reported, how the Sanford Police had a bit of a bad history, and that there was a dead kid with no arrest made for some time. If the media doesn't pounce so fast, it's a different police department, and there was an arrest initially made then I don't think the media continues to inundate us for so long, which built up the trial.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There's literally no verdict here that will surprise me. Look at folks on this board -- interpretations of the facts/law are all over the place even among the people who don't have a strong personal feeling. No particular reason to think the jurors are any different.

 

[tdoss]

I've got a few questions:

1 - Why are they able to do the lesser charge thing? I plead in regards to my charge. How are they able to include charges after I plead? Shouldn't I be able to plead and defend specifically in regards to any charges brought against me?

2 - if you can go for the homeruns (murder 2) and fall back on the doubles (manslaughter)...why doesn't everyone do that? Go for broke and then add everything under the sun after the fact?

3 - I may have missed it but were there transcripts of any of the 911 calls made that night? You've got witnesses saying they called 911...what was said? (i.e. - there's a black guy beating up an Hispanic guy or there's an Hispanic guy beating up a black guy's knuckles with his face, screaming for help like a banshee)

 

[Zow]

1. The jury will deliberate until Tuesday. On Tuesday late afternoon, they will come back into the courtroom and find George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges.

I'll take the under.

How late can they return tonight?

Can they return on a Saturday or even a Sunday?

Depend on answers to the above questions, I'd say 75% chance they come back today (assuming there is not a hard cutoff like 5PM but later say like 9-10PM), or 25% Monday (assuming they cannot return on Saturday or Sunday).

The jury can only deliberate while the court is present in case there is any jury questions. So, the schedule of the jury is really up to the judge, and I doubt a judge will want to or have enough security to sit over the weekend. I'd expect deliberations during normal business hours. I'd bet on a Tuesday afternoon verdict, with some jury questions mixed in.

 

[Zow]

I've got a few questions:

1 - Why are they able to do the lesser charge thing? I plead in regards to my charge. How are they able to include charges after I plead? Shouldn't I be able to plead and defend specifically in regards to any charges brought against me?

2 - if you can go for the homeruns (murder 2) and fall back on the doubles (manslaughter)...why doesn't everyone do that? Go for broke and then add everything under the sun after the fact?

3 - I may have missed it but were there transcripts of any of the 911 calls made that night? You've got witnesses saying they called 911...what was said? (i.e. - there's a black guy beating up an Hispanic guy or there's an Hispanic guy beating up a black guy's knuckles with his face, screaming for help like a banshee)

1. I've answered this like 3 or 4 times. Review pages in the 420s. Basically they can add lesser included charges because the elements of those charges are already included in the higher charges so notice has been made.

2. Because you don't want to give the jury the chance for a compromised verdict. If you think the guy is murdering scum, go for that. Don't let give the defense a chance to argue for a lesser charge.

3. I haven't watched the trial, so apparently I don't know anything.

 

[jon_mx]

Here are my predictions, set firmly down so that you guys can make fun of me when I am wrong on all counts:

1. The jury will deliberate until Tuesday. On Tuesday late afternoon, they will come back into the courtroom and find George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges. When asked to explain, they will say that they suspect he was lying, but that they could not fully eliminate reasonable doubt.

2. The verdict will spark anger, especially among African-Americans. There will be peaceful protests, and a few acts of violence. There will be no widespread riots. However, Fox News will play up the violent acts.

3. George Zimmerman will disappear into obscurity. No talk shows, no books, no speaking engagements. He will simply vanish from public view.

Tim you are so wrong. Zimmerman will be the star on his own MTV reality show. Or maybe porn.

 

[Zow]

They get back from lunch at 2. The judge will take a half hour reading the instructions. They get into deliberations by 2:45, 3:00 to be safe. My bet:

They are done by 4:30 today.

Half hour is pretty damn quick for jury instructions. Frankly, I'd be surprised if they even start actual deliberations today. Then, 1.5 hours is incredibly quick for a felony decision, especially here after 45 days of trial or whatever it has been. I think the jury will hold off on any substantive discussions until Monday, then deliberate for a couple of days.

But again, I haven't watched the trial so I don't know anything.

 

[Johnny Bing]

The truth is that this only became the story it became because of the false narrative pushed by the Martins' lawyers and the media. It's really a run of the mill tragedy where we'll never truly know how things played out that night. But I don't think there's any evidence that Zimmerman is racist. I don't think that not charging him was a travesty of justice as the state's case seems really weak. And Martin certainly isn't the purely innocent kid he was initially portrayed as.

Does that mean Martin deserved to die or that it's not possible that Zimmerman went too far? Certainly not. Both Martin and Zimmerman clearly made bad decisions that night that ended in tragedy.

I think it's more about how it was initially reported, how the Sanford Police had a bit of a bad history, and that there was a dead kid with no arrest made for some time. If the media doesn't pounce so fast, it's a different police department, and there was an arrest initially made then I don't think the media continues to inundate us for so long, which built up the trial.

I agree. The three main ingredients that made this larger than what it should have been.

1) Delay in the arrest which resulted in the media circus

2) 17 year old boy

3) Victim and the shooter were of different race

 

[jamny]

There's literally no verdict here that will surprise me. Look at folks on this board -- interpretations of the facts/law are all over the place even among the people who don't have a strong personal feeling. No particular reason to think the jurors are any different.

Possibly but I think the people that believe this is a slam dunk guilty are the ones that haven't followed closely. Most of the anti-Zimmerman people here that have followed along seem to think he will walk even if they don't agree with it.

 

[financewonk]

So prosecution is going with "Won't somebody please think of the children"?

Yeah, the whole "child" thing is pretty ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. My oldest daughter is 13. 4 years from now, she will still be a child. You have a son- will you regard him as an adult at age 17?

There are more than two phases (adult and child) of human development. A 17 year old is not a child.

A legal analyst for CNN pointed this out last night: It wasn't long ago that a Florida teen could be tried as an adult, and was eligible for the death penalty. Now they are considered to be children.

Two separate issues and the majority of time a 17 year old would be in juvenile court. The analyst's point is completely misleading.

I think you're misinterpreting his statement. He was making a general comment on how the criminal system views teenagers, and pointing out what he believes to be hypocrisy; namely, that teenagers are portrayed as being blameless due to youthful ignorance, and also as hardened criminals that should be put to death.

 

[ArbyMelt]

I read somewhere they are prepared for weekend deliberations. This Judge really likes to keep things moving and not make the jury wait. I think she will let them deliberate over the weekend since they have been sequestered this long. Thats if they don't reach a decision today (and I assume if they are close, she will let them go into the evening. But really I have no idea, just guessing.

 

[TPW]

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Video-Stream-590-LI.jpg

 

[Zow]

So prosecution is going with "Won't somebody please think of the children"?

Yeah, the whole "child" thing is pretty ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. My oldest daughter is 13. 4 years from now, she will still be a child. You have a son- will you regard him as an adult at age 17?

There are more than two phases (adult and child) of human development. A 17 year old is not a child.

A legal analyst for CNN pointed this out last night: It wasn't long ago that a Florida teen could be tried as an adult, and was eligible for the death penalty. Now they are considered to be children.

Two separate issues and the majority of time a 17 year old would be in juvenile court. The analyst's point is completely misleading.

I think you're misinterpreting his statement. He was making a general comment on how the criminal system views teenagers, and pointing out what he believes to be hypocrisy; namely, that teenagers are portrayed as being blameless due to youthful ignorance, and also as hardened criminals that should be put to death.

I'm not.