# In which Stoid (The Prosecutor) Cross-examines Bricker (George Zimmerman) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 22, 2012, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561 "2012-04-22T05:35:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/361 "2012-05-10T02:41:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The defense attorney proves his point-- which was that there is nothing inherently contradictory or incredible about Zimmerman’s story as we know it today. You may not believe it, but it is not flatly proven false by the evidence the public has thus far seen. I presume you are using “you” in a general term. I haven’t believed that the State would have an easy case, especially in Florida with its SYG law. My question is what would happen if a prosecutor were to walk out mid-trial and the State failed to send another prosecutor. Does the judge declare a mistrial? Dismiss the charges? Allow the defense to rest its case and give a closing statement without the prosecutor giving one? Turn the defendant over the the lynch mob waiting outside? I can’t see this happening in real life, or has it ever (in history)? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/362 "2012-05-10T03:14:48Z")
> [@TokyoPlayer](#): > > I presume you are using “you” in a general term. I haven’t believed that the State would have an easy case, especially in Florida with its SYG law. > > My question is what would happen if a prosecutor were to walk out mid-trial and the State failed to send another prosecutor. > > Does the judge declare a mistrial? Dismiss the charges? Allow the defense to rest its case and give a closing statement without the prosecutor giving one? Turn the defendant over the the lynch mob waiting outside? > > I can’t see this happening in real life, or has it ever (in history)? They must have a procedure for if the prosecutor dies or becomes very ill mid-trial. They’d do the same thing if the prosecutor left. Big trials like this would have a main prosecutor and an assistant or two. My guess is that the assistant would take over. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/363 "2012-05-10T04:29:18Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > They must have a procedure for if the prosecutor dies or becomes very ill mid-trial. They’d do the same thing if the prosecutor left. > > Big trials like this would have a main prosecutor and an assistant or two. My guess is that the assistant would take over. No, I’m not asking what would happend if the state supplies an replacement. My question is what would happen if the state didn’t send in the B team. I’m sure that it is very unlikely to occur in real life, but if it were to happen, what would the judge do? Here, we’ve got the prosecutor AWOL, and the state hasn’t replaced her. Although this is extermely unlikely to occur in the real world, what would happen if it did? ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/364 "2012-05-10T05:43:16Z")
IANAL, but I imagine it would depend on the circumstances. Is the prosecutor _missing_? Is the prosecutor sitting at home refusing to answer the door? What is the DA’s office saying? Are they refusing to pick up the phone? What happens when you send someone over? What is the governor’s office saying? Has a legislative committee been convened to determine why the DA and the governor are conspiring to stonewall the court? A prosecutor doesn’t just _not show up_ without _someone_ doing _something_. Ultimately someone will be responsible for answering the courts questions and determining whether the state wishes to drop the charges or not, and if that person fails to answer, I’d imagine he or she could (and would) be held in contempt and possibly jailed until some sort of answer is forthcoming. Meanwhile, I’m sure the defense would have moved for a mistrial, but if there is the possibility that, say, the entire state bureaucracy has been shut down due a plague, or that terrorists are holding the governor hostage, I’d imagine the court would want to find that out before ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/365 "2012-05-10T10:01:48Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > That’s not what I was asking. Obviously you will eventually stop asking questions. I’m just wondering if you will explicitly say so when you do. i.e. whether you will say something like “I have no further questions.” That had been the plan, along with a summation. But I was hoping for a little more data to trickle out first. In the meanwhile, I am surprised that anyone is remotely concerned with what I’m doing, since the only thing anyone has had to say, with just a couple of exceptions, has been dismissive, derisive, intrustive, impatient, and obviously not at all interested in the process. Which has largely succeeded in sucking all the fun out of making the effort. But officially: the prosecution has asked for and been granted a break in the trial because from this point forward the data examination is a little intense and time suckish. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/366 "2012-05-10T13:20:27Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > In the meanwhile, I am surprised that anyone is remotely concerned with what I’m doing, since the only thing anyone has had to say, with just a couple of exceptions, has been dismissive, derisive, intrustive, impatient, and obviously not at all interested in the process. Which has largely succeeded in sucking all the fun out of making the effort. Thinking you’ve looked rather silly and wanting you to keep going are not mutually exclusive ideas. Are you going to commit to coming back and revisiting the thread at some point, or are you just hoping it goes away? If you’ve decided that the case isn’t as open-and-shut as you once thought, you’d be much better off by just saying so and admitting you were wrong. Otherwise, people are going to keep bumping this thread and asking if you have more data yet. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/367 "2012-05-10T14:29:16Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Thinking you’ve looked rather silly and wanting you to keep going are not mutually exclusive ideas. Of course they aren’t, quite the opposite in fact. > [@](#): > > Are you going to commit to coming back and revisiting the thread at some point, I already did. > [@](#): > > If you’ve decided that the case isn’t as open-and-shut as you once thought, I never thought it was open & shut. I thought, and think, that George Zimmerman is lying. His story is bullshit, although Bricker’s done a better job than he probably will of trying hard to make it not seem so. > [@](#): > > Otherwise, people are going to keep bumping this thread and asking if you have more data yet. Which they are certainly entitled to do if it pleases them. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/368 "2012-05-10T17:08:23Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > That had been the plan, along with a summation. But I was hoping for a little more data to trickle out first. I don’t think that’s very fair. Surely **Bricker** ’s claim about Zimmerman’s story was based on the information available at the time of the challenge. And similarly, unless you are claiming to be psychic, your claim that Zimmerman’s story doesn’t add up was based on information available at the time of the challenge. Looks to me like you are trying to change the rules of the game after realizing that you are losing. Seems to me you should just admit that there is not enough evidence at this time to reasonably conclude that Zimmerman is lying. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/369 "2012-05-10T17:11:34Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I thought, and think, that George Zimmerman is lying. His story is bullshit, Seems to me your claim is stronger than that. Your claim is (or was) that Zimmerman’s story is bullshit AND that you can (and will) demonstrate it. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/370 "2012-05-10T17:11:57Z")
I gotta call goal post moving too. From the OP: > [@Stoid](#): > > But if you think there’s a genuine possibility that it really was Zimmerman, I urge you to take a crack at the prosecution questioning Zimmerman as I did above, show us how Zimmerman answers those questions, how the idea of him screaming for help when he had a gun in his hand makes sense. Please. It looks like, as far as the original challenge is concerned, that we’re done here. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/371 "2012-05-10T17:34:34Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > It looks like, as far as the original challenge is concerned, that we’re done here. I agree. If more evidence comes out, and that evidence inculpates Zimmerman, **Bricker** will probably agree that Zimmerman is lying without the need for a mock trial. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/372 "2012-05-10T19:21:04Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t think that’s very fair. Surely **Bricker** ’s claim about Zimmerman’s story was based on the information available at the time of the challenge. > > And similarly, unless you are claiming to be psychic, your claim that Zimmerman’s story doesn’t add up was based on information available at the time of the challenge. > > Looks to me like you are trying to change the rules of the game after realizing that you are losing. > > Seems to me you should just admit that there is not enough evidence at this time to reasonably conclude that Zimmerman is lying. This post sums up my take on this thread, and this case. Although I believe that Zimmerman is more likely than Martin to have initiated the violence by trying to unlawfully restrain Martin, having known many (and once having _been_ one) 17 YO males, I can easily conceive of several scenarios (that are reasonably likely) which would have made Martin the aggressor, and thus make Zimmerman factually innocent. That equals reasonable doubt, and our justice system would therefore _require_ aquittal, if _I_ were a juror presented with the current evidence, _despite_ my belief in Zimmerman’s guilt. IMO, this and the other threads I’ve read are examples of lynch mob justice, i.e. demands for Zimmerman’s head, solely based on the fact that the mob members _feel bad about_ a kid dying in such a stupid, tragic manner, and they want _somebody_ (i.e. Zimmerman) to _pay_ for that. I feel bad about that, too, but Zimmerman _should_ be made to pay, if, _and only if_, it can be proven _beyond a reasonable doubt_, that Martin didn’t contribute his own culpable level of stupidity to the tragedy. I’m not convinced that Martin didn’t, and until I am, I can’t support hanging Zimmerman for Martin’s death. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/373 "2012-05-10T19:34:46Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > IMO, this and the other threads I’ve read are examples of lynch mob justice, i.e. demands for Zimmerman’s head, solely based on the fact that the mob members _feel bad about_ a kid dying in such a stupid, tragic manner, and they want _somebody_ (i.e. Zimmerman) to _pay_ for that. I feel bad about that, too, but Zimmerman _should_ be made to pay, if, _and only if_, it can be proven _beyond a reasonable doubt_, that Martin didn’t contribute his own culpable level of stupidity to the tragedy. I agree with everything you said, but feel obliged to add that Zimmerman may be required to pay for Martin’s death in a strictly literal sense, should the family file a wrongful death suit. In civil cases, the standard isn’t reasonable doubt but preponderance of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/374 "2012-05-10T19:54:19Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > I agree with everything you said, but feel obliged to add that Zimmerman may be required to pay for Martin’s death in a strictly literal sense, should the family file a wrongful death suit. In civil cases, the standard isn’t reasonable doubt but preponderance of the evidence. I direct your attention to FSA § 776.032, “Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.” Florida law provides immunity from civil suit when the use of force is justified, and the level of proof there is probable cause. If the family files a wrong death action and Zimmerman is entitled to the relief contemplaed by this section, not only is he immune from suit, but: “The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).” ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/375 "2012-05-10T20:17:12Z")
Probable cause? If there is _probable cause_ to believe that Zimmerman’s use of force was justified, then even if the preponderance of evidence shows that Zimmerman was unjustified (and even if he were shown to have committed first degree murder!) then not only would he be not guilty of criminal charges (which I understand and agree with), and not only would he be immune from arrest and prosecution in the first place (which I understand and strongly disagree with), but he would actually be _entitled to compensation from the family of his victim if they tried to file suit_??? That is _seriously_ fucked up. Is there _any_ Constitutional element (either state or federal) or any federal law that might with any plausibility be seen by a court to invalidate the Florida statute? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/376 "2012-05-10T20:41:22Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Probable cause? If there is _probable cause_ to believe that Zimmerman’s use of force was justified, then even if the preponderance of evidence shows that Zimmerman was unjustified (and even if he were shown to have committed first degree murder!) then not only would he be not guilty of criminal charges (which I understand and agree with), and not only would he be immune from arrest and prosecution in the first place (which I understand and strongly disagree with), but he would actually be _entitled to compensation from the family of his victim if they tried to file suit_??? That is _seriously_ fucked up. Is there _any_ Constitutional element (either state or federal) or any federal law that might with any plausibility be seen by a court to invalidate the Florida statute? I can’t think of any. States generally have plenary authority to regulate the tort claims in that state. No one can be said, as far as I know, to have a constitutional right to a wrongful death suit. But this is not really my area of the law, and I’d welcome insight from someone who works with civil claims. It should be pretty clear by now that this law has some unintended consequences, and needs to be re-framed. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/377 "2012-05-10T21:31:11Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > It looks like, as far as the original challenge is concerned, that we’re done here. When we’ve done the screaming part, along with the rest. But the screaming part is critical: it’s the steamiest of all the horseshit. > [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > _ **this** _ and the other threads I’ve read are examples of lynch mob justice, i.e. demands for Zimmerman’s head, Really? Care to quote some of this lynch mob mentality in this thread? The news hasn’t said anything about the possible preliminary hearing on the self-defense claim, has anyone else heard anything? Everything I’ve read lately is talking like it’s going to go straight to trial? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/378 "2012-05-10T21:59:00Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > When we’ve done the screaming part, along with the rest. But the screaming part is critical: Either you need more information to complete your demonstration or you don’t. If you don’t need more information, then you should finish up with your questioning. If you do need more information, you should admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/379 "2012-05-10T22:13:31Z")
Come on **Stoid**. There’s been some fun at your expense, but there’s also been honest criticism. I certainly haven’t been dismissive or derisive, and I have been interested in the process. But quite honestly, I find myself in the same situation as **Left Hand of Dorkness** in being _less_ convinced of Zimmerman’s guilt than I was before this started. So in that respect, I think it’s fair to say that you’ve failed in achieving your goal so far. There’s no shame in trying and failing, but around here, there’s plenty of mockery! It’s the internet, what did you expect? Anyway, while there’s no shame in failing, there is shame in failing to concede when you’ve lost. You set this up as a public debate, and so ultimately, I think you have to accept the judgment of the public in this thread. You don’t have to _agree_ with it, and you can make a case for why the public is wrong, but you can’t act as though we’re invading your thread when we give you our judgment, and it would be dishonorable to say that because the jury hasn’t been swayed by your case that the whole thing is just called off. If you have more to say, then you should say it or at least tell us when you have time to say it. You started this thread, and you should let us know what we can expect and when you are done making your case. If you just yell at us for being insufficiently reverent or sneak away and hope the thread drops off the page, people will make reasonable (and in some cases unreasonable, but you can’t help that) inferences about your character and integrity in pursuing this. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/380 "2012-05-10T23:25:03Z")
> [@](#): > > you have more to say, then you should say it or at least tell us when you have time to say it. I shall. > [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > but around here, there’s plenty of mockery! It’s the internet, what did you expect? I don’t generally participate in the culture of mockery, and while experience has certainly modified my expectations, hope shall always spring eternal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561.md?page=20)