# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 87
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1721 "2013-07-12T16:30:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …It’s true that 776.032 provides immunity from civil suit, but to gain that immunity, the burden of proof rests with the person claiming the immunity:… > > …Obviously the trial does not answer that question… > > …As an aside: another reason this “stand your ground” law is deeply flawed is that it takes away my right to sue someone for an unlawful death. If the prosecution is incompetent, then a Stand-Your-Ground hearing may conclude with a win for the shooter, leaving me with no day in court and no opportunity to prove my case; I’m not a party to the SYG hearing. Thanks for the explanation, **Bricker**. Does FL allow an immunity hearing to be held post-verdict? And piling onto your point about allowing civil immunity in the first place, another reason for not allowing civil immunity to be settled in a hearing like that, is that future plaintiffs are denied the ability to depose or otherwise get the testimony of the defendant. Especially to cross-examine the defendant. Again, NAL, but this seems like a big burden to place on the plaintiffs. Perhaps it was answered elsewhere in this, or another of the trial threads, but was the State obligated to introduce the Zimmerman interviews into evidence? My thought is this: self-defense is a claim by the defendant, requiring a scintilla (right?) of evidence to put the claim before the jury, but this evidence is more than just asserting it in his answer to the complaint, right? Would introducing the testimony of one of the witnesses to the fight and the EMT who treated Zimmerman be enough? I’m just trying to see how a self-defense claim can be asserted without the defendant getting in front of the jury and saying so. Introducing the interviews allowed the defense to do just that, while denying the prosecution the ability to cross-examine Zimmerman. Now if the claim could be put before the jury just by those other witnesses’ testimony then I can see the need to introduce Zimmerman’s interviews in order to provide context. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1722 "2013-07-12T16:32:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As an aside: another reason this “stand your ground” law is deeply flawed is that it takes away my right to sue someone for an unlawful death. If the prosecution is incompetent, then a Stand-Your-Ground hearing may conclude with a win for the shooter, leaving me with no day in court and no opportunity to prove my case; I’m not a party to the SYG hearing. The world is an imperfect place and the best solution on balance is frequently “deeply flawed”. The average middle class person would be financially ruined - years of hard work and/or saving money out the window - by having to defend against either a criminal trial or a civil trial, let alone both. And there are always going to be civil lawyers willing to take a shot on commission. In the absense of SYG civil immunity, punks and thugs get two shots at the pie. Try to rob the guy, and if you get harmed in the process, turn around and sue him. In that context, SYG civil immunity is a great idea. It’s possible that these laws will be weakened in reaction to the TM/GZ case, and that’s a shame. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1723 "2013-07-12T16:41:32Z")
> [@simster](#): > > So - he’s now encouraging the jury to take the “easy decision” and at the same time telling them that ‘self defense’ is an ‘easy excuse’ ? > > yet earlier, he argued that the two didn’t know each other, so therefore his client could not have formed ‘ill will’ or ‘hatred’ ? They wouldn’t have had to know each other for TM to have “ill will” against the creepy ass cracker who had watched him and then had gotten out of his vehicle, after TM had run away to his daddy’s fiance house. Not personal knowledge of who exactly was by the “T” but that there was a person by the “T” who TM disliked. TM returned to the “T” to do what? Shake the strangers hand? Ask him why he was there? Ask him why he was following him? Punch him in the face? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1724 "2013-07-12T17:10:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > TM returned to the “T” to do what? Shake the strangers hand? Ask him why he was there? Ask him why he was following him? Punch him in the face? Or maybe to check to see if the creepy guy’s truck was gone so he knew it was safe to go home? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1725 "2013-07-12T17:11:11Z")
Prosecution just ended their rebuttal closing. Again, no evidence offered, pure emotionalism. Oh and questions. Lots of questions. What if? What if? What if? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1726 "2013-07-12T17:12:33Z")
I’m surprised no one is talking about the unusual argumentative tone that the judge took when asking Zimmerman if he was going to testify. She scolded his lawyers like kids. Wouldn’t even let them speak. She was badgering Zimmerman with questions about whether he would testify or not. The legal analyst-talking heads are saying it’s very unusual to do this, especially when the trial wasn’t over yet. Did the jury see this? I think the judge was posturing for the mob. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1727 "2013-07-12T17:16:45Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I’m surprised no one is talking about the unusual argumentative tone that the judge took when asking Zimmerman if he was going to testify. She scolded his lawyers like kids. Wouldn’t even let them speak. She was badgering Zimmerman with questions about whether he would testify or not. The legal analyst-talking heads are saying it’s very unusual to do this, especially when the trial wasn’t over yet. > > Did the jury see this? I think the judge was posturing for the mob. The jury didn’t see it, so it had no effect on them. But yes, that was bizarre, and everyone looking on thought so. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1728 "2013-07-12T17:21:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Prosecution just ended their rebuttal closing. Again, no evidence offered, pure emotionalism. Oh and questions. Lots of questions. What if? What if? What if? You mean, no evidence like pointing out the 2 minute time gap? Like pointing out the different versions of Zimmerman’s story? Like pointing out how there’s no way Martin could have even seen, let alone try to grab, Zimmerman’s gun? LIke how Zimmerman couldn’t have drawn his gun with Martin on top of him? That kind of ‘no evidence’? If that’s what you mean by ‘lots of questions’, then yes, the prosecution did ask a lot of rather good questions. I’m baffled as to why they waited so long to connect the dots for the jury, but I guess better late than never. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1729 "2013-07-12T17:21:41Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Or maybe to check to see if the creepy guy’s truck was gone so he knew it was safe to go home? That’s a very reasonable assumption. TM was returning over 100 yds back to the “T” in order to verify if it was safe for TM to again walk over 100 yds back to his home. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1730 "2013-07-12T17:22:52Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > You mean, no evidence like pointing out the 2 minute time gap? Like pointing out the different versions of Zimmerman’s story? Like pointing out how there’s no way Martin could have even seen, let alone try to grab, Zimmerman’s gun? LIke how Zimmerman couldn’t have drawn his gun with Martin on top of him? That kind of ‘no evidence’? > > If that’s what you mean by ‘lots of questions’, then yes, the prosecution did ask a lot of rather good questions. Yep. Prosecution cast reasonable doubt. Is that what the prosecution’s task is? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1731 "2013-07-12T17:28:51Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yep. Prosecution cast reasonable doubt. Is that what the prosecution’s task is? I think it is when the only true question before the jury is “Do you believe GZ’s claim of self defense?” I don’t know how else they would defeat that claim. The rest of the facts are not in dispute, namely that a) GZ did shoot TM b) It happened in Seminole, FL It would be nice if Bricker or another attorney would weigh in on how they would have argued it. eta - the question of “who had ill will of whom” really does not matter if they believe the claim of self defense - it would matter if they have to deliberate between M2 and Manslaughter. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1732 "2013-07-12T17:32:16Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I think it is when the only true question before the jury is > > “Do you believe GZ’s claim of self defense?” If the jury has “reasonable doubt” about GZ’s claim of self-defense, then they have to acquit. You realize that, right? It’s in the jury instructions. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1733 "2013-07-12T17:39:19Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If the jury has “reasonable doubt” about GZ’s claim of self-defense, then they have to acquit. You realize that, right? It’s in the jury instructions. somehow, that wording bugs me - If they have ‘reasonable doubt’ as to the validity of his claim - then one would think they would move to convict on one of the two charges. If they have ‘reasonable doubt’ about the prosecutions ‘proof’ against the claim - they would move to acquit. If they believe his claim - overall, even tho there is some doubt - then they should move to acquit. the wording seems confusing to me, and its possible we’re ‘actually in agreement’. eta - I see the claim of ‘self defense’ as a positive assertion by the defense - one that the prosecution has to ‘disprove’ in the eyes of the jury. I see this as very analogous to the prosecutions positive assertion of ‘he killed him’ that the defense has to cast reasonable doubt on. I’m happy to admit that I may not be fully correct in how the arguments in court in this matter would be raised/defended. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1734 "2013-07-12T17:43:56Z")
They have to know beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin. That includes knowing beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defence. If reasonable doubt exists, he is not guilty. That is the point the instructions make clear. Merely doubting or disbelieving the self defence claim is not sufficient to find him guilty. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1735 "2013-07-12T17:47:39Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They have to know beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin. That includes knowing beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self defence. If reasonable doubt exists, he is not guilty. > > That is the point the instructions make clear. Merely doubting or disbelieving the self defence claim is not sufficient to find him guilty. I think that helps - its reversing the logic a bit in my head - I am saying ‘reasonable doubt as to believing GZ’ == conviction - the real logic is “reasonable doubt it was NOT Self defense” - I get that now - thanks. ETA - it has nothing to do if they believe GZ or not - it has to do with if they believe it ‘might have/could have been self defense’ (reasonably). ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1736 "2013-07-12T17:50:18Z")
O’Mara is worried about that too. He had a whole chart for the jury of of various stages of believe/disbelief and associated verdicts. E.g. “probably was not self-defense = not guilty” and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1737 "2013-07-12T17:51:22Z")
> [@simster](#): > > somehow, that wording bugs me - > > If they have ‘reasonable doubt’ as to the validity of his claim - then one would think they would move to convict on one of the two charges. No. Reasonable doubt about the validity of his claim is not enough. They have to be convinced that there is no validity to the self-defense claim BEYOND reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1738 "2013-07-12T17:53:03Z")
I missed O’Mara’s closing. Was the animation shown? If so, how was it? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1739 "2013-07-12T17:54:27Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > What federal law would apply? What federal statute was violated? GZ is currently being charged with violating State of Florida laws. As I understand it, the feds can’t charge someone for violating state law. Not their jurisdiction. The feds can charge someone for violating federal law because federal laws exist that could be applicable to the situation. > > IMHO, of course. Again my question had nothing to do with any statute being violated or federal charges brought. I was asking about a federal lawsuit brought against Zimmerman by the Martin family. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1740 "2013-07-12T17:57:42Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > I missed O’Mara’s closing. Was the animation shown? If so, how was it? It was a spectacular futuristic special effects extravaganza, with lights, action and musical accompanyment. Coming soon to a theater near you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=86) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=88)