State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

In your hypothetical the legal question would remain the same as it is in the current case: would a reasonable person fear he was 1)at imminent risk of death (or great bodily harm) OR 2)at imminent risk of having a forcible felony committed against him.

If all that had happened was one person **attempting **to grab the arm of another, I would not think a reasonable person would at that moment and with absolutely no other provocation be in imminent fear of his life or great bodily harm. Neither, in that very narrow circumstance, do I think a reasonable person would be in fear of having a forcible felony committed against him.

If he is put on trial and the prosecution does not have evidence that proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that Martin did not have reasonable fear for his life, then no, he is not guilty. Or, without trial, if prosecution sees that it has no such evidence, then he should not be put on trial.

I agree with your take, Iggy, and would further note that in that case, Martin would be guilty of manslaughter, not murder, as someone hitting their head during a fight and dying doesn’t constitute “a depraved mind regardless of human life”.

It is “the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification” and thus manslaughter.

Can the defense ask the judge to throw out the case at this point?

Touch DNA tests are very expensive and very time consuming. Our state lab refuses to do touch DNA. If we want it done we have to go hat in hand to the FBI and beg for them to do it. Then wait months and months. I wonder how expensive the tests were in this case to prove that the two people involved were the ones involved? Even though that was already known. I see that as political too. They don’t want to be criticized about not doing enough in the case. CSI shows us that DNA needs to be tested in every case. I would not even think of taking DNA in a case like this.

This is the part that Team Trayvon does not understand. Some of us are not on a team. Saying you are on Team Anything implies an emotional involvement. I have zero emotional involvement. I see enough horrible things in my own life so I don’t have to endulge in RO. Just yesterday I had to deal with a case in which a guy tried to go for the world record in separating your brain from your skull with a 30.06. 4 feet, damn good try. Regardless of the verdict I will have no emotional reaction. It’s an interesting case from a legal standpoint, that’s it.

From post #1 of thread #1 on the subject Team Trayvon (I feel my IQ lowering every time I write Team Whatever) has insisted “someone’s dead somebody has to go to jail!” That is not how the law works. Just because the altercation would not have happened if Zimmerman hadn’t done one or more of the legal things he did leading up to the incident, it doesn’t mean he is guilty. Maybe if he slept 10 minutes longer that morning it wouldn’t have happen either. Doesn’t matter. All that matters is if the prosecution can prove he wasn’t acting in self defense at the time of the shooting. From someone on the sidelines not on any team, they are doing a poor job.

Yes, there is 100% chance that the defense will ask for a directed verdict. There is a 0% chance that the judge will approve the motion and direct the jury to find not-guilty. Even though it is crystal clear that the prosecution has no case.

The trial is a show-trial, that has been clear from the very beginning. The show must go on.

And I think there is no chance that the defense will choose to sit back and not put up any witnesses/experts etc. Lawyers just do not do that kind of stuff. There is a mandatory course in law school on how best to beat dead horses.

As I stated in another thread, it is my sincere belief that the prosecution wants Mr. Zimmerman to be acquitted, and they were simply “going through the motion.”

Looking at it from the standpoint of a person in a state with very similar (some, in fact, based upon) laws to Florida’s, who also has a CHL and carries a gun daily:

My personal interest in this case isn’t because of the race angle, which I believe was perpetuated by activists and the media. In other words, had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race–with the exact same sequence of events and evidence–none of us would have ever heard their names. But whatever. Here we are.

When I took my initial CHL class, one of the things that was drilled into us was that if you ever are involved in a self-defense shooting, you will have to account for every round fired; every action you’ve ever taken will be looked at (which is why our instructor trashed our shooting scores–there’s no record of how good a shot I am, since an attorney could ultimately say “you scored 50/50 in your CHL class…why didn’t you just shoot the guy in the shoulder?”) We must assume that we will be arrested and prosecuted, regardless of what the law says.

Knowing all of that–each individual must then decide “is it still worth it to carry a gun and use it in self defense?” For me, the answer is yes. The reason: Zimmerman is alive to face the jury. Had he not had his gun, or had he not used it, he might not be alive today. My life is more important to me than anyone else’s.

Not everyone in this country feels that way. I have at least one friend who has decided to never take a life, even if that means she will lose her own. That’s her right.

Zimmerman, when he walks, will probably never follow another person, suspicious or not, in his life. And he has to live with taking a life; maybe he’ll never lose sleep over it, or maybe it will torture his soul until the day he dies. We’ll never know.

But here’s the thing: how many participants in this discussion have ever sat through a CHL class? Even if, like stoid, you abhor guns–just go audit the classroom portion to see exactly what a person like Zimmerman learns. You’re instructed in your state’s laws, starting at when it is legal to even use the threat of force, all the way through using force (i.e. using your hands or feet, restraining someone) up to and including deadly force. We take a written test on these laws.

Another big part of the class is focused on not the law, but common sense and judgment (which is were Zimmerman failed bigtime by getting out of his truck.) We’re trained that, regardless of legal/illegal, the absolute best thing one can do in a situation is to de-escalate it and get the hell away. You may not, as in Florida and Texas, have a legal duty to retreat–but good judgment always says you should.

Tangent example: in Texas, it is codified in our law that it is legal to kill a person who is committing theft after dark. No assault, no fear of death or serious injury. Tonight, if I look out my window and see a person going through my car, it is legal for me to stick my rifle out the window, take my time with the scope, and shoot that person until he’s dead.

That’s legal. Our DA might put it before the grand jury, but according to the law, they’d have to no-bill me.

Now: even though some might think I’m one of those gun nut badass wannabes because I always carry a pistol and am prepared to use it (and yes, I always carry a round in the chamber and my pistol has no safety) I can say with 100% certainty that I would never confront or shoot a person going through my car after dark.

Why? Because even though I have the legal right to do so, I’d have to live with taking a life. And for what? My car? Maybe a couple of bucks? My radio/speakers? To a man, that’s not worth killing someone over–to me.

Zimmerman, like Martin, was stupid and showed extremely poor judgment in letting the situation devolve to the point it did at the T in the sidewalk. Letting it get to that point, especially when he’s the adult, has been educated about the legal ramifications of self defense, etc., makes Zimmerman an embarrassment to people like me, because it makes people, like some in this very thread, assume that all of us are as ignorant as Zimmerman.

However, even though we all know he was stupid and should have stayed in his truck and driven away, when it comes down to a test case for self-defense–he MUST be found not guilty. Stupidity isn’t illegal.

At the end of the day, Zimmerman had every legal right to be standing at the T in the sidewalk. Martin had every legal right to walk up to him. What happens after that is in dispute, but there is no denying the fact that the state cannot prove that Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin in self-defense, which is why he’ll walk. I just hope that other people who carry guns see this and really take to heart the mistakes Zimmerman made. And I hope that kids look at what Martin did (as in trying to act tough) and see that it cost him his life.

In the words of Clint Smith, “Some people just need to be shot.” This was one of those cases.

Um…actually, yes we do sometimes. I won a criminal trial earlier this year doing exactly that. Prosecution put on its case. I cross examined their witnesses. When they rested, I moved ore tenus for a directed verdict, arguing that they’d failed to prove one of the elements of the crime charged. The Judge agreed. Case dismissed.

Assuming your scenario is 100% true, is there a legal reason/excuse for the judge not to approve the motion?

The last action of Martin’s for which we have reliable evidence - Zimmerman’s NEN call - is that Martin *ran away *from Zimmerman.

So I guess Martin’s ‘acting tough’ bit that justified him getting shot was his Jedi mind tricks forcing Zimmerman to get out of his car and chase after him for the next 3-4 minutes?

Last time I checked, Martin wasn’t the idiot with a gun running around outside in the dark, in the rain, for several minutes, following an ‘asshole punk’ he thought was possibly drugged, possibly armed, and ‘up to no good’.

How tough do you think Zimmerman would have acted if he didn’t have a gun?

Jesus. I weep for our country.

We know he didn’t chase him for all that time, because you can hear him stop running on the NEN call, and smack his flashlight against something.

Also, what kind of “chase” takes two minutes and covers almost no distance? The confrontation occurred right by where Zimmerman hung up with NEN, but two minutes later. Did he teleport Martin to him, or what? It’s neatly explained by Martin going home and then returning to the T to confront Zimmerman, how do you explain it?

No, I am afraid this isn’t true. We have reliable evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face (Zimmerman’s broken nose, black eyes, and Martin’s knuckle), reliable evidence that Martin sat on Zimmerman’s chest (grass stains on Martin’s knees, grass stains on Zimmerman’s back, eyewitness testimony). We have Dee Dee’s testimony that Martin told her that he was right by his father’s house, but reliable evidence (the location of the fight, the location of the truck, eyewitness testimony of the fight moving to the sidewalk) that Martin came back and went looking for Zimmerman. We have reliable evidence that Martin slammed Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk (eyewitness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, eyewitness testimony that Martin was making downward movements that were similar to what is seen in MMA).

So we have a fair amount of evidence of Martin’s actions and movements after the NEN call. Whether or not “Team Trayvon” chooses to include that evidence in their analysis is up to you.

Regards,
Shodan

Excellent post BlakeTyner,

There are no “Teams” here, this isn’t Twilight.
I have a CWP here in South Carolina and also carry daily. I feel that some folks who think Zimmerman is guilty have a mindset that carrying a weapon is some sort of premeditation and is a bad thing.

Laws vary state by state of course, but I think it’s interesting that here in South Carolina the law says that even if you instigate a confrontation or altercation BUT then break contact and walk away and are still attacked you have the right to defend yourself.

Example: I see someone in my community park digging a hole, I walk up to him and tap him on the back and say “What are you doing here”. He turns around and says “None of your business” and tries to fight me. If I turn around and walk away and he jumps on my back or hits me and starts slamming my head on something hard I can still use my weapon to defend myself even though I tapped on his back first.

emphasis added

FWIW, testing a touch DNA sample runs about $500 per sample currently. Several samples were tested from each piece of clothing and the gun.

Cite from 2012 quoting $500

Cite from 2012 quoting $1000

Psst…he was.

THC.

So, ya know, there’s the fact that Zimmerman was right about that.

And the fact that, since it’s a controlled substance, lil’ Trayvon was already a criminal.

Why is Zimmerman’s statement that Martin ran away considered reliable but Zimmerman’s statement that Martin punched him is not reliable? :dubious:

(Content bold’d, shortened, fluffed, and dried)

Don’t you consider Rachel Jeantel’s testimony to be reliable? According to Jeantel, TM was right by his daddy’s house, but his daddy was not home. TM would have had to return to the “T” in order to encounter GZ again. That would be “after” GZ reported that the suspicious person had run away.

Because only one of these claims has been corroborated by another person. Rachel testified that Trayvon ran. No one–not even John Good–said they witnessed punching that night.

It is not in dispute that the kid ran.