It seems to me the jury faces just two fundamental questions, since several of the elements (that Zimmerman caused Martin’s death, that it took place in Seminole County, etc) seem incontrovertible:
Do they have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, within the requirements of Florida law?
If not, did he act with ill-will or malice?
“Yes” to #1 means he’s acquitted. “No” on #1 and “No” on #2 means he’s guilty of manslaughter, “No” on #1 and “Yes” on #2 means he’s guilty of murder.
Were I in their place, I’d have to answer “Yes” to #1 and acquit him.
agreed - the state did not knock it down - there is ‘doubt’ that it was self defense, but not enough to get to the reasonable stage. After all - we only have one* witness to the events at the time the shot was fired (the accused) -
*others may have heard/seen aspects - but none were close enough, etc or heard the same things.
Based on the jury instructions, I can’t see how Zimmerman can be convicted of anything. The prosecution hasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self-defense. Heck, they haven’t proven anything except that Zimmerman shot Martin in Seminole County.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
When your questions and arguments reflect that you understand the difference and are correctly applying your comments and questions with that understanding in mind I would be happy to engage.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t bother.
Defense counsel made the courtroom sit through a four minute pause of silence to show how long Trayvon Martin had to run home. Seems like a long time when you are sitting watching the clock tick.
And I;m not sure that was a good idea - not sure what it ‘proves’ other than Martin had time to get home - potentially showing that zimmerman had plenty of time to ‘go the other way’ as well - again, has nothing to do with the ‘moment of the shot’.
I had thought they were going to demonstrate how long the ‘fight’ took and use that as ‘if you were being beaten for this long, would you fear…’.
I’ll take a stab at it from the defense point of view.
The defense contention is that Martin was the aggressor.
If Zimmerman was the aggressor self defense is out the window.
If Martin had 4 minutes of not being followed and plenty of time to go home without incident but returned to assault Zimmerman, then Martin was the aggressor.
If Zimmerman was in a place that he was legally allowed to be in, it doesn’t matter if he was there or walking back to his truck.
The waiting through the time demonstrates that it had to be a conscious choice to come back and confront Zimmerman: aggressor.
Remember that the prosecution had to prove it wasn’t self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove anything.
Everyone, except deniers, can tell from the dispatcher call, that George Z almost immediately stopped when the dispatcher suggested he not follow, since there was no wind noise, no heavy breathing, just a conversational tone of voice. Why Trayvon even ran from someone sitting in a parked vehicle talking on the phone has never been explained. The prosecution couldn’t even prove that Z was following Trayvon by vehicle before the phone call, since a vehicle stays on the road, and the person being followed doesn’t have to. In DD’s account Trayvon was by his father’s house, the phone disconnected, twenty seconds later there was a reconnection, and two minutes later, the confrontation near the T begin. If you take this literally, Trayvon had to have returned to the T. At around the time Z is at the T ending the phone call, Trayvon is near his father’s house.
I asked this before and wasn’t answered. Maybe no one knows. Would that keep him from being sued in Federal Court too? Because I see no problem with reaching the burden of proof for a wrongful death lawsuit.
Determination of whether self-defense immunity applies (776.032) does not require application of 776.013 (what is nicknamed SYG). 776.032 self-defense immunity also applies for a self-defense claim under 776.012 (conventional self-defense), and a self-defense claim under 776.031 (defense of others).
Relevant law:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…
Terr, looking at what I think is the relevant statute, Fla. Stat. § 776.032, it says in part:
Isn’t that only applicable if Zimmerman had and won his pre-trial immunity hearing (Colloquially, the ‘Stand Your Ground’ hearing)? Otherwise, I’m seeing a big disconnect between the required standard of proof to be found not guilty versus the standard to be found liable. It seems like it’s meant to apply to the SYG hearing that he waived the right to, otherwise the language about being immune from criminal prosecution looks a bit strange.
IANAL, not a FL lawyer, yadda, yadda.
Edit: I’m a bit slow on the keys today. But Loach’s point makes sense too. How is a Florida law supposed to be able to bind a Federal judge from holding a trial to determine if Zimmerman violated Federal law?
“Stand Your Ground” is 776.013. The other two aren’t. Also - Zimmerman waived his right to pre-trial hearing (in retrospect, O’Mara was 100% correct in that, there is absolutely no way Nelson would have ruled correctly). Since he didn’t have one, he can have it post-trial.
What Federal law do you think was violated? FBI agents interviewed 60 people to try to find even a scintilla of evidence that they could hang their hat on to paint Zimmerman as racist, in order to be able to file “civil rights violation” charges against him. They admitted they couldn’t find anything.