State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

[Tom Servo]

The prosecution has rested their case, and we can expect a verdict soon.

While the case was ongoing, we prohibited discussion of the issue. At that point, evidence hadn't been presented and all we could do was speculate. Things have changed, and we're going to reopen discussion.

This will be the only thread for the Zimmerman case in this subforum. Do not open new or duplicate threads.

Furthermore, we will only be discussing the legal issues and civil-rights implications here. Posts discussing the gun used, disdain for involved parties, self-defense methods, or racial issues will be deleted.

 

[BarryLee]

I’ve watched bits and pieces of the trial and although I’m not an attorney the case against Zimmerman seems pretty weak. At the end of the day most of the evidence presented were facts that he has already admitted to or the opinions of friends/family of the victim. I’ve seen nothing that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not in self defense.

I think the jury can convict him on lesser offenses than murder, but I’m a little unclear of the specifics. However, it does seem if he is found guilty it will most likely be of the lesser charges, but as we all know juries can be unpredictable.

 

[hogdogs]

Thus far, I can say i pretty much removed my feelings that Zimmerman was in a much worse way legally...

Initially I was under the impression he instigated a face to face encounter with a minor at night making him likely, in the legal sense, the aggressor and Martin the defender...

To reverse these roles in florida requires many big things to transpire....

But if the defense story holds with the jury that Martin hid and jumped him and immediately began violence, than I don't see Zimmerman ever being in the legal agressor role if no contact had begun yet...

I am no lawyer but as a florida resident, I try to understand the laws that may affect me, my family and our lives...

Brent

 

[dakota.potts]

I will be watching. I have had friends say Zimmerman instigated the incident by exiting the truck or following. I do not believe these things to be legally and while of questionable tactical merit (Who's to say if I wouldn't have done the same thing), I don't think they prove the case that he was the aggressor. Certainly, there is no limit on how old an aggressor can be for self defense (as a 17 year old I would expect to be shot if I jumped a gun owner), and there is nothing illegal about following a suspicious person even if the dispatch tells you it's not necessary.

I was not able to watch the trial and most of the evidence presented has been glamourized by the media. Where can I find a largely complete, unbiased presentation of the arguments and evidence presented?

 

[maestro pistolero]

I have watched all of the testimony and seen all of the evidence that has been publicly released. I believe the state's case is in shambles. So much so that I have, at times questioned whether they were just presenting the facts intending to let the chips fall where they may.

There has not been a single substantial shift in Zimmerman's version of the facts in each telling. There was a written statement to the police four hours after the incident, a videotaped interview, audio interview, a 'challenge interview' (interrogation), a real time video reenactment with the police and a television interview with Sean Hannity. All of these were admitted into evidence and seemed to bolster only Zimmerman's entirely consistent version of the events.

Zimmerman at all times appeared credible, believable, even meek and without a hint of the depraved mind that the prosecution must prove for a second degree murder conviction.

All the facts, and all the testimony from twenty-some witnesses that was presented, taken as a whole, only point to Mr Zimmerman's explanation of the events that night.

To believe the state's arguments, one would have to believe that it was Martin who was the one (on the 911 recording) shrieking and begging for help, all the while straddling Zimmerman and pummeling him relentlessly for more than a full minute, right up to the point of the single gun shot.

The medical examiner testified that Martin's only injuries, besides the fatal shot, were abrasions on his knuckle as if from striking blows. A neighbor's eyewitness account of Martin's "ground and pound" MMA attack on the helpless Zimmerman should have prevented this case from having ever been brought.

Detective Sevino, the lead investigator found Martin to be utterly truthful, testified as such, only to have his testimony stricken with instructions to the jury to disregard. Sevino, by the way, was reported to have refused to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, and has been subsequently demoted to a patrol officer. Sevino also testified in this case, and to the FBI that there was "external" pressure to charge Zimmerman, regardless of the unimpeached self-defense fact matrix.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that the parade of state's witnesses, one by one and almost without fail, morphed into defense witnesses before our very eyes. This slow-motion train wreck formed such a complete implosion of the state's case, that I would not have been surprised in the least if the defense had called no witnesses and went straight to closing arguments.

At primary issue is whether Zimmerman could have reasonably feared death or grave injury at the time he discharged his weapon.

Martin's attack was unrelenting. A neighbor and eyewitness John Good commanded Martin to stop, but the attack continued until Zimmerman was able to stop it with a single shot.

I can't imagine, nor does ANY of the evidence so far support a reasonable person in Zimmerman's position NOT fearing his own death.

 

[Crazy88Fingers]

I found it interesting that the prosecution brought up Zimmerman's school records. Showing that because he earned good grades in his criminal justice courses he's a wannabe cop and vigilante. Meanwhile, last time I checked, the defense was not allowed to bring forth Martin's school records; which were, shall we say, less sterling.

Pretty much the only concrete, irrefutable, physical evidence in this case would be Zimmerman's injuries. If Martin didn't sneak up on him and/or pummel his head into the sidewalk, then how did the back of Zimmerman's head get injured?

 

[Old Stony]

Let's hope that all of us that carry firearms on a regular basis can take a good lesson from this. No matter what the circumstances, if you shoot another person you will be a victim as well. Justice is expensive in this country and it can cost you everything you own and possibly most of what you could ever earn to get into a shooting situation. So keep your ducks in a row and do everything humanly possible to avoid a situation that could end up like this.
And you say you carry your reloads in your pistol to save 30 bucks?

 

[wally626]

For those interested in a detailed review of the trial see

http://legalinsurrection.com/author/law-of-self-defense/

This is a good summary of the day's events by a Lawyer, Andrew Branca who has written a book on self defense law. (notes: lots of plugs for the book but those can be ignored)

The motion to dismiss after the prosecution rested was very instructive. The defense had a clear picture of what happen, and cited lots of cases backing up their positions on what constitutes self defense and second degree murder in FL and why nothing presented at the trial came even close to meeting the standards required.

The prosecution presented a case full of incredible hyperbole and frankly lies about the case. The judge of course ruled for the prosecution as she has done on almost all disputes so far in the case.

In the defense case the testimony of Zimmerman's uncle was very strong. He said, he was on the computer with the TV playing in the background and heard a scream and said that was his nephew, very compelling.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that the parade of state's witnesses, one by one and almost without fail, morphed into defense witnesses before our very eyes.

That was exactly my thought. At one point, I was listening to the testimony of the defenses firearms expert but I didn't know at the time who was questioning her. From the answers she was giving, I assumed it was the defense. I finally went and looked at the TV and my first thought was "My God! That's the prosecutor!"

It's been unbelievable.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I found it interesting that the prosecution brought up Zimmerman's school records. Showing that because he earned good grades in his criminal justice courses he's a wannabe cop and vigilante. Meanwhile, last time I checked, the defense was not allowed to bring forth Martin's school records; which were, shall we say, less sterling.

I thought exactly the same thing.

I've kept up with this case daily and from a legal standpoint, I don't believe that any thing Zimmerman did was illegal. While we will never know who actually was the aggressor, clearly the witness testimony supports that Zimmerman was being beaten by Martin. That said, Zimmerman had every right to protect himself.

 

[overhead]

I found it interesting that the prosecution brought up Zimmerman's school records. Showing that because he earned good grades in his criminal justice courses he's a wannabe cop and vigilante. Meanwhile, last time I checked, the defense was not allowed to bring forth Martin's school records; which were, shall we say, less sterling.

Pretty much the only concrete, irrefutable, physical evidence in this case would be Zimmerman's injuries. If Martin didn't sneak up on him and/or pummel his head into the sidewalk, then how did the back of Zimmerman's head get injured?

I don't think calling his professor as a witness had anything to do with an accusation that he was a "wannabe cop". He claimed no knowledge of the "stand your ground" law. The law was reviewed in that class, I believe the prosecution was trying to show that he was dishonest about his knowledge of the law and that he lied from time to time and therefore could not be trusted to tell the truth about other matters.

I did not see any evidence that showed how the actually confrontation started, Zimmerman's injures could have come from mutual combat, and also could have been caused after either he or Martin were the aggressor. I am not comfortable with what Zimmerman did, but I don't see enough evidence to convict him of any crime.

 

[TXAZ]

Brian said:

...my first thought was "My God! That's the prosecutor!"

So what's the possibility that the prosecutor INTENTIONALLY did a less than capable job to sway the case for political or other reason?

 

[TXAZ]

Overhead expresses the feelings from many observers :

I am not comfortable with what Zimmerman did, but I don't see enough evidence to convict him of any crime.

Anticipated Verdict from talking heads = Not Guilty, massive Civil suit to follow.
As many have noted there is a lawyer (or more) attached to every bullet, and likely several to those in question here.

 

[Punisher_1]

Is this a case of prosecuting someone for the sake of staving off the civil unrest that may have occurred had they decided it was a justified shoot from the beginning? Scary to think you could end up in prison just to please people and take the heat for a politicians fear of decision making.

 

[Tom Servo]

I found it interesting that the prosecution brought up Zimmerman's school records. Showing that because he earned good grades in his criminal justice courses he's a wannabe cop and vigilante. Meanwhile, last time I checked, the defense was not allowed to bring forth Martin's school records; which were, shall we say, less sterling.

If anything, this case should hammer home one salient point for anyone carrying a gun for self-defense: if you pull the trigger, expect your life to change for the worse. We hear all the conversations that go, "well, the law says I can shoot someone if ____, and there won't be any consequences." There's statute, and then there's the jury who has to interpret it.

I don't think Martin's school records or past indiscretions were relevant. They had little bearing on what he did at the moment the confrontation took place. In Zimmerman's case, we had a prosecution acting under immense pressure to discredit him. While his school records shouldn't have been relevant either, what happens, happens.

 

[Microgunner]

I don't understand the argument that Zimmerman following Martin was the cause of the incident.

I believe you're allowed to approach and verbally challange any uninvited stranger on your own property. Since Zimmerman was a resident and community watch officer of the property and Martin was not a resident, Zimmerman's challenge of Martin was absolutly legal.

It seems to me the entire question should be who struck the first blow, ie: the initiating felony.

With the testimony I've seen I don't see how the jury could find that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The prosecution has rested, but the defense has not. I don't think we know how long the defense will need to present its case, since a motion to dismiss was denied. So I'm not holding my breath for a verdict.

I am bothered by the fact that Martin apparently had marijuana in his system when he died, but the jury has NOT been allowed to hear expert testimony that (a) it was there, and (b) it could have affected his thought processes at the time of the incident. I agree with the observations that the prosecution case has pretty much been a continuous train wreck, but I feel the judge has been favoring the prosecution almost (??) to the point of displaying an obvious anti-Zimmerman bias.

 

[Al Norris]

I agree with the observations that the prosecution case has pretty much been a continuous train wreck, but I feel the judge has been favoring the prosecution almost (??) to the point of displaying an obvious anti-Zimmerman bias.

I'd go further than that. The judge is blatantly biased against the defendant.

The errors are so out of whack with a supposedly impartial trial judge, that they are glaring. Should Zimmerman not be acquitted, a court of appeals will have a field day with this judge (remembering the 7th circuit panels Ezell opinion of that trial judge).

 

[MLeake]

For those talking about a massive civil suit in the event of a Not Guilty verdict, I take it you mean by Zimmerman vs Florida?

IIRC, under Florida law, a determination of lawful self defense immunizes against law suits related to that use of force.

 

[TXAZ]

MLeake
Not a lawyer, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but watched the legal talking heads have brought up the possibility of a (assumed) federal civil rights suit from Trayvons family against Zimmerman in the case of acquittal.