State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
- Status
ClydeFrog, I initially thought the same thing. But, I feel there is no way this particular judge would have ever cleared GZ. There is far too much political pressure for her to ever make a favorable decision on stand your ground. There's no sense in going forward when you know there is next to no chance the judge will rule in your favor.
On another note, I do not understand how a jury can find GZ acted in self defense as to 2nd Degree Murder, but then find him guilty of manslaughter. If there is any finding that he acted in self defense, wouldn't this also negate a manslaughter conviction? Seems inconsistent to me.
maestro pistolero
New member
State's attorney BDLR is a hack. The intentional distortion of the evidence and testimony is astounding.
Also, instead of reinforcing what little hard evidence he has, he seems to be creating reasonable doubt as if he is a defense attorney. Very odd, but I guess when you've been dealt a pantload of a case, you do what you can.
Also, instead of reinforcing what little hard evidence he has, he seems to be creating reasonable doubt as if he is a defense attorney. Very odd, but I guess when you've been dealt a pantload of a case, you do what you can.
Politics; Seminole County FL, legal precedent
I think a few TFLers outside of central Florida do not really know & understand the political make-up of Seminole County(Sanford) Florida.
Seminole County is one of the smallest by size(square miles) & by population(residents & families not daytime population).
The county has one of the higher tax bases in the state of Florida. Due mostly to Longwood, Heathrow, Lake Mary, & Altamonte Springs.
These upscale communities are mostly gated & the county is mostly upper-middle class/upper-class.
Sanford(the county seat) does have a few "bad" areas & some violent crime but its mostly; "red on red"(a LE term for bad guys against other bad guys).
I do not feel Judge Nelson has a lot of political heat for any civil rights issues or anti-gun(gun control) activists. She seems fair for the most part.
I do take away that she gives defense atty; West no quarter for his whining & complaints.
I'll close with saying that from the start(02/2012), the state atty; Norm Wolfinger did not want to charge GZ. He's an elected official too.
A legal precedent was set, I feel, by a 2005 incident where 2 Sanford Florida security officers(armed & on post) shot at & killed a black male that was driving a vehicle at them. There was a huge media & civil rights out-cry after the incident. The State Atty's Office caved into the pressure, then charged the G officers. One security guard had all his criminal charges cut, the other guard went to court & was cleared.
Civil rights activists have a right to protest but the public must understand all the factors that go into a prosecution or criminal investigation.
A DA or State Atty isn't going to waste time & $$$ on a case that can't win.
I think a few TFLers outside of central Florida do not really know & understand the political make-up of Seminole County(Sanford) Florida.
Seminole County is one of the smallest by size(square miles) & by population(residents & families not daytime population).
The county has one of the higher tax bases in the state of Florida. Due mostly to Longwood, Heathrow, Lake Mary, & Altamonte Springs.
These upscale communities are mostly gated & the county is mostly upper-middle class/upper-class.
Sanford(the county seat) does have a few "bad" areas & some violent crime but its mostly; "red on red"(a LE term for bad guys against other bad guys).
I do not feel Judge Nelson has a lot of political heat for any civil rights issues or anti-gun(gun control) activists. She seems fair for the most part.
I do take away that she gives defense atty; West no quarter for his whining & complaints.
I'll close with saying that from the start(02/2012), the state atty; Norm Wolfinger did not want to charge GZ. He's an elected official too.
A legal precedent was set, I feel, by a 2005 incident where 2 Sanford Florida security officers(armed & on post) shot at & killed a black male that was driving a vehicle at them. There was a huge media & civil rights out-cry after the incident. The State Atty's Office caved into the pressure, then charged the G officers. One security guard had all his criminal charges cut, the other guard went to court & was cleared.
Civil rights activists have a right to protest but the public must understand all the factors that go into a prosecution or criminal investigation.
A DA or State Atty isn't going to waste time & $$$ on a case that can't win.
I’ve been on juries which had a difficult time reaching a verdict. I can see a jury that cannot agree on murder deciding to find him guilty of manslaughter. I think the penalty for either offense is similar, but I don’t believe the Judge informed the jury of that. So, they could see a conviction on manslaughter as a compromise that they think holds GZ accountable, but with a lesser penalty.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
If a conviction is overturned, it is not a conviction, and he would not have to answer "yes" to that question.motorhead0922 said:
I believe that's correct. Frank? Spats?
Spats McGee
Administrator
(Prodigious) gut reaction: AB is correct. If the conviction is overturned, it becomes "not a conviction."
motorhead0922
New member
One would hope so.
However, once a person is in the federal database as a convicted felon, his 4473 application will be kicked back every time, even if he checks all the right boxes. Isn't it virtually impossible to get your name cleared out of there?
My state uses "bare bones" jury instructions and it is generally improper for a judge to instruct on anything but the elements of the crime, elements of any defense (self-defense, for example), definitions and a couple of miscellaneous instructions (presumption of innocence, etc.). If Florida is the same way, the judge properly refused to instruct as the defense instructed. The prosecutor can point out that Zimmerman followed Martin and argue he was was looking for trouble. She cannot, however, misstate the law. That is objectionable.
Added: As Frank Ettin mentioned, many judges will ask a defendant personally if he or she wants to testify. Some portions of the trial are solely in the hands of the defendant's attorney. The right to testify is a right that is personal to the defendant. There have been more than a few defendants who were convicted and then later claimed they didn't know they could testify or their attorney told them they could not testify. The judge was cutting this claim off.
Last edited:
I can't answer the behavioral response question. I can tell you it is standard practice for a criminal defense attorney to humanize the client as much as possible. The prosecutor, on the other hand, tries to dehumanize the defendant by generally referring to him or her as "the defendant." If you live on a farm, you know it's not a good thing to name your food. Some of the family may hesitate to eat "Susie" the pig.
LewSchiller
New member
I don't see any way this ends without GZ doing time.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Surety? I can - I've said before that the jury can go on the metastory on the emotional persuasion path.
That's independent of the evidence. The killing of a teenager might be enough for such.
Surety here comes from one's own decision as compared to understanding the processes involved.
That's independent of the evidence. The killing of a teenager might be enough for such.
Surety here comes from one's own decision as compared to understanding the processes involved.
motorhead0922
New member
Well, there you have it. Time for a poll?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Aguila Blanca said:
Agreed. However, generally when a conviction is overturned a new trial is ordered. Sometime the prosecutor will decide not to pursue the matter and dismiss the charges. In that case, it's all over.Spats McGee said:
On the other hand, sometimes the prosecutor will decide to go forward with another trial. In that case, the defendant remains under indictment or information, and the 4473 also asks (11.b):
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
We were all sure OJ would get time. Oops.
Casey Anthony was guilty - OOPS.
I think they have reasonable doubt but you never know.
Casey Anthony was guilty - OOPS.
I think they have reasonable doubt but you never know.
Manslaughter....
I highly doubt at this point the female jury would put a MANSLAUGHTER beef on GZ.
Manslaughter would mean Zimmerman killed Martin by accident or thru neglect.
The GZ legal team, from the very start has pushed a SELF DEFENSE plan on anyone who would listen. GZ told Sandford LE & the media he killed Martin.
His story or statements never wavered from that fact & he explained how he shot Martin once with a single 9x19mm round.
If he were depraved or had a racist bias, wouldn't he shoot Martin 4/5/6 times? GZ had the weapon & the ammunition.
GZ also purchased the firearm based on the suggestion of a sworn federal LE officer(a FAM, Osterman who said he was "best friends" with GZ).
That tidbit may carry some weight with the jury.
CF
I highly doubt at this point the female jury would put a MANSLAUGHTER beef on GZ.
Manslaughter would mean Zimmerman killed Martin by accident or thru neglect.
The GZ legal team, from the very start has pushed a SELF DEFENSE plan on anyone who would listen. GZ told Sandford LE & the media he killed Martin.
His story or statements never wavered from that fact & he explained how he shot Martin once with a single 9x19mm round.
If he were depraved or had a racist bias, wouldn't he shoot Martin 4/5/6 times? GZ had the weapon & the ammunition.
GZ also purchased the firearm based on the suggestion of a sworn federal LE officer(a FAM, Osterman who said he was "best friends" with GZ).
That tidbit may carry some weight with the jury.
CF
If anyone thinks I'm going to actually read through over 260+ responses, you're dreaming. So at the risk of my points having been already addressed before this, here goes.
1. If Mr. Martin had only good intentions in that neighborhood, and felt that he was being stalked by Mr. Zimmerman, why didn't Martin call the police? He had a cell phone. Normal, law-abiding people call the cops when they need help, they don't turn on their stalker, take the law into their own hands, and instigate a physical confrontation. Had Martin called 911, it is a certainty that the police would have called Zimmerman back and under those circumstances, we would have had a different result. Martin's failure to call the police means to me that he had something going on that he didn't want them to discover upon their arrival.
2. The time line works in Mr. Zimmerman's favor. Since a bullet to the heart tends to disable the recipient, Zimmerman's wounds - broken nose, etc., had to have been inflicted before Martin was shot and killed. That means Martin struck first.
3. When you call the police, you have no idea when they will actually arrive on the scene. There might be an officer a block and a minute away from you, or there might not be an officer available for a half hour. Some nights are busier than others. Some much less busy. The very last thing anybody contemplating a 2nd degree murder would do is call the police right before he attempts it. He might hear sirens and see lights even as he hangs up the phone. Never a good thing when contemplating a crime. Zimmerman knew he had been told to stay in his vehicle. He knew he was told the PD needed no further input from him. He knew the Neighborhood Watch rules and regulations. Knowing what he knew, it makes no sense whatsoever that he would have shot Martin unless he felt he absolutely had to. Knowing that he already exceeded his parameters by leaving his vehicle, and might already be in trouble with the PD and the HOA, he would have had to be insane to exceed them further by murdering Martin. Zimmerman is not insane. Somewhat noncompliant, but far from crazy. Regardless of how he got himself into that fracas with Martin, who also made his own share of bad decisions that night, there they were, perhaps equally where neither one should have been, and Zimmerman, injured, frightened out of his mind, in great pain, and in understandable fear of further injury, did what anyone with the option Zimmerman had at his disposable-specifically-use his weapon to defend himself.
4. Most events like this are inevitably found to be a "comedy of errors" - the result of bad calls and bad decisions all around. That fact alone mitigates to reasonable doubt.
1. If Mr. Martin had only good intentions in that neighborhood, and felt that he was being stalked by Mr. Zimmerman, why didn't Martin call the police? He had a cell phone. Normal, law-abiding people call the cops when they need help, they don't turn on their stalker, take the law into their own hands, and instigate a physical confrontation. Had Martin called 911, it is a certainty that the police would have called Zimmerman back and under those circumstances, we would have had a different result. Martin's failure to call the police means to me that he had something going on that he didn't want them to discover upon their arrival.
2. The time line works in Mr. Zimmerman's favor. Since a bullet to the heart tends to disable the recipient, Zimmerman's wounds - broken nose, etc., had to have been inflicted before Martin was shot and killed. That means Martin struck first.
3. When you call the police, you have no idea when they will actually arrive on the scene. There might be an officer a block and a minute away from you, or there might not be an officer available for a half hour. Some nights are busier than others. Some much less busy. The very last thing anybody contemplating a 2nd degree murder would do is call the police right before he attempts it. He might hear sirens and see lights even as he hangs up the phone. Never a good thing when contemplating a crime. Zimmerman knew he had been told to stay in his vehicle. He knew he was told the PD needed no further input from him. He knew the Neighborhood Watch rules and regulations. Knowing what he knew, it makes no sense whatsoever that he would have shot Martin unless he felt he absolutely had to. Knowing that he already exceeded his parameters by leaving his vehicle, and might already be in trouble with the PD and the HOA, he would have had to be insane to exceed them further by murdering Martin. Zimmerman is not insane. Somewhat noncompliant, but far from crazy. Regardless of how he got himself into that fracas with Martin, who also made his own share of bad decisions that night, there they were, perhaps equally where neither one should have been, and Zimmerman, injured, frightened out of his mind, in great pain, and in understandable fear of further injury, did what anyone with the option Zimmerman had at his disposable-specifically-use his weapon to defend himself.
4. Most events like this are inevitably found to be a "comedy of errors" - the result of bad calls and bad decisions all around. That fact alone mitigates to reasonable doubt.
"Dr Bernie"....
I, for one, lost a great deal of respect for the special State Atty's prosecutor; Bernie Del La Rosa or whatever the guys name is.
His coy reference to Dr Martin Luther King's well known I Have A Dream speech was tacky & disrespectful to the memory of Dr King.
I also didn't care for his yelling & constant profanity.
A ABC TV reporter noted that one female juror looked uninterested & annoyed by Del La Rosa's remarks & another avoided any direct eye contact with him during his closing statement.
Id be professional but it would be hard to not display any contempt for Bernie Del La Rosa if I sat on the GZ jury.
The state's "hail Mary" plays & bogus "concern" for Martin and his family just work against them.
I, for one, lost a great deal of respect for the special State Atty's prosecutor; Bernie Del La Rosa or whatever the guys name is.
His coy reference to Dr Martin Luther King's well known I Have A Dream speech was tacky & disrespectful to the memory of Dr King.
I also didn't care for his yelling & constant profanity.
A ABC TV reporter noted that one female juror looked uninterested & annoyed by Del La Rosa's remarks & another avoided any direct eye contact with him during his closing statement.
Id be professional but it would be hard to not display any contempt for Bernie Del La Rosa if I sat on the GZ jury.
The state's "hail Mary" plays & bogus "concern" for Martin and his family just work against them.
Let's not. We'll have a verdict soon enough.
There's also a doctrine known as imperfect defense, in which the shooter thinks he's justified, but on reflection he's not. Since the jury has the option (and the pressure for a conviction is on from every quarter), they may choose to go that route. In that case, they don't have to find malice; they just need to presume error.
People have fought with ruptured hearts before. It doesn't always cause instant incapacitation. If I were on the defense, I would certainly not fall back on that argument.
- Status