What are your thoughts?

 

I saw someone post this article on facebook tonight and made me think about the trial even more.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

The case should be appealed, such a ruling seems at odds with the right of a person to defend themselves, and one has to wonder if the alleged assailant wasn't hit at close range, how can one rule that it was attempted murder? It looks to be a mistrial. Also, less deadly force is the better route - what about the civilian use of stun guns?

Two words: reasonable doubt.

 

The state pretty much blew their case-in-chief.

 

This should never have gone to trial in the first place.

I support the right to defend yourself. But in this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor, stalking Trey, after he was told not to. This will show all you have to do is get someone you want to kill to attack you first, and then shoot them claiming defense. It's ridiculous.

 

 

I don't think he'll get convicted though because our legal system is fucked up. I live about 30 minutes away from where it happened and I remember there were marches in my city about this. When he gets off, I think things are going to get ugly. Also, my professor is involved in the case, but he wouldn't say with what exactly.

I don't think he'll get convicted though because our legal system is fucked up. I live about 30 minutes away from where it happened and I remember there were marches in my city about this. When he gets off, I think things are going to get ugly. Also, my professor is involved in the case, but he wouldn't say with what exactly.

 

I will be legitimately shocked if Zimmerman is not acquitted.

 

After the media hoopla died down, it became clear that the forensic evidence seemed to support Zimmerman's account. Or more importantly, it was becoming evident that the prosecution would have found it difficult to meet the burden of proof for manslaughter, let alone 2nd degree murder. Big reason why they didn't press charges at first until the media pressure.

 

I don't think Zimmerman is 100% guilt-free here: despite having suspicions, he probably shouldn't have followed Trayvon.

 

What made me mad however is how the media was so quick to play the race card. I wonder: if Zimmerman was African-American, would the media even be covering this case or would it be another black-on-black crime statistic?

 

I did read recently how the sheriff was preparing for riots after the verdict - hope things don't get too crazy down there :(

But he was the aggressor. I don't see how you can start something and then be the victim? That's my problem with it. In Tray's eyes(I spelled it wrong before?), he was probably defending himself from some creepy guy stalking him at night.

 

Now, if someone's following you and you sense they might hurt you, you're in the wrong for defending yourself?

 

If he was black, it wouldn't get any coverage. But then some would say that's racist, just another black on black crime not being covered.

 

But if this was a straight A white kid that this happened to and the Zimmerman was black, how do you think it would play out? I'd bet my life, Zimmerman would be convicted then.

 

My friend took his 13 year old daughter to a rally after it happened so he could show her a different perspective. He's a interesting guy. They were the only white people there and didn't see many police nearby. Black panthers stormed the meeting yelling "death to the crackers" dressed in all black. I think there are a lot of racial elements at play and could easily spin out of control. I hope not. My professor is heavily involved in the community and trying to bring it together. He said something interesting last night, that this is being made more divisive by the outside communities and that the local community wants to heal, not fight.

But he was the aggressor. I don't see how you can start something and then be the victim? That's my problem with it. In Tray's eyes(I spelled it wrong before?), he was probably defending himself from some creepy guy stalking him at night.

 

It's been a while since I followed this case closely so correct me if I'm wrong:

 

The way I understood it is Zimmerman saw Trayvon in the neighborhood, called the authorities and started following Trayvon because he was suspicious. Didn't Zimmerman then lose Trayvon and was walking back to his truck when he was attacked? I think he said on the phone something like "I don't know where this kid is... could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?"

 

I don't know - is following someone you feel is suspicious after alerting the authorities unlawful activity? I'm not an expert on Florida law but I'm fairly certain it's not.

 

FYI - I genuinely don't remember the timeline of the shooting because there were so many conflicting reports when this story first hit the newsstands. Could be completely off base here.

I agree that Zimmerman was the agressor there was a witness, Rachel Geantel who said that Trayvon was being followed. The way they have tried to smear what she has said reminds me of the Stephen Lawrence case.

 

Here is another example of a police shooting, I seriously hope there are gun reforms and changes to the police force in the US.

I'm not going to pretend I know much about this case, but how could anyone regard Rachel Jeantel as a reliable witness? She's practically a meme.

I agree that Zimmerman was the agressor there was a witness, Rachel Geantel who said that Trayvon was being followed.

 

Umm, we're talking about the same person who has repeatedly changed her story and lied under oath right? The same "star witness" who couldn't even read the letter she supposedly sent to Trayvon Martin's parents?

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDyzGEkMEM]Star witness contradicts herself in court - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddhj3LIB0mE]Witness Rachel Jeantel Can't Read Letter She 'Wrote' About Shooting 'I don't read cursive' Zimmerman - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hecbDy8mlAs]Trayvon Martin's 'Friend' Rachel Jeantel 'WET GRASS' Question - YouTube[/ame]

This whole thing never would have happened if Zimmerman would have simply not pursued Martin... when he was on the phone with the police, they specifically instructed him not to follow Martin. "okay, we don't need you to do that..."

 

Zimmerman says he was just trying to defend himself. Well, even if Martin was "attacking" Zimmerman, that could have been because Martin was trying to defend himself from somebody that approached him with a gun.

 

In any event, it looks like this might wrap up today. Due to the burden of proof for the second degree murder charge, he might have been acquitted. But recently the judge has decided to allow the option for the jury to consider a charge of manslaughter. I think manslaughter will be the outcome. Interestingly enough, even if Zimmerman "only" gets the manslaughter charge, he could still go to prison for life because of Florida's laws regarding guns.

 

 

Here's some relevant detail :

 

The six jurors will have three options for their verdict: guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter and not guilty.

 

To win a second-degree murder conviction, prosecutors must prove Zimmerman showed ill will, hatred or spite — a burden the defense has argued the state failed to meet. To get a manslaughter conviction, prosecutors must show only that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification.

 

Under Florida's laws related to gun crimes, manslaughter could end up carrying a penalty as heavy as the one for second-degree murder: life in prison.

^That basically sums it up.

Umm, we're talking about the same person who has repeatedly changed her story and lied under oath right? The same "star witness" who couldn't even read the letter she supposedly sent to Trayvon Martin's parents?

 

Yes I am. I understand she lied but I don't agree with how tough the media and the internet has been towards her. I think that is a massive amount of pressure to be put under and people seemed more interested in judging her than listening to what she had to say.

 

Zimmerman has also lied so much to the point where people don't know who started the fight I don't care whatever he argues, he went against police instructions to leave Trayvon but he continued to follow him and I hope he does go down for manslaughter at the very least.

Yes I am. I understand she lied but I don't agree with how tough the media and the internet has been towards her. I think that is a massive amount of pressure to be put under and people seemed more interested in judging her than listening to what she had to say.

 

She lied. Multiple times. No ifs and buts about it. Any attorney worth a lick simply has to ask, "what else is she lying about?" Absolute zero credibility so no, we don't care what she has to say.

That doesn't matter. It all comes down to Zimmerman being the aggressor. You can't claim self-defense when you are the aggressor. They showed him to be the aggressor and to have "ill intent", which is necessary for second degree murder. But he probably will get manslaughter.

That doesn't matter. It all comes down to Zimmerman being the aggressor. You can't claim self-defense when you are the aggressor. They showed him to be the aggressor and to have "ill intent", which is necessary for second degree murder.

 

I'm guessing you are referring to Florida statute 776.041. However, 776.041(2)(a) goes on to state that it is possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense. Here's the statute so you can see for yourself: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041

 

In other words, even if Zimmerman was the agressor as the prosecution alleges (which they certainly failed to prove - this is why Rachel Jeantel's testimony/credibility was crucial), Zimmerman can claim self defense if he reasonably thought he was in "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm." Eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence certainly seems to corroborate Zimmerman's account.

 

So no, the case does not come down to Zimmerman being the aggressor. Not even close.

That's bullshit. That's crazy, because I can start a fight, then claim to fear for my life and kill the person? So if I really wanted to kill someone from the beginning, just start a fight, then "start to lose" and "fear for my life" and I can kill that person?

 

Then, they failed to prove he was hurt that badly. He overstated his injuries, they weren't major. If someone was having the shit beat out of them, they would have looked much worse. I think the prosecution proved he overstated that. I hope the jury sees that he wasn't in the state he claimed and overreacted and at the least, gets manslaughter.

I watched a little HLN news this morning, and one thing that's being brought up is the fact that there was no information in the jury instructions describing the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. So, if Zimmerman is found guilty of either murder 2 or manslaughter, that will be a big issue/point during the appeal.

That's bullshit. That's crazy, because I can start a fight, then claim to fear for my life and kill the person? So if I really wanted to kill someone from the beginning, just start a fight, then "start to lose" and "fear for my life" and I can kill that person?

 

Not exactly. "Fear for my life" alone is not enough to meet the provisions outlined by Florida law. The key phrasing is did the person reasonably believe "that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force." In your hypothetical scenario, you would have to show that you had reasonable belief of bodily harm and/or death AND that you exhausted all options to escape without use of force.

 

Then, they failed to prove he was hurt that badly. He overstated his injuries, they weren't major. If someone was having the shit beat out of them, they would have looked much worse.

 

There's several issues with your premise: 1) is it possible the injuries don't seem that bad (to you) and should have "looked much worse" because Zimmerman stopped it from getting worse? (aka self defense); 2) you can have severe head trauma injuries without any marks on the head, as nationally renowned expert Vincent Di Maio testified; and 3) the defense did not need to "prove he was hurt that badly" as it is not an element of the burden of proof.

 

The extent of the injuries is not relevant; what is relevant: 1) was there reasonable belief of bodily harm and/or death AND; 2) whether or not Zimmerman had no other option. The answers to both questions is yes: Zimmerman was pinned down to the ground (no escape) and he was getting his head smashed into the concrete repeatedly - or as a prosecution witness testified, he saw Martin on top punching Zimmerman "MMA style" - indicating reasonable belief of harm and/or death.

I don't see how those laws you are refering to can excuse a man who broke the law by disregarding police orders and going after a guy he assumed was suspicious.

I didn't know much about the case before the trail started so What I know about it is pretty much what the jury got to hear.

 

When you look at it from Zimmerman's point of view. There have been many break ins in your neighborhood. You see a person dressed in a hoodie walking around in the rain. You call and report it and it wasn't clear in the call if they said "we don't need you to do that" as in get out and follow him or get out and get the street name. So Zimmerman gets out and says Martin jumped him, says he got his head pounded, yelled for help, saw the neighbor's porch light (all of which said neighbor backed up) and shot him because he thought his head was gonna explode. Pics certainly show him being in a fight. He doesn't know Martin is some kid, he thinks maybe he's a burglar or something and now this guy is on him and beating the crap out of him. I can tell you for a fact that I see people die all the time for hitting the head once on cement, and what he described as "felt like my head might explode" is accurate for someone getting their head pounded. If that's what happened, then I would vote self defense. Do I think idiots who aren't cops should be out patrolling with guns, no, but that is Florida's law so you have to vote on the law.

 

From Martin's POV, you think some guy is following you. You are kinda freaked out, so you duck down around some houses to try and lose him, but he gets out of his car and follows you. I would def be freaked by then! He doesn't run the fuck home, I would do that!, or hang up for that chick and maybe call his dad or mom or even go some where that safer (lighted area) he runs into the darkest area around there. At that point he doesn't know any thing about Zimmerman. What if Zimmerman lived in one of those townhouses and was just walking home and Martin thought he was being followed so he jumped him, would any one still feel the same about the shooting? I mean Martin has no idea why Zimmerman is following him. Rachael said she heard Martin say "Why you following me" so to me that says Martin confronted Zimmerman first. Zimmerman should have ID'd himself say hey man I'm just with the neighbor hood watch and but that didn't happen I guess. Zimmerman says he just jumped him.

 

My biggest problem with the State's case is they never say or prove why the fight started. They just keep saying Zimmerman's injuries weren't that bad, but remember it's not the level of injury but rather his perception that matters. If you think someone is there to do something bad and suddenly his on top of you beating the crap out of you, you would assume you had been correct and he's gonna maybe kill you. And yes, Martin probably also felt threatened, but someone following you and someone fighting you are 2 different things.

 

For me it's a bad series of events and a tragedy. Zimmerman had the right to watch the neighborhood and even to follow Martin. I don't blame Martin for being freaked out by it, but if he did attack Zimmerman of course not knowing he was carrying a gun, then it was just gonna end badly but with Florida's laws not much to be done about it.

 

There is just so much doubt for me. Who started the fight? If Zimmerman already had his gun out, why would Martin start a fight with a man he knew had a gun? Zimmerman's story of what happened seems to be more backed up by evidence. There's no way he could have known the 911 calls were recording the screams and stuff.

 

As bad as I feel that this kid lost his life, based on the lack of proof from the State, I would vote not guilty.

I don't see how those laws you are refering to can excuse a man who broke the law by disregarding police orders and going after a guy he assumed was suspicious.

 

Ignoring a non-emergency dispatcher is not unlawful; in fact, for liability reasons, dispatchers issue not commands but just suggestions (not to mention that there is literally zero credible evidence that Zimmerman even continued following Trayvon).

 

Following someone you don't recognize and thought suspicious, especially considering the neighborhood had been hit by several burglaries before, is not unlawful.

 

Zimmerman broke no law.

Not exactly. "Fear for my life" alone is not enough to meet the provisions outlined by Florida law. The key phrasing is did the person reasonably believe "that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force."

 

That's so vague and open to interpretation what people consider imminent danger or exhausting reasonable means. That differs, greatly, between people. To me it may be a punch, to someone else it may be until they're almost unconscious. Anyone can claim they were in imminent danger and exhausted every reasonable means.

 

I could say that in any fight, even if I started it with the intention of killing someone. It's almost like saying, you can start something, but if you start to lose, you have the legal right to kill that person. Then, if someone wants to kill, start the fight, start to lose and then use a gun and claim you were in "imminent danger" and exhausted all other options.

 

Does that leaves it up to the jury then, to decide if that person is being truthful, or maybe if they were being realistic? The jury could come back and say, they believe Zimmerman overreacted and it wasn't self-defense because he wasn't in danger of dying and didn't exhaust all other options?

 

I don't see how anyone could get manslaughter in a fight, if they just use that excuse, because unless there are witnesses, and they got hurt, they can just claim defense. A rapist could follow a women, and the women decides to strike first before she's raped, and the rapist get's his ass kicked, then he'd have an excuse to shoot her since he can't rape her. And maybe he was losing the fight, but legally he shouldn't be allowed to kill her after being the aggressor.

 

So this shows a clear problem with the law. Also, the case I posted in the first post, where he lady fired warning shots when she feared for her life from her abusive husband and got 20 years. It seems this law is applied at random.

 

Even if that route is taken, the prosecutors made a good case that Zimmerman wasn't in imminent danger, and didn't exhaust all other options before using his gun. So even if all the past arguments aren't usable, then it's up to the jury to decide if he was in imminent danger and exhausted all options?

 

 

So, I'm trying to understand, if anyone feels "that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force", they can take a life. I stick with my point that, for example, I wanted to kill someone. All I had to do is start a fight, let them start to win, then use a gun and get what I wanted all along, then claim that and it would be self-defense. If that's the case, then the law need to be changed. Or even if I didn't want to kill someone, I could get carried away, start a fight, start to lose and then use force to defend myself. That's ridiculous.

Also, you seem to know a lot about this. I am thankful for the education. I have another question.

 

Does this apply when someone is breaking into a house? Or do the rules change then. I'm pretty sure in Florida I can legally shoot someone breaking in. But, if I notice someone breaking in and don't have a gun or knife but decide to attack them, because they're either going to rob, kill, rape or do all three to me. And while I'm beating up the intruder, they fear for their life and "he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force.", they can legally shoot me if they have a gun?

In Florida, if someone is breaking in you can shoot them without any provocation. Example, your kid invites a friend over and tells them they left a window unlocked for them to sneak in. You hear a noise, go downstairs and see a person climbing in through the window and you shoot them dead. You can't be charged even though they were unarmed because in your mind they are breaking in and pose a threat to you and your family.