So far it looks like Zimmerman's defense attorney is pretty bad...
Well... he's not exactly rich or popular. His only chance at a top calibre defense attorney was to hope it was high profile enough, and it probably isn't.
(caveat: I have not been watching so I have no knowledge of if he's actually any good).
I haven't been watching it enough, but from what I've read it seems like he made some kinda obvious mistakes.
Maybe, maybe not... mistakes are occasionally tactical decisions. As much as a judge can tell the jury "you can't consider that statement", the jury still heard the statement.
Granted, doing this intentionally (and getting caught) can get you sanctioned -- but it still happens.
Ton of objections in the D's opening apparently. iirc you can't talk about the burden of proof in the opening in florida...? Something like that.
1) how many of those objections were sustained?
2) thats not really a big deal. Objections happen. it's not a bad attorney becuase opposing counsel raised objections.
Now, I'm not saying he's a good attorney either, just offering a potential explanation.
So, I'm confused. What was the big court proceeding last year, that was all over the news, then? Was that the civil suit?
Also, if anyone wants a lesson in media setting the narrative (rather than reporting it), take a look at the comparison pictures circulated back then to the ones being circulated now. It's amazing how picking the right photos of an individual sets the narrative, and how easy it is to paint either individual as good or bad depending on the photograph of them you use.
So, I'm confused. What was the big court proceeding last year, that was all over the news, then? Was that the civil suit?
There wasn't one, thats why it was news.
The issue then was that someone, I forget who, in Florida decided that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case forward. Accusations abounded that it was due to racism, etc. etc. Now we have a case that is being brought as a witch hunt.
We'll see if it pans out, but assuming the defense attorney isn't incompetant, I'd say zimmerman has better than even odds of getting off on self defense.
The issue then was that someone, I forget who, in Florida decided that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case forward. Accusations abounded that it was due to racism, etc. etc. Now we have a case that is being brought as a witch hunt.
We'll see if it pans out, but assuming the defense attorney isn't incompetant, I'd say zimmerman has better than even odds of getting off on self defense.
I don't know how you figure that. He disregarded direct instructions from 911 to not persue the kid, chased him down, and shot and killed him. I don't know how you fit in "self defense" there. It's also particularly telling that they've been going for every fringe theory, including alleged marijuana use, to try and justify what he did.
There were no weapons or signs of assault from Martin. There was no blood or DNA found in Martins hands of fingernails, which are classic signs of assault. Multiple witnesses stated Martins behavior was normal and non threatening. Zimmerman was caught on tape making angry, disparaging remarks about youths in his area.
All the defense has is made up "what-if's", as evidenced by the fact that so much of their testimony was ruled inadmissible.
Even OJ couldn't get through this with a straight face.
From what I have heard Trayvon had bruises on his fists which could not have happened post mortum. This goes along with Zimmerman's photographed injuries and account that Trayvon punched him and forced him to the ground.
Have to see how the evidence comes out, but my guess will be that either side just argue these respective positions.
I don't know how you figure that. He disregarded direct instructions from 911 to not persue the kid, chased him down,
Let me start by saying I'm not arguing for Zimmerman's innocence, just pointing out some problems with this argument:
A 9-1-1 Operator has no legal authority to issue orders to a private citizen. They are generally not police officers and their statements don't carry the same weight.
I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in what he did, but don't confuse squirrely behavior (the term for people who think a little too much of their position in Fire/EMS/Law Enforcement, or think they have one) for an actual illegal action.
There were no weapons or signs of assault from Martin.
Aren't their photos of Martin's bruised and scraped knuckles and Zimmerman's bruised and bloody face? They didn't release them immediately after the incident went national, but it popped up during whatever court hearing he had last year.
Zimmerman was caught on tape making angry, disparaging remarks about youths in his area.
Lots of people do, and I've known Zimmerman's squirrelly type before, and while obnoxious and overeager, they aren't malicious. I seriously doubt Zimmerman went after Martin with the intention of killing him, which would make this a manslaughter case, not murder.
My point here is that this should be judged on facts, not on public opinion. There is a wide gulf between actual facts that can be backed up in court and the public's perception of the case. I don't think this is going to be as cut and dry as you want it to be.
I agree Zimmerman is a distasteful person (having tried to hide the amount of money he and his wife accumulated from donations is pretty bad), but whether or not he is guilty of murder is something else entirely. Let's pay attention to the trial and see what comes out of it, but I think the state is overreaching what they can prove with the Murder trial.
This case is complete political bull ****. The DA is grand standing for career maker and so is the judge. They are both female and after blood. The evidence against Zimmerman was mostly fabricated lies from the media: trevons age, record, picture, and accounts were all wrong. My masters heavily focused on law and this case is a completely not constitutional in charges, evidence handling, and court procedures. The only winners in this case are the companies who will be offering book deals.
This case is complete political bull ****. The DA is grand standing for career maker and so is the judge. They are both female and after blood. The evidence against Zimmerman was mostly fabricated lies from the media: trevons age, record, picture, and accounts were all wrong. My masters heavily focused on law and this case is a completely not constitutional in charges, evidence handling, and court procedures. The only winners in this case are the companies who will be offering book deals.
What in all that is holy does the Judge or DA being female have to do with anything?
On that note, what is your "masters heavily focused on law"? (If you were wondering, that was me contesting your claim as an expert)
What in all that is holy does the Judge or DA being female have to do with anything?
On that note, what is your "masters heavily focused on law"? (If you were wondering, that was me contesting your claim as an expert)
1. Having a female judge and DA is very bad for Zimmerman. Both are democrats and have noted opinions on anti 2nd amendment. They will try their best to ignore justice to sell a political opinion.
2. I am no expert, but well versed in law cases from the criminal court perspective. The evidence handling, witness and story collection, and lack of media restrictions is just as bad as the O J Simpson case. I am perfectly fine with the challenge of me being no expert, but I am we'll versed in law.
If you have any predisposition against Zimmerman or the second amendment; that's your opinion. There are piles of evidence with Trevon's rap sheet and Zimmerman's photos from the attack with witnesses. This is a political case since the liberals failed on the gun control. "It is better to litigate than to not at all" when trying to institute change. My law professor used that sentence to explain some of the most infamous cases that went to the Supreme Court. It will come down whether we have a right to defend ourselves, property, and others property while not in our home, car, or business (castle doctrine with an extension). If you have further questions; please respond.
1. Having a female judge and DA is very bad for Zimmerman. Both are democrats and have noted opinions on anti 2nd amendment. They will try their best to ignore justice to sell a political opinion.
Neither them being democrats, nor them having noted opinions of anti 2nd amendment have to do with them being female.
You implied that them being female made them biased against Zimmerman. I am asking you to defend that implication.
2. I am no expert, but well versed in law cases from the criminal court perspective. The evidence handling, witness and story collection, and lack of media restrictions is just as bad as the O J Simpson case. I am perfectly fine with the challenge of me being no expert, but I am we'll versed in law.
my bull****-o-meter just went off the chart. Either inform us *why* you are an expert in the area, or stop claiming it. For what it's worth I am an expert in the general area of law (although not in Florida) because I'm a licensed attorney.
And, as I think a fair number of people around these areas will attest, I've demonstrated a reasonable level of knowledge above and beyond the average individual with regards to legal matters in the past.
If you have any predisposition against Zimmerman or the second amendment; that's your opinion. There are piles of evidence with Trevon's rap sheet and Zimmerman's photos from the attack with witnesses. This is a political case since the liberals failed on the gun control. "It is better to litigate than to not at all" when trying to institute change. My law professor used that sentence to explain some of the most infamous cases that went to the Supreme Court. It will come down whether we have a right to defend ourselves, property, and others property while not in our home, car, or business (castle doctrine with an extension). If you have further questions; please respond.
I have no doubt that it is a political case. I've said as much. But, that doesn't make it a slam dunk case for the defense either. Like I said, Zimmerman has better than even odds in my opinion, but I don't know all the facts.
Neither do you.
Thats the underlying point here. None of us know all the facts, and particularly none of us know all the facts that will be presented at the trial. Facts don't matter if the Jury doesn't see them.
Florida has a stand your ground law. Which basically says if you are attacked and you feel your life is in danger then you may use lethal force to protect yourself or someone else.
They basically put the castle doctrine on the streets.
The problem is you cannot be the aggressor in a fight start losing kill the person and claim self defense.
the issue is that this is what happens in a court room and lawyers have corrupted the purpose of the law to get people off.
Personally zimmerman is the aggressor in this situation. Had he not chased after the kid etc ... the situation would have been avoided.
zimmerman is known in his area for being a hot head. basically thinks he is a cop without a badge according to his neighbors and this isn't the first instance of him getting out of control according to reports.
i see a mistrial happening possibly as well, but i am not sure on that one.
It will come down whether we have a right to defend ourselves, property, and others property while not in our home, car, or business (castle doctrine with an extension). If you have further questions; please respond.
you seem to forget that zimmerman wasn't doing any of this. he was the aggressor to begin with. he started the whole thing by chasing the boy.
the boy had a right to defend himself. just because you start to lose a fight that you instigated doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.
It will come down whether we have a right to defend ourselves, property, and others property while not in our home, car, or business (castle doctrine with an extension). If you have further questions; please respond.
It will come down to whether we have the right to pursue someone through the streets, while armed, when explicitly trained NOT TO DO THAT, provoke a scuffle with them, and kill them, just because they happen to be black and we think that black people are suspicious.
Zimmerman wasn't defending himself, his property, OR others' property. He was the aggressor in a violent incident that ended with him shooting someone. He's a monster who deserves to have the book thrown at him - and I think that's exactly what will happen in this trial.
I would go so far to say that if, in this precise incident with these precise facts, where Zimmerman followed him and provoked a conflict, Martin had killed Zimmerman, THEN self-defense would be worth talking about.
It will come down whether we have a right to defend ourselves, property, and others property while not in our home, car, or business (castle doctrine with an extension). If you have further questions; please respond.
I have a gun. I chase a unarmed man down. He turns on me and manages to hit me (several times if you prefer). I shoot him. Can I claim self-defense?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I have a gun. I chase a unarmed man down. He turns on me and manages to hit me (several times if you prefer). I shoot him. Can I claim self-defense?
While I'm pretty skeptical of Zimmerman myself, your question characterizes facts in a way that's unfair. The question in the case is precisely whether he "chase[d] a [sic] unarmed man down" waving a gun or whether he approached a suspicious person in his neighborhood and got attacked. The jury will be weighing testimony about the nature of Martin's attack, possibly Zimmerman's reputation, etc. to determine an accurate account of what happened.
I have a gun. I chase a unarmed man down. He turns on me and manages to hit me (several times if you prefer). I shoot him. Can I claim self-defense?
Not if you have already notified the police of the suspicious person and that person has not given any other indication prior to you confronting them that they are a danger to others.
I have a gun. I chase a unarmed man down. He turns on me and manages to hit me (several times if you prefer). I shoot him. Can I claim self-defense?
Yes, you can claim self-defense.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense that is based on a subjective and objective test.
First, is there an actual threat, such as someone beating you to death or do they have a knife?
Second, do you think that this threat will maim or kill you? (ie, just because someone is walking on the other side of the street doesn't mean that you can shoot them.)
So, in your hypo chasing down the unarmed man, while apparently visibly armed, would make the other man's attack totally justified (in most circumstances...). The self-defense claim would not work.
The important part is that there is a break point.
In a fight, if someone attacks you and you beat their ass to the ground and KO them, the fight is over. You have won. If you continue to beat the person, then your claim of self-defense is gone. You can't go past what is necessary.
So, with the hypo, if the man on the ground is fended off and the person keeps hitting him, then at some stage the guy with the gun can have a completely valid self-defense claim.
Shooting the unarmed person can happen. (Throw in some castle doctrine stuff... it can get crazy)
I have a gun. I chase a unarmed man down. He turns on me and manages to hit me (several times if you prefer). I shoot him. Can I claim self-defense?
The case itself lacks enough evidence for either side of the story to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that Zimmerman aggressively pursued a young man, forced a confrontation, and then shot him in a fit of paranoia, but I can't claim evidence to that course of events beyond a cynical skepticism of Zimmerman's story and my own interpretation of what happened.
This case is an illustration of a problem that can arise from extending the castle doctrine into stand your ground laws. Zimmerman has a good chance of being acquitted on the matter at hand - it's not whether George Zimmerman acted aggressively and irresponsibly beforehand (that's not really debatable) - it's whether George Zimmerman felt he was in real, imminent danger when the confrontation between him and Trayvon Martin occurred. Since in the United States the burden of proof is on the prosecution to determine whether or not a crime has taken place (that's what 'innocent until proven guilty' means), a case built on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitnesses is not going to proceed well - even though it would be an open and shut case of second degree murder without stand your ground laws in place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's the livestream for those interested, http://www.wptv.com/generic/news/national/George-Zimmerman-trial-complete-coverage.
So far it looks like Zimmerman's defense attorney is pretty bad...
Well... he's not exactly rich or popular. His only chance at a top calibre defense attorney was to hope it was high profile enough, and it probably isn't.
(caveat: I have not been watching so I have no knowledge of if he's actually any good).
Ton of objections in the D's opening apparently. iirc you can't talk about the burden of proof in the opening in florida...? Something like that.
Maybe, maybe not... mistakes are occasionally tactical decisions. As much as a judge can tell the jury "you can't consider that statement", the jury still heard the statement.
Granted, doing this intentionally (and getting caught) can get you sanctioned -- but it still happens.
1) how many of those objections were sustained?
2) thats not really a big deal. Objections happen. it's not a bad attorney becuase opposing counsel raised objections.
Now, I'm not saying he's a good attorney either, just offering a potential explanation.
From what I've read it looked more like a mistake rather than a tactic.
How does the self-defense affirmative defense work in trial? Is that decided along with the verdict or is it decided before?
Depends on the state -- I have no clue how it works in Florida.
Also, if anyone wants a lesson in media setting the narrative (rather than reporting it), take a look at the comparison pictures circulated back then to the ones being circulated now. It's amazing how picking the right photos of an individual sets the narrative, and how easy it is to paint either individual as good or bad depending on the photograph of them you use.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
There wasn't one, thats why it was news.
The issue then was that someone, I forget who, in Florida decided that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a case forward. Accusations abounded that it was due to racism, etc. etc. Now we have a case that is being brought as a witch hunt.
We'll see if it pans out, but assuming the defense attorney isn't incompetant, I'd say zimmerman has better than even odds of getting off on self defense.
I don't know how you figure that. He disregarded direct instructions from 911 to not persue the kid, chased him down, and shot and killed him. I don't know how you fit in "self defense" there. It's also particularly telling that they've been going for every fringe theory, including alleged marijuana use, to try and justify what he did.
There were no weapons or signs of assault from Martin. There was no blood or DNA found in Martins hands of fingernails, which are classic signs of assault. Multiple witnesses stated Martins behavior was normal and non threatening. Zimmerman was caught on tape making angry, disparaging remarks about youths in his area.
All the defense has is made up "what-if's", as evidenced by the fact that so much of their testimony was ruled inadmissible.
Even OJ couldn't get through this with a straight face.
Have to see how the evidence comes out, but my guess will be that either side just argue these respective positions.
Let me start by saying I'm not arguing for Zimmerman's innocence, just pointing out some problems with this argument:
A 9-1-1 Operator has no legal authority to issue orders to a private citizen. They are generally not police officers and their statements don't carry the same weight.
I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in what he did, but don't confuse squirrely behavior (the term for people who think a little too much of their position in Fire/EMS/Law Enforcement, or think they have one) for an actual illegal action.
Aren't their photos of Martin's bruised and scraped knuckles and Zimmerman's bruised and bloody face? They didn't release them immediately after the incident went national, but it popped up during whatever court hearing he had last year.
Beforehand, maybe, but there were no eyewitnesses to the assault (or lackthereof).
Lots of people do, and I've known Zimmerman's squirrelly type before, and while obnoxious and overeager, they aren't malicious. I seriously doubt Zimmerman went after Martin with the intention of killing him, which would make this a manslaughter case, not murder.
My point here is that this should be judged on facts, not on public opinion. There is a wide gulf between actual facts that can be backed up in court and the public's perception of the case. I don't think this is going to be as cut and dry as you want it to be.
I agree Zimmerman is a distasteful person (having tried to hide the amount of money he and his wife accumulated from donations is pretty bad), but whether or not he is guilty of murder is something else entirely. Let's pay attention to the trial and see what comes out of it, but I think the state is overreaching what they can prove with the Murder trial.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
What in all that is holy does the Judge or DA being female have to do with anything?
On that note, what is your "masters heavily focused on law"? (If you were wondering, that was me contesting your claim as an expert)
1. Having a female judge and DA is very bad for Zimmerman. Both are democrats and have noted opinions on anti 2nd amendment. They will try their best to ignore justice to sell a political opinion.
2. I am no expert, but well versed in law cases from the criminal court perspective. The evidence handling, witness and story collection, and lack of media restrictions is just as bad as the O J Simpson case. I am perfectly fine with the challenge of me being no expert, but I am we'll versed in law.
If you have any predisposition against Zimmerman or the second amendment; that's your opinion. There are piles of evidence with Trevon's rap sheet and Zimmerman's photos from the attack with witnesses. This is a political case since the liberals failed on the gun control. "It is better to litigate than to not at all" when trying to institute change. My law professor used that sentence to explain some of the most infamous cases that went to the Supreme Court. It will come down whether we have a right to defend ourselves, property, and others property while not in our home, car, or business (castle doctrine with an extension). If you have further questions; please respond.
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
Neither them being democrats, nor them having noted opinions of anti 2nd amendment have to do with them being female.
You implied that them being female made them biased against Zimmerman. I am asking you to defend that implication.
my bull****-o-meter just went off the chart. Either inform us *why* you are an expert in the area, or stop claiming it. For what it's worth I am an expert in the general area of law (although not in Florida) because I'm a licensed attorney.
And, as I think a fair number of people around these areas will attest, I've demonstrated a reasonable level of knowledge above and beyond the average individual with regards to legal matters in the past.
I have no doubt that it is a political case. I've said as much. But, that doesn't make it a slam dunk case for the defense either. Like I said, Zimmerman has better than even odds in my opinion, but I don't know all the facts.
Neither do you.
Thats the underlying point here. None of us know all the facts, and particularly none of us know all the facts that will be presented at the trial. Facts don't matter if the Jury doesn't see them.
Florida has a stand your ground law. Which basically says if you are attacked and you feel your life is in danger then you may use lethal force to protect yourself or someone else.
They basically put the castle doctrine on the streets.
The problem is you cannot be the aggressor in a fight start losing kill the person and claim self defense.
the issue is that this is what happens in a court room and lawyers have corrupted the purpose of the law to get people off.
Personally zimmerman is the aggressor in this situation. Had he not chased after the kid etc ... the situation would have been avoided.
zimmerman is known in his area for being a hot head. basically thinks he is a cop without a badge according to his neighbors and this isn't the first instance of him getting out of control according to reports.
i see a mistrial happening possibly as well, but i am not sure on that one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you seem to forget that zimmerman wasn't doing any of this. he was the aggressor to begin with. he started the whole thing by chasing the boy.
the boy had a right to defend himself. just because you start to lose a fight that you instigated doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
It will come down to whether we have the right to pursue someone through the streets, while armed, when explicitly trained NOT TO DO THAT, provoke a scuffle with them, and kill them, just because they happen to be black and we think that black people are suspicious.
Zimmerman wasn't defending himself, his property, OR others' property. He was the aggressor in a violent incident that ended with him shooting someone. He's a monster who deserves to have the book thrown at him - and I think that's exactly what will happen in this trial.
I would go so far to say that if, in this precise incident with these precise facts, where Zimmerman followed him and provoked a conflict, Martin had killed Zimmerman, THEN self-defense would be worth talking about.
I have a gun. I chase a unarmed man down. He turns on me and manages to hit me (several times if you prefer). I shoot him. Can I claim self-defense?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
While I'm pretty skeptical of Zimmerman myself, your question characterizes facts in a way that's unfair. The question in the case is precisely whether he "chase[d] a [sic] unarmed man down" waving a gun or whether he approached a suspicious person in his neighborhood and got attacked. The jury will be weighing testimony about the nature of Martin's attack, possibly Zimmerman's reputation, etc. to determine an accurate account of what happened.
Not if you have already notified the police of the suspicious person and that person has not given any other indication prior to you confronting them that they are a danger to others.
Yes, you can claim self-defense.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense that is based on a subjective and objective test.
First, is there an actual threat, such as someone beating you to death or do they have a knife?
Second, do you think that this threat will maim or kill you? (ie, just because someone is walking on the other side of the street doesn't mean that you can shoot them.)
So, in your hypo chasing down the unarmed man, while apparently visibly armed, would make the other man's attack totally justified (in most circumstances...). The self-defense claim would not work.
The important part is that there is a break point.
In a fight, if someone attacks you and you beat their ass to the ground and KO them, the fight is over. You have won. If you continue to beat the person, then your claim of self-defense is gone. You can't go past what is necessary.
So, with the hypo, if the man on the ground is fended off and the person keeps hitting him, then at some stage the guy with the gun can have a completely valid self-defense claim.
Shooting the unarmed person can happen. (Throw in some castle doctrine stuff... it can get crazy)
The case itself lacks enough evidence for either side of the story to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that Zimmerman aggressively pursued a young man, forced a confrontation, and then shot him in a fit of paranoia, but I can't claim evidence to that course of events beyond a cynical skepticism of Zimmerman's story and my own interpretation of what happened.
This case is an illustration of a problem that can arise from extending the castle doctrine into stand your ground laws. Zimmerman has a good chance of being acquitted on the matter at hand - it's not whether George Zimmerman acted aggressively and irresponsibly beforehand (that's not really debatable) - it's whether George Zimmerman felt he was in real, imminent danger when the confrontation between him and Trayvon Martin occurred. Since in the United States the burden of proof is on the prosecution to determine whether or not a crime has taken place (that's what 'innocent until proven guilty' means), a case built on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitnesses is not going to proceed well - even though it would be an open and shut case of second degree murder without stand your ground laws in place.