GatewayRedbirds.com

cardsfansince82 wrote:

PurdueSTL wrote:

go birds wrote:I think the bigger message here is that anyone prosecuting in Florida is completely incapable of presenting a decent case.

Nailed it.

The prosecution's decision to seek 2nd degree murder (as opposed to manslaughter, etc.) and its absolute inability to counter the obvious holes shot into its case that any decent defense lawyer could have done,-- pretty much made this verdict a foregone conclusion.

This IMO is a mirror image of the OJ trial-- as long as your legal system is founded on the presumption of innocence, you'd better have your shyte together as a prosecutor in a murder case.

The jury instructions included the option of manslaughter.

The presumption of innocence/beyond a reasonable doubt applies when the person simply pleads not guilty. There is no dispute that he killed Trayvon Martin. The burden shifts to the defense when self defense is claimed. They had to prove what he did was absolutely necessary and in response to an attempt to murder him. I don't see how anyone could conclude they accomplished that.

Hmmm..That's interesting. Do you have a link, or something, that explains the burden shifting from prosecution to defense in proving a case. I've seen it before in the past where the presumption of innocence is lost and the onus of proof lies with the defense. But, I didn't know that was the case here. Though I've paid little attention.

I wouldn't hate it if someone stalked, confronted, provoked and shot George Zimmerman dead if they see him walking through their neighborhood.

What did Zimmerman prevent? Skittle consumption?

oh, i see you conveniently left out the iced tea

PurdueSTL wrote:

cardsfansince82 wrote:

PurdueSTL wrote:

go birds wrote:I think the bigger message here is that anyone prosecuting in Florida is completely incapable of presenting a decent case.

Nailed it.

The prosecution's decision to seek 2nd degree murder (as opposed to manslaughter, etc.) and its absolute inability to counter the obvious holes shot into its case that any decent defense lawyer could have done,-- pretty much made this verdict a foregone conclusion.

This IMO is a mirror image of the OJ trial-- as long as your legal system is founded on the presumption of innocence, you'd better have your shyte together as a prosecutor in a murder case.

The jury instructions included the option of manslaughter.

The presumption of innocence/beyond a reasonable doubt applies when the person simply pleads not guilty. There is no dispute that he killed Trayvon Martin. The burden shifts to the defense when self defense is claimed. They had to prove what he did was absolutely necessary and in response to an attempt to murder him. I don't see how anyone could conclude they accomplished that.

I'm confused..didn't Zimmerman plead "not guilty" to the charge of 2nd degree murder?

And also, the fact that the prosecution asked for (and got) manslaughter as part of the jury instructions (essentially at the 11th hour) was a HUGE indication to me that the prosecutors knew they'd failed in making their case....

They have evidence of injuries to Zimmermans head, supposedly due to his head being slammed into the ground. I haven't heard if there were injuries on Martin apart from be gunshot, but if not I'd imagine that gives Zimmerman a decent case an it sounds like the jury was convinced.

Is anyone worried that Zimmerman will do this again?

Also, has anyone pointed out that Zimmerman set up a defense fund and was able to buy the best criminal defense lawyers and that likely tilted the scales in his favor, as good lawyers are wont to do?

I have a friend who I normally agree with politically who has turned bat [expletive] crazy re: Zimmerman/Martin. I shouldn't have bothered, but last night I spend way too long on facebook trying to understand why she thinks Zimmerman was "just doing his 'job'" and that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman. And that Zimmerman was right for doing what he did.

I can't understand how a normal, usually intelligent person can believe this. And I spent way too long trying to understand her view and trying to get her to understand mine.

PurdueSTL wrote: I'm confused..didn't Zimmerman plead "not guilty" to the charge of 2nd degree murder?

And also, the fact that the prosecution asked for (and got) manslaughter as part of the jury instructions (essentially at the 11th hour) was a HUGE indication to me that the prosecutors knew they'd failed in making their case....

Also partially in response to beerstrikes question from earlier... Please note that I'm not a lawyer.

There's no such thing as "not guilty" once you admit to killing someone. He pleaded not guilty-Justifiable homicide. He is not disputing that he killed that kid.

The jury had three options: justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder 2. To find him guilty of murder 2, you have to prove he was committing a criminal act, to prove justifiable homicide you have to show his act was justified or there is some doubt whether it was not justified. Manslaughter means the act was not justified but not criminal. I don't see how anyone can read the circumstances of the case and have any doubt that what he did wasnt justified. As for his injuries, there was expert testimony that they weren't consistent with a head being slammed into concrete. We don't even know for sure they were actually caused by Trayvon Martin.

cardsfansince82 wrote:

PurdueSTL wrote: I'm confused..didn't Zimmerman plead "not guilty" to the charge of 2nd degree murder?

And also, the fact that the prosecution asked for (and got) manslaughter as part of the jury instructions (essentially at the 11th hour) was a HUGE indication to me that the prosecutors knew they'd failed in making their case....

Also partially in response to beerstrikes question from earlier... Please note that I'm not a lawyer.

There's no such thing as "not guilty" once you admit to killing someone. He pleaded not guilty-Justifiable homicide. He is not disputing that he killed that kid.

The jury had three options: justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder 2. To find him guilty of murder 2, you have to prove he was committing a criminal act, to prove justifiable homicide you have to show his act was justified or there is some doubt whether it was not justified. Manslaughter means the act was not justified but not criminal. I don't see how anyone can read the circumstances of the case and have any doubt that what he did wasnt justified. As for his injuries, there was expert testimony that they weren't consistent with a head being slammed into concrete. We don't even know for sure they were actually caused by Trayvon Martin.

I don't know enough about the law or this case to really be commenting or giving my opinion on this case. But, I do believe the default answer is justifiable homicide (ie, not guilty) and it has to be proven that the defendant is guilty of manslaughter or murder 2.
I understand, and probably even agree with, what you are saying. The onus should be on the defense to prove justifiable homicide, but I really don't think that's true.

I almost always root for the defendant in criminal cases of national sensations and didn't in this one. I pretty much agree with what Doc posted from reddit. This is a sad case and Zimmerman undoubtedly acted wrongly if not criminally from what little I know. And, as I said, people should be up in arms about this law because it really does give a blueprint for committing a legal murder.