Zimmerman Trial Live Feed - Day Seven

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There does not have to be ANY actual injury.

So you're saying George got himself fcuked up for nothing? Man, he'll be mad...

[RGinWA 816]

So George did get his head slammed at least once and punched in the nose? So it is very possible that TM did get the jump on him and strike first. Georges wounds weren't life threatening, not that this is anything new since he was walking around and talking seconds after the shooting. Was it reasonable to think that he felt he was in danger of great bodily harm? I don't believe the law says he had to be inn fear of his life. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is important for the jury.

I believe the term they use "would a reasonable person" think they were about to die, therefore they killed the other person in order to save their life?

Its probably the most suggestive thing you could ask a jury. What do you think he was thinking?

What if you are a frail old lady, to that person yes, it just makes sense. Can't fight back, attacked, must shoot to survive.

To a 26 year old man that trains daily in MMA style training 3 days a week 3 hours each time? I don't know.

Did GZ's actions create an environment where TM, a minor in this case, believed he was in eminent danger?

I can't answer that either but it will come into their thinking. Negligence counts in Manslaughter.

I can say there was no hard evidence shown that GZ went into the situation with intention of doing great bodily injury or murder.

That's why I say manslaughter at best, because in an accidental homicide where both contribute to the situation the survivor usually gets some loss of liberty...i.e. time.

Since TM is a minor the max is 30 years and there is possibly a gun enhancement if the death is ruled not justifiable, another 5 years.

I'd say although he'd be up for 30 he gets 8 and does 5. That's if he doesn't catch a case in the yard having to put a shank into a rival.

The State rests...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Character is what you are in the dark..

History was made at night..

Buckaroo Banzai

"Thank God Russia was never part of the British Empire."

Vladmir Putin

"the Ukraine Girls Really Knock Me Out"

The Beatles

The Moscow Girls Make Me Sing and Shout!"

The Beatles

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The threshhold for the use of deadly force is the reasonable belief that one is in danger of death or severe injury. There does not have to be ANY actual injury. That is what the jury needs to decide, not if there were any actual life threatening injuries or even that were were any injuries at all. There was never any claim by anyone that the injuries he sustained were life threatening. There was no need to. The prosecution established an irrelevent "fact" The injuries sustained make it almost impossible for a reasonable person to deny it would be reasonable to assume the possibility of death or severe injury. There was more than a threat, there was an actual physical assault in progress. You would need to get 6 people to agree it was not reasonable to assume the possibility of severe injury or death. This is where the case always fell apart.

The point of allowing the use of deadly force is to prevent the feared injuries from actually occuring. Fortunately, GZ did that. This will be covered in the jury instructions if not sooner.

The fact that the prosecution is spending time to establish things that do not matter and to strike the testimony of their own witness is all one needs to know to understand they are losing and they know it.

That's what I thought. I've never heard that in a self defense case that the person had to be almost dead to use deadly force. It can happen in a flash. Someone sucker punches me, knocks me down, bashes my head, maybe punches me while I'm down. I am yelling for help as I am being beaten, at some point I must make a very quick decision to save myself. Do I ask my attacker, "how many more times are you going to hit me so I can deiced whether I should draw this gun I have and shoot you?" Or do I wait for a while and see if he knocks me out? Or if I am afraid and survival kicks in like it does for most humans, I use what I have at my disposal to give me the best chance of survival?

How can any of us say that GZ was not in fear of great bodily harm? How can we say he should have waited for a while longer to shoot TM? What if TM really was going for the gun? There was a split second to make a decision on who was going to survive. I don't know about some of the people here, but if it me or you, I'm picking me. I'd like to know if some of those here were drowning would try to swim as long as they could, or just give up immediately and sink. This wasn't a movie, it was real life and the confrontation happened quickly.

The prosecution is going to have to do a better job to convince me that George wasn't fearing bodily harm.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I believe the term they use "would a reasonable person" think they were about to die, therefore they killed the other person in order to save their life?

Its probably the most suggestive thing you could ask a jury. What do you think he was thinking?

What if you are a frail old lady, to that person yes, it just makes sense. Can't fight back, attacked, must shoot to survive.

To a 26 year old man that trains daily in MMA style training 3 days a week 3 hours each time? I don't know.

Did GZ's actions create an environment where TM, a minor in this case, believed he was in eminent danger?

I can't answer that either but it will come into their thinking. Negligence counts in Manslaughter.

I can say there was no hard evidence shown that GZ went into the situation with intention of doing great bodily injury or murder.

That's why I say manslaughter at best, because in an accidental homicide where both contribute to the situation the survivor usually gets some loss of liberty...i.e. time.

Since TM is a minor the max is 30 years and there is possibly a gun enhancement if the death is ruled not justifiable, another 5 years.

I'd say although he'd be up for 30 he gets 8 and does 5. That's if he doesn't catch a case in the yard having to put a shank into a rival.

The State rests...

What EXACTLY is the jury being asked to decide? And if it is a hung jury, GZ walks away a free man?

[RGinWA 816]

The threshhold for the use of deadly force is the reasonable belief that one is in danger of death or severe injury. There does not have to be ANY actual injury. That is what the jury needs to decide, not if there were any actual life threatening injuries or even that were were any injuries at all. There was never any claim by anyone that the injuries he sustained were life threatening. There was no need to. The prosecution established an irrelevent "fact" The injuries sustained make it almost impossible for a reasonable person to deny it would be reasonable to assume the possibility of death or severe injury. There was more than a threat, there was an actual physical assault in progress. You would need to get 6 people to agree it was not reasonable to assume the possibility of severe injury or death. This is where the case always fell apart.

The point of allowing the use of deadly force is to prevent the feared injuries from actually occuring. Fortunately, GZ did that. This will be covered in the jury instructions if not sooner.

The fact that the prosecution is spending time to establish things that do not matter and to strike the testimony of their own witness is all one needs to know to understand they are losing and they know it.

So all those women who claim they were tired of years of spousal abuse and being beaten are innocent? The ones who killed their husband's when they felt a beating coming on? But yet were not beaten that day, so they get out of prison now!

YES! Finally justice for those wrongly accused!...

You know women have been put to death because of your legal advice right? Claimed the feared death so they killed their husband?

You may want to add "in my opinion" because it's bad legal advice counselor.

14 years counselor...fourteen years!

[RGinWA 816]

What EXACTLY is the jury being asked to decide? And if it is a hung jury, GZ walks away a free man?

Hung jury is a mistrial, state can refile charges if they feel it is in the interest of justice. Not guilty walks, Guilty can be appealed while in custody. He could also take a plea deal after the charges are refiled. I personally wouldn't retrial unless they had a lone jurist who voted not guilty for some unsubstantiated reason.

The full instructions come at the end of testimony and they'll be told specifically what the law is and what they are to conclude as far as guilty or not guilty on each charge.

They also can ask for clarification at any time while deliberating from the judge.

They can see and examine any and all evidence presented.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That's what I thought. I've never heard that in a self defense case that the person had to be almost dead to use deadly force. It can happen in a flash. Someone sucker punches me, knocks me down, bashes my head, maybe punches me while I'm down. I am yelling for help as I am being beaten, at some point I must make a very quick decision to save myself. Do I ask my attacker, "how many more times are you going to hit me so I can deiced whether I should draw this gun I have and shoot you?" Or do I wait for a while and see if he knocks me out? Or if I am afraid and survival kicks in like it does for most humans, I use what I have at my disposal to give me the best chance of survival?

How can any of us say that GZ was not in fear of great bodily harm? How can we say he should have waited for a while longer to shoot TM? What if TM really was going for the gun? There was a split second to make a decision on who was going to survive. I don't know about some of the people here, but if it me or you, I'm picking me. I'd like to know if some of those here were drowning would try to swim as long as they could, or just give up immediately and sink. This wasn't a movie, it was real life and the confrontation happened quickly.

The prosecution is going to have to do a better job to convince me that George wasn't fearing bodily harm.

A racist that wants a lynching of a white guy because he used a legal concealed weapon and did not wait for the government agents (police) to bring guns can easily say this.

A person that hates the right to own firearms and self defense can easily say it. They are usually the same ones that support bans on cosmetic firearm features, support wiretapping our phones and emails and anything else that makes us subservient to government. People who hate concealed weapons laws can easily say that.

The armed citizen represents something they fear because they are too independent. Low crime rates do not support large police departments and big government budgets.

The problem is that you need to get 6 jurors in one room at one time to unanimously agree that there is no reasonable doubt he could have feared for his life or injury. NONE of the witnesses can tell you that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hung jury is a mistrial, state can refile charges if they feel it is in the interest of justice. Not guilty walks, Guilty can be appealed while in custody. He could also take a plea deal after the charges are refiled. I personally wouldn't retrial unless they had a lone jurist who voted not guilty for some unsubstantiated reason.

The full instructions come at the end of testimony and they'll be told specifically what the law is and what they are to conclude as far as guilty or not guilty on each charge.

They also can ask for clarification at any time while deliberating from the judge.

They can see and examine any and all evidence presented.

To answer his question specifically. YES, if a hung jury he walks out a FREE MAN. It would be incumbent on the state to re-charge him and re-try him which they could do. He is technically considered not to have been tried at all. Many times they do not because unless there is some evidence they lacked at the first trial they would be wasting time, really.

The judge is going to review the case at the conclusion of the prosecutions presentation and could decide to stop the trial and declare him not guilty...directed verdict.

Yes the instructions come before the case goes to the jury. And yes they can review everything as much as they want.

This case is not about homocide. If it was, there would have been no charges. It is about race, concealed carry, "stand your ground" (which was never an issue really)

I doubt the judge will do a directed verdict. The case is too racially charged by racists to cut it short and the reason for the trial is to appease people that make excuses for "Dee Dee". Lost cause but they have to do it.

I see this case gradually fading off the mainstream radar...anyone else noticed that? Just before the trial and the first 3 days it was all over the news everywhere I looked. Now it has faded. I thnik they know this is going to end in acquittal and they want it out of the news and let people forget about it. Probably won't work. The media has a way of ignoring news they don't like, but there are some paid racist hacks watching this trial.

[RGinWA 816]

A racist that wants a lynching of a white guy because he used a legal concealed weapon and did not wait for the government agents (police) to bring guns can easily say this.

A person that hates the right to own firearms and self defense can easily say it. They are usually the same ones that support bans on cosmetic firearm features, support wiretapping our phones and emails and anything else that makes us subservient to government. People who hate concealed weapons laws can easily say that.

The armed citizen represents something they fear because they are too independent. Low crime rates do not support large police departments and big government budgets.

The problem is that you need to get 6 jurors in one room at one time to unanimously agree that there is no reasonable doubt he could have feared for his life or injury. NONE of the witnesses can tell you that.

In this entire thread today, you sir have raised the racist question. Sad record broken after over 8 hours.

This thread was virtually color blind until you dragged race into it kicking and screaming.

I own many firearms sir, at least 6 and I take offense to your accusation that I'm not as crazy as the rest of the NRA genuflecting crowd.

Armed wussies is what I fear sir...armed and scared they usually shoot people in their own homes...people who live there. They usually do the most damage and think killing a human is no biggie because they were afraid. When you kill, you take everything and can't give anything back.

This trial demonstrates one thing, you can't just kill and think this won't possibly change your entire life. That might just make others think first, and maybe try a warning shot before setting those wheels in motion. If we spent more time trying to understand one another maybe killing wouldn't be so easy to justify.

Like I said he's not the devil and neither is TM. Lets act accordingly.

Dismissed...

[spookyturtle 9,465]

So all those women who claim they were tired of years of spousal abuse and being beaten are innocent? The ones who killed their husband's when they felt a beating coming on? But yet were not beaten that day, so they get out of prison now!

YES! Finally justice for those wrongly accused!...

You know women have been put to death because of your legal advice right? Claimed the feared death so they killed their husband?

You may want to add "in my opinion" because it's bad legal advice counselor.

14 years counselor...fourteen years!

Wouldn't the woman have to actually kill her husband during the attack for a claim of self defense to be valid?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How can any of us say that GZ was not in fear of great bodily harm?

I'd say if minor scratches or as the ME would put it insignificant injuries translate into your fearing great bodily harm, I would suggest that you would not be the person that follows suspicious, up-to-no-good fellas that you have to call the police about in the dark. He felt he's man enough to follow a kid - George's description of the teen - and then he wants to claim fearing for his life (that is his actual claim, by the way) when he is scratched? You might find that credible, I do not.

The prosecution is going to have to do a better job to convince me that George wasn't fearing bodily harm.

The jury has to believe - by a preponderance of the evidence - that George had reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death for George to walk. I don't see how that happens.

More of George's lies exposed today as well. Appears that he spoke publicly on Faux News about "Stand Your Ground" claiming he was not familiar with the statute. And tonight, his defense attorneys are trying to dig up case law to justify their request to have excluded from evidence George's taking a class on - you guessed it - the Stand Your Ground statute. The plot thickens.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[RGinWA 816]

Wouldn't the woman have to actually kill her husband during the attack for a claim of self defense to be valid?

That was my point...there needs to be injuries from an attack and the proof that this homicide is unavoidable.

His idea of no injuries has been tried...even past injuries don't count.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

That was my point...there needs to be injuries from an attack and the proof that this homicide is unavoidable.

His idea of no injuries has been tried...even past injuries don't count.

I meant that a woman can't claim self defense if she kills her husband a month after he beat her and she kills him when there is no attack.

[RGinWA 816]

More of George's lies exposed today as well. Appears that he spoke publicly on Faux News about "Stand Your Ground" claiming he was not familiar with the statute. And tonight, his defense attorneys are trying to dig up case law to justify their request to have excluded from evidence George's taking a class on - you guessed it - the Stand Your Ground statute. The plot thickens.

The Defense was squirming more than I've seen before, because apparently GZ's course covers that in some way and they are trying to claim that maybe GZ wasn't there that day of class?

Next, the dog ate that homework.

They were rattled about the next couple pieces of evidence...like the police department application that was denied. Yet they've claimed in the opening statement that GZ had no desire to be a cop and wasn't acting as one.

Ooops!