excellent read - New Yorker, "...Stand Whose Ground?"

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Why is that unfortunate?

Wouldn't it be beneficial to the case to know who initiated the physical attack that resulted in a death?

[Karee 4,191]

Wouldn't it be beneficial to the case to know who initiated the physical attack that resulted in a death?

My bad, I misread your post.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maryland law?

Case law often references similar cases from other jurisdictions. It's actually quite common.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

TM's alleged actions during his altercation with GZ are in question and Nature Boy continues to speculate that TM assaulted GZ while trying to pass it off as factual. Know one knows for sure what happened during the altercation, except Martin (who is dead), and GZ. Martin and his family still have rights as victims. He was shot and killed (victim) and deserves the same rights of presumed innocent as the person who shot and killed him. If he didn't, then equal protection under the law has been twisted to favor armed citizens over unarmed citizens.

GZ either initiated the physical attack with an attack of his own (a push, a punch, etc) or TM initiated the attack because he was being followed.

Unfortunately, neither can be proven. All that's known is a physical altercation eventually happened.

All this along with the fact that the police nor DA wanted to prosecute the case because they believed it was self defense has the possibility of putting doubt into the mind of one juror. No one knows who started the physical part, but we do know that GZ had injuries from it and TM did not, leading an impartial person to think that TM had the upper hand. It also jives with GZ story. George was quickly in an inferior position regardless of who started it or why getting his a$$ whupped. The prosecution has to convince the jury that GZ was not in fear of great bodily harm. The police and the DA believed his story and only after 45 days caved to outside pressure to put on a fairly weak show in court.

And since all we know is that an altercation happened, there is ample opportunity for doubt in the jurors mind. Or one jurors mind. I have no idea how they'll vote. OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty but got off. The case against Zimmerman is not strong. He probably really did act in self defense, so maybe the jury will convict him.

[Harsh_77 718]

TM's alleged actions during his altercation with GZ are in question and Nature Boy continues to speculate that TM assaulted GZ while trying to pass it off as factual. Know one knows for sure what happened during the altercation, except Martin (who is dead), and GZ. Martin and his family still have rights as victims. He was shot and killed (victim) and deserves the same rights of presumed innocent as the person who shot and killed him. If he didn't, then equal protection under the law has been twisted to favor armed citizens over unarmed citizens.

It has been proven by the witness, by medical expert and by forensic expert, TM was on top of GZ hitting him punching him and from angle of the shot he was leaning forwards.

Just coz TM died at end of altercation does not make him any innocent; if you look at his character it does portray him to be violent as well.

Infact the judge has been in favor of prosecution from the day 1 of the case, she would not admit the past of TM as his character was not important but on other side she would admit past of GZ.

Earlier you quoted something from Judge Alex, he also made a comment about this being unusual of judge Nelson so admit past of one party and not of other.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All this along with the fact that the police nor DA wanted to prosecute the case because they believed it was self defense has the possibility of putting doubt into the mind of one juror. No one knows who started the physical part, but we do know that GZ had injuries from it and TM did not, leading an impartial person to think that TM had the upper hand. It also jives with GZ story. George was quickly in an inferior position regardless of who started it or why getting his a$$ whupped. The prosecution has to convince the jury that GZ was not in fear of great bodily harm. The police and the DA believed his story and only after 45 days caved to outside pressure to put on a fairly weak show in court.

And since all we know is that an altercation happened, there is ample opportunity for doubt in the jurors mind. Or one jurors mind. I have no idea how they'll vote. OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty but got off. The case against Zimmerman is not strong. He probably really did act in self defense, so maybe the jury will convict him.

No, the jurors only need to be convinced that George's fears were unreasonable, and/or that his use of lethal force appropriate (reasonable). I think you are confusing proof of guilt with lack of affirming evidence that George acted in 'perfect self-defense.' The law makes room for 'imperfect self-defense' where he may have sincerely been in fear that night, but his reaction to that fear was unreasonable. That's why the behavior of both parties prior to the altercation will be the clincher.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Case law often references similar cases from other jurisdictions. It's actually quite common.

This is the standard jury instruction in Florida.

Read in all cases.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

It;s under 3.6

Regardless of Maryland or California law the bar in Florida is set pretty low for the denfense

Edited July 10, 2013 by Dan and Judy

[spookyturtle 9,466]

No, the jurors only need to be convinced that George's fears were unreasonable, and/or that his use of lethal force appropriate (reasonable). I think you are confusing proof of guilt with lack of affirming evidence that George acted in 'perfect self-defense.' The law makes room for 'imperfect self-defense' where he may have sincerely been in fear that night, but his reaction to that fear was unreasonable. That's why the behavior of both parties prior to the altercation will be the clincher.

So the part of getting out of his truck to follow TM is more important than having TM smash his head against the sidewalk and punch him while leaning over and sitting on top of him? Getting out of his truck makes him guilty even if TM jumped him. Got it.

This is the standard jury instruction in Florida.

Read in all cases.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

It;s under 3.6

Regardless of Maryland or California law the bar in Florida is set pretty low for the denfense

Why introduce facts and logic into this?

Let's use laws from other states if it makes it more likely for a guilty verdict. Who cares if the trial is in FL? Let's pick a state with stricter standards and argue it that way.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

This is the standard jury instruction in Florida.

Read in all cases.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

It;s under 3.6

Regardless of Maryland or California law the bar in Florida is set pretty low for the denfense

If this is the actual jury standard and that this instruction is given to the jury in the Zimmerman case any impartial person would vote not guilty. There is clearly reasonable doubt, IMO. Even if you think GZ is guilty, there is reasonable doubt as the evidence to convict him was not strong at all. Why do you think that there was no intent to prosecute the case?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So the part of getting out of his truck to follow TM is more important than having TM smash his head against the sidewalk and punch him while leaning over and sitting on top of him? Getting out of his truck makes him guilty even if TM jumped him. Got it.

FACT

SPECULATION

The jury knows the difference between fact and speculation and will make their decision based on facts, disregarding speculation. That's how justice works.

[Karee 4,191]

FACT

SPECULATION

The jury knows the difference between fact and speculation and will make their decision based on facts, disregarding speculation. That's how justice works.

I guess you can twist things around so that you can make anything fact and anything speculation that suits your narrative. Hopefully the jury is impartial, unlike yourself.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

FACT

SPECULATION

The jury knows the difference between fact and speculation and will make their decision based on facts, disregarding speculation. That's how justice works.

You're on the jury. The instructions that Dan&Judy posted are given to you. How do you vote since you were impartial going into this?

[lostinblue 1,989]

I guess you can twist things around so that you can make anything fact and anything speculation that suits your narrative. Hopefully the jury is impartial, unlike yourself.

Just saw a poll 75% say not guilty.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

And you do agree that OJ and Casey Anthony were innocent based on the facts, correct? That's how justice works, correct?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If this is the actual jury standard and that this instruction is given to the jury in the Zimmerman case any impartial person would vote not guilty. There is clearly reasonable doubt, IMO. Even if you think GZ is guilty, there is reasonable doubt as the evidence to convict him was not strong at all. Why do you think that there was no intent to prosecute the case?

That's for determining whether George committed murder. There's wiggle room in what is called, 'imperfect self-defense' which is the determination that he acted in self-defense, but didn't meet the full criteria (reasonable fear and reasonable actions). The state would be up a creek without a paddle if they didn't think they could go anywhere, for one. Second, the judge would have dismissed the trial had she believed the evidence was insufficient. He'll get manslaughter, but not 2nd degree murder based on imperfect self-defense. He may only serve a couple of years, get out and write a book about it....maybe even get his own show on Fox News.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Lincolns mullet