The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[Cylinder]

Since GZ shot TM... the above seems quite reasonable to me.

But the jury instruction will read, if doubt exists to whether the defendant's use of force was justified, you must find the defendant NOT GUILTY.

 

[sgtbaker]

Effective prosecution: articulate a cogent theory of guilt, and support that theory with enough evidence to meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable guilt".

Does anybody actually think the state made an honest effort to do that?

IMO, they put all their effort into attempting to poke holes in the defense's case. They want the jury to convict Zimmerman based on their (hoped for) distrust and dislike of him.

I don't feel they made a good case for the general public but this jury, supposedly did not follow the case. There is a lot of information potentially unknown to them and they did not have the same access to analyst opinions and arguments that they were removed from the room for. In these threads, I have not seen any opinions waiver from their starting points, as the trial ran its course. I think it is still anybody's game. We will see when the defense makes their closing, which I will unfortunately miss due to work...

 

[Skeletor]

But the jury instruction will read, if doubt exists to whether the defendant's use of force was justified, you must find the defendant NOT GUILTY.

I am somewhat surprised at that instruction; is this why BDLR kept discussing GZ's credibility? To cast doubt upon the doubt?

 

[BenBurch]

I'm laying my bet on green-000 - hung jury. State didn't make their case well, but well enough for some people to dig in their heels.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm laying my bet on green-000 - hung jury. State didn't make their case well, but well enough for some people to dig in their heels.

Interesting point, that could be an outlier I didn't consider. Did someone manage to sneak onto the jury that has a mission? Could apply to either side of course.

 

[dudalb]

I'm laying my bet on green-000 - hung jury. State didn't make their case well, but well enough for some people to dig in their heels.

My money in on a manslaughter conviction,since the judge has given the jury that option.

 

[WildCat]

My money in on a manslaughter conviction,since the judge has given the jury that option.

And how did the state make a case for manslaughter?

 

[bynmdsue]

About the skipping, there's a sort of show of force or dominance skip...very unlike your regular skipping...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLt5Fdn9ciw

I always interpreted "skipping" to GZ trying to describe loping or bounding, long hopping strides like "this is the direction I'm going, follow me..."

But anyways I missed it, how many "*********** punks" was Bernie able to fit in?

 

[Skeletor]

I always interpreted "skipping" to GZ trying to describe loping or bounding, long hopping strides like "this is the direction I'm going, follow me..."

But anyways I missed it, how many "*********** punks" was Bernie able to fit in?

A lot. With vigor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How did the state fail to show Zimmerman lied about everything? How does coming up with possible scenarios GZ did not say happened cast doubt?

In order to believe GZ could have feared for his life, you have to believe he was telling the truth and just making mistakes of memory giving the account.

Or, you have to use a definition of "reasonable doubt" that means, well beyond common sense.

beyond a reasonable doubt adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence" used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case. (See: reasonable doubt, moral certainty, conviction)

It is beyond a reasonable doubt GZ lied about everything that happened. It is beyond reasonable doubt that GZ was lying that he felt his life threatened.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that he followed TM. I think it is beyond reasonable doubt GZ was the initial aggressor. However, other people may feel there was reasonable doubt here making the conviction manslaughter.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

How did the state fail to show Zimmerman lied about everything? How does coming up with possible scenarios GZ did not say happened cast doubt?

In order to believe GZ could have feared for his life, you have to believe he was telling the truth and just making mistakes of memory giving the account.

Or, you have to use a definition of "reasonable doubt" that means, well beyond common sense.

It is beyond a reasonable doubt GZ lied about everything that happened. It is beyond reasonable doubt that GZ was lying that he felt his life threatened.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that he followed TM. I think it is beyond reasonable doubt GZ was the initial aggressor. However, other people may feel there was reasonable doubt here making the conviction manslaughter.

Your entire post belongs in the other thread and is not about what is happening in the court room. Personally I could not care less but I really don't want this thread closed again.

 

[Xulld]

In order to believe GZ could have feared for his life, you have to believe he was telling the truth and just making mistakes of memory giving the account.

Naw, John Good's testimony was all that was needed to create more than a shadow of doubt.

 

[Freddy]

And how did the state make a case for manslaughter?

I think the idea is that there will be disagreement among the jurors, and they will "compromise" on manslaughter. Which juries are emphatically not supposed to do, but that doesn't mean they never do it.

In case anyone cares what I think, I thought the prosecution's closing argument was as much of a trainwreck as the case-in-chief. He was arguing as if he were the defense attorney, and needed only to poke holes in the other side's case. It was almost as if he forgot where the burden of proof lies. In general, saying that this, that, or the other thing could be what really happened is rather unlikely to convince a jury that there is no reasonable doubt about what really happened. If you're the prosecutor, you need a single, coherent narrative that is clearly the most plausible theory of the case. This was just scattershot, fired from the hip. And he rushed at the end and finished early because it was apparent he had lost the jury's attention. I didn't get the impression they were buying it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In case anyone cares what I think

I care Freddy. I really do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl_NpdAy3WY

 

[KatieG]

Trayvon Martin's parents: Don't take law into your own hands.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/enter...post?track=rss

 

[Cylinder]

Final Jury Instructions

 

[Cylinder]

Manslaughter by Act is the only lesser. Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence is not listed.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's right there. If self defense, then no M2 and no Manslaughter.

 

[Cylinder]

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

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

So they did not use any of the first aggressor language as well.

 

[Cylinder]

"Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case. Likewise, your sympathy for the doll should not influence deliberations."