No 'Stand Your Ground' for Zimmerman

[Foxrac]

If Zimmerman isn't guilty so he will have deal with expensive civil lawsuits.

I don't know about federal charge and federal is intended to charge him after state trial is over but they can change their mind.

 

[TXgolfer]

Smart move... Exactly what I said back when this started. If it is unlikely that the judge will grant you immunity, it is a waste of time and poor strategy to have this hearing. Even his first lawyers said it was unlikely that they would seek a "Stand Your Ground" immunity hearing. Self defense is the lower bar so it only makes sense to go that route.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

This depends on what actually happened. If Zimmerman approached Martin, yes, Martin would have had Stand Your Ground protection. If, as Zimmerman claimed, Zimmerman lost track of Martin and Martin confronted him, the protection would be given to Zimmerman.

This is what the case hinges on, who initiated the confrontation. I don't know if we are ever going to clearly know the truth in this case.

We will never know what really happen because Martin is dead, we're only hearing one side of what happen. Zimmerman got out of his car , I bet any person would had felt threaten knowing they where being stalk by a man in a car at night . I would say the minute Zimmerman step out of his car he initiated the confrontation.

 

[jonnyghost]

Thats a lot of speculation. There are fact, they will come out in trial. I can see lots of possabilities that could go either way.

 

[CrazyPaul]

We will never know what really happen because Martin is dead, we're only hearing one side of what happen. Zimmerman got out of his car , I bet any person would had felt threaten knowing they where being stalk by a man in a car at night . I would say the minute Zimmerman step out of his car he initiated the confrontation.

No, GZ was not stalking TM. If he was, then why did he call 911? It doesn't make sense at all when the stalker calls 911.

 

[Jiro]

No, GZ was not stalking TM. If he was, then why did he call 911? It doesn't make sense at all when the stalker calls 911.

not that kind of stalking.

 

[Jiro]

Thats a lot of speculation. There are fact, they will come out in trial. I can see lots of possabilities that could go either way.

with the way defense team is planning... I doubt we'll get a lot of facts. we'll only get the "controlled" facts because there's not much to dispute his claims since Trayvon is dddeeeeeeaaaaaaaadddddd.

we can only question his thought process and action and it will come down to whether or not if jury agrees with it. I believe the jury will disagree with his action and reasoning. I believe the jury will find that Zimmerman was a hypervigilant cop-wannabe who went too far and made a string of bad decisions.

 

[jonnyghost]

Being a cop wannbee doesnt make him guilty and its not the jurries job to decide if they agree with him its their job to decide if he is guilty of the crimes hes accused of. Also we dont know what facts will be brought to light as the trail hasnt happed yet.

 

[Reba]

Juries are quirky.

They didn't convict OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony or Robert Blake.

 

[Jiro]

Being a cop wannbee doesnt make him guilty and

yes it does very much matter. "cop-wannabe" does not absolve you from legal liability. that's the difference between a real cop and a cop-wannabe. a cop-wannabe is called "vigilante" and I support a full weight of justice on vigilantism. Vigilantism is illegal. period.

its not the jurries job to decide if they agree with him its their job to decide if he is guilty of the crimes hes accused of.

it's very much jury's job to decide however and whatever they see it fit. I believe they will convict him especially in a very murky fishy case.

Also we dont know what facts will be brought to light as the trail hasnt happed yet.

and we most likely will never know. the trial does not really bring out all the facts because there's not much to dispute Zimmerman's claim since Trayvon is dead. what we will get is controlled fact from Zimmerman's lawyer and some evidences with reasonable doubt from prosecutor to dispute defense's claim.

then it's up to jury to decide on whether or not if there is no reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claim.

 

[jonnyghost]

Juries are quirky.

They didn't convict OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony or Robert Blake.

True.

 

[jonnyghost]

yes it does very much matter. "cop-wannabe" does not absolve you from legal liability. that's the difference between a cop and a cop-wannabe. a cop-wannabe is called "vigilante" and I support a full weight of justice on vigilantism. Vigilantism is illegal. period.

it's very much jury's job to decide however and whatever they see it fit. I believe they will convict him especially in a very murky fishy case.

and we most likely will never know. the trial does not really bring out all the facts because there's not much to dispute Zimmerman's claim since Trayvon is dead. what we will get is controlled fact from Zimmerman's lawyer and some evidences with reasonable doubt from prosecutor to dispute defense's claim.

then it's up to jury to decide on whether or not if there is no reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claim.

Being a cop wannabee does not prove he broke the law or was being a vigilante. The jury should decide if there is enough evidence to prosocute based on the law not however they see fit and if there are no facts as you claim then they should set him free. Will this be the case? Who knows.

 

[Reba]

with the way defense team is planning... I doubt we'll get a lot of facts. we'll only get the "controlled" facts because there's not much to dispute his claims since Trayvon is dddeeeeeeaaaaaaaadddddd.

It's up to the prosecution team to present the facts that will convict, and up the defense team to present facts that will negate the facts of the prosecution.

I don't know what you mean by "controlled" facts. In all murder trials the victim is dead, so all murder trials depend on forms of proof other than the victim's testimony. Actually, forensic proof is better than "he said, she said" kinds of testimony.

we can only question his thought process and action and it will come down to whether or not if jury agrees with it. I believe the jury will disagree with his action and reasoning. I believe the jury will find that Zimmerman was a hypervigilant cop-wannabe who went too far and made a string of bad decisions.

Since we haven't yet seen the case presented and we don't know the composition of the jury, there's no way to second guess the verdict.

 

[Reba]

yes it does very much matter. "cop-wannabe" does not absolve you from legal liability. that's the difference between a real cop and a cop-wannabe. a cop-wannabe is called "vigilante" and I support a full weight of justice on vigilantism. Vigilantism is illegal. period.

If proven, yes.

it's very much jury's job to decide however and whatever they see it fit. I believe they will convict him especially in a very murky fishy case.

How do you know it's a "very murky fish case" when they haven't even presented it?

The jury is supposed to base their decision on the facts that are presented during the trial.

and we most likely will never know. the trial does not really bring out all the facts because there's not much to dispute Zimmerman's claim since Trayvon is dead. what we will get is controlled fact from Zimmerman's lawyer and some evidences with reasonable doubt from prosecutor to dispute defense's claim.

You have it backwards. It's up to the prosecution to prove their case. The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. The defense only has to show the holes in the prosecution's case and create a reasonable doubt in their case.

then it's up to jury to decide on whether or not if there is no reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claim.

Yep. It's up to the jury.

 

[Reba]

Being a cop wannabee does not prove he broke the law or was being a vigilante. The jury should decide if there is enough evidence to prosocute based on the law not however they see fit and if there are no facts as you claim then they should set him free. Will this be the case? Who knows.

Not to nit pick (well, yeah, I'm nit picking) the jury, other than a grand jury, doesn't decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute; they are to decide on if there is enough evidence to convict.

 

[Jiro]

How do you know it's a "very murky fish case" when they haven't even presented it?

in a dead-person case.... it's always a murky fishy case because there's nobody alive to dispute a defendant's claim unless there is a witness or video camera.

The jury is supposed to base their decision on the facts that are presented during the trial.

yes... if that was easy... just about all cases have circumstantial evidence. what to do? you go with however and whatever you see it fit.

You have it backwards. It's up to the prosecution to prove their case. The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. The defense only has to show the holes in the prosecution's case and create a reasonable doubt in their case.

right. that's what I said. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. Prosecutor's disputing it.

 

[TXgolfer]

You have it backwards. It's up to the prosecution to prove their case. The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. The defense only has to show the holes in the prosecution's case and create a reasonable doubt in their case.

And this is a big explanation why they passed on the SYG hearing. In an SYG hearing the burden is technically affirmative. The burden of proof in such a hearing would be on GZ with the decision solely at the Judge's discretion. Given the politics involved, that would be a high risk play.The fear is that the jury, despite instruction, might weigh the judge's ruling in deliberations if they got the case.

 

[Reba]

in a dead-person case.... it's always a murky fishy case because there's nobody alive to dispute a defendant's claim unless there is a witness or video camera.

Fishy implies unethical or illegal methods.

Even if the victim (say, in an attempted murder) spoke up and disputed the defendant's claim that would prove nothing, no more than what the defendant says. The case still depends on other facts. Testimony by the defendant and victim is not "fact" unless it can be collaborated by forensics or other party testimony.

yes... if that was easy... just about all cases have circumstantial evidence. what to do? you go with however and whatever you see it fit.

More cases are decided on circumstantial evidence that eye-witness testimony. Jurors have to use all the evidence and testimony (as the judge will instruct them); they can't pick and choose "whatever" evidence to use.

right. that's what I said. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. Prosecutor's disputing it.

You're still putting it backwards. In American courts, the prosecutors make the charge, and the defense disputes the charge. That's why the prosecutors always present their case first.

 

[Jiro]

Fishy implies unethical or illegal methods.

Even if the victim (say, in an attempted murder) spoke up and disputed the defendant's claim that would prove nothing, no more than what the defendant says. The case still depends on other facts. Testimony by the defendant and victim is not "fact" unless it can be collaborated by forensics or other party testimony.

oh what I meant is that the whole thing sounds fishy like OJ Simpson, Jodie Aria, and now Zimmerman because there's nothing clearcut about it. Zimmerman claims self-defense but the public is split on it.

More cases are decided on circumstantial evidence that eye-witness testimony. Jurors have to use all the evidence and testimony (as the judge will instruct them); they can't pick and choose "whatever" evidence to use.

ideally - yes.

You're still putting it backwards. In American courts, the prosecutors make the charge, and the defense disputes the charge. That's why the prosecutors always present their case first.

yes that's what I'm saying. Zimmerman is claiming self-defense but the prosecutor doesn't believe him hence... here we are.

 

[Foxrac]

I asked my professor in legal studies about SYG law in Zimmerman's case and he can't give an answer because it is extremely difficult to predict, however he said if Zimmerman was in New York so he will be guilty due to lack of SYG law.

He's pretty liberal professor from NY but he has some difficulties to follow up with my questions.