For the person talking about how many times the police called. Are you in law enforcement? My wife worked for 911 for 3 years you wouldn't believe the times cops are called to certain places. They call the frequent flyers, they know the sound of their voice when they call, they know there exact address as soon as they hear their name, and 90% it's NOTHING. My wife worked for Saline County 911 my aunt lives out in the country her neighbor would call the cops if a car pulled in her drive way if she wasn't home. They showed up twice when I was house sitting for her bc he called. It's not about how many times the cops are called bc unless you are an officer or a 911 operator you have no idea how many times cops get called to an area.
Think about this ( zimmerman )
- Thread starter hoginhotsprings
- Start date
Exactly. Those were minor injuries.
I have no problem with a jury acquitting since the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but anyone who thinks Zimmerman is a victim is crazy. He stalked an innocent boy just because he looked like a criminal. He put him in fear even though he had every right to be where he was. Anyone who thinks Z proved Martin was the aggressor is also crazy. He raised the possibility and that's all the law requires, but that's the best we can say for him.
It is much easier to inflict a laceration if it's against a sharp edge... say a cabinet door.
A whole lot harder against a flat surface.
Try it and see...
It doesn't matter if his wounds were non life threatening. That's not the standard under Florida law.
The standard is, did George Zimmerman fear for his life or believe that he was in peril of grievous bodily harm.
Since there were no wounds on Trayvon's body other than the gun shot, and looking at the wounds on GZ... and considering the eye witness testimony that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman pounding him...
Put it all together and it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
As I understand it almost all that fight occurred on the grass, not on the sidewalk.
I disagree that the only explanation for Z's injuries are that M was on top. Except for the scrapes (and that's all they were) on the back of Z's head, every injury could've been inflicted by M punching up as easily as by punching down.
I can't recall how exactly the law in FL reads, but in most states it's not whether Z feared for his life but whether he reasonably did. If it's an entirely subjective standard, anyone can use self defense to justify a homicide no matter how silly or irrational the fear is. If that's what FL law is, the law needs to be changed.
I agree it is reasonable to believe Z might have acted in self defense & in light light the verdict makes sense. In most states, however, self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means once it's proved that Zimmerman shot & killed, he has the burden of proof. However, I've been told that a it is not an affirmative defense in FL. All the defense has to do is raise the defense and the prosecution must disprove it. If that is correct, I can certainly agree with the jury verdict, but I think that's bad law, too. It allows almost anyone to successfully claim self defense unless there are eyewitnesses to totally debunk the claim. In this case the only eyewitnesses were those who only saw what happened after the fight began and their testimonies conflict with each other.
All the people who believe that Zimmerman should have been found guilty... I don't think they understand Florida law.
With that understanding of Florida law. Do you think charges should have even been filed?
Are you aware of the shenanigans that Angela Corey did in order to get the Murder 2 charges filed?
Angela Corey
Yes. I believe charges should've been filed. I heard Corey's explanation of why they filed those charges & I thought her explanation was quite reasonable. Remember, she doesn't have to believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was guilty of the crime. She merely has to believe the evidence supports a conviction. I believe there was plenty of evidence to support a conviction. However, a jury not only has to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt" it also has to decide which evidence is believable & which isn't. It might believe one witness & not another. It might believe only parts of any witness's testimony. Even physical evidence can be ambiguous. For example, the jury might have considered his head injuries anywhere from insignificant to significant. It might have decided they didn't matter. The prosecutor believed the voice yelling for help on the 911 tape was Martin's because it stopped the moment the shot was fired. I think that's a reasonable conclusion, but the jury was free to reject that or at least be unsure.
I have not read anything about Corey's decision to file 2d degree murder charges. It wouldn't surprise me if she overcharged him. That's an unfortunate common practice for prosecutors. I was always skeptical of the 2d degree murder charge. I thought manslaughter was more likely, but even that varies from state to state so I'm not in any real position to know how strong the state's case was for that. Apparently FL doesn't have a criminal "negligent homicide" statute. Arkansas does. I'm sure Zimmerman would've been convicted for that under Ark law. He might have been convicted of manslaughter under FL law if he had the burden of proving self-defense.
Did you watch the video I linked?
They are saying that Angela Corey left out a lot of evidence.. like photos of the injuries, that would have been to Zimmerman's benefit.
They are saying that Angela Corey left out a lot of evidence.. like photos of the injuries, that would have been to Zimmerman's benefit.
Did not watch the video. Will do so later. However, unless she failed to disclose the pictures, it wouldn't matter whether she put them into evidence. The defense could have done so. IIRC the prosecution introduced some pictures. Rarely does either side introduce every picture. They're repetitive. Z had very good lawyers. They would have brought this up if she tried to hide something from the jury. I doubt something new has been discovered since Friday.
Instead of taking this case to a grand jury... Angela Corey took it before a judge to get an indictment. She did not
give the judge all the information she had.. She held back on the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries and some other stuff.
And I believe the defense protested three times about stuff the prosecution didn't share with them in court..
Glad you summarized it. I didn't really feel like watching the link. However if those are the criticisms of her, I'm not impressed by them. Very few cases are taken to a grand jury. It's required in federal court, but almost no state requires one. I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 state criminal charges are brought through a grand jury. As for not giving the judge all the info she had, that's no big deal, either. All the prosecutor must do is provide enough information to establish a reasonable basis for bringing the charges. In fact, the judge won't want to see "everything." It'd be too time consuming for a judge to go through all that information at that stage of the proceedings.
Now one criticism that might be valid is whether she disclosed information to the defense before trial. She's obligated to do that. She wouldn't be the first prosecutor who failed to do it, but that failure is improper. However, she is only obligated to disclose evidence. She is not obligated to disclose theories & that sort of thing. That's why I don't think the defense had a valid complaint about the manslaughter instruction. They should've known that was coming. If the prosecutor withheld evidence until it was introduced, that was improper & the judge had the option of excluding it. However, it doesn't appear anything was withheld from the jury. There were plenty of pictures, including pictures of Zimmerman's injuries. There might have been additional pictures of him, but there was no need to have more than a few. I doubt there were any injuries that a jury didn't see a picture of.
One thing we need to remember. If the judge made an improper ruling against the prosecutor on anything, the prosecutor cannot appeal. For example, I don't think the court should have allowed a couple of those experts the defense presented. She certainly should not have allowed them to testify to some of the things they did. Had the prosecutor done that & the defense objected, the defense would have a basis for an appeal. It doesn't work the other way. If the defense gets improper evidence before the jury the only recourse the prosecutor has is to ask the judge to strike the testimony & tell the jury to disregard it. That's not very effective. Once a person is acquitted, the matter is over whether the judge made bad rulings against the prosecution or not.
