Trayvon Martin's Murder

orejon4 said:
Note that I acknowledge my error. I was simply explaining to paniro what I thought that caused me to make the erroneous statement. No need to be angry. I have apologized and made the requested correction.
Click to expand...
No problem. Not angry, just vehemently reiterating my position, lest there be any confusion with you. Thank you for correcting it.

Closing arguments just came on. Going to listen....
 
Loki said:
According to the author of the law, they cannot. Stand your ground law, permits residents to use deadly force if they "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." "He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden (the author of the law) told the newspaper.

It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.
"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...rayvon-martin/

I would doubt that the judge in the case would go against this interpretation, but you never know, depends on how good GZ's lawyers are at muddying the water, please remember, the law often times has NOTHING to do with justice.

Often times the winner in any case rests not on who is guilty or not guilty, but as who is the best at arguing and muddying the waters.
Click to expand...

I argued this earlier in the thread as the source of my frustration with defense counsel's efforts to paint Trayvon as "that kind" of kid.

As for the interpretation, do you think the court will dig into the sponsor's legislative intent to determine if that is the correct interpretation of the law?

In the closing arguments the prosecution is arguing that Zimmerman's presumption that Trayvon was doing something illegal constitutes "going over the line". I'm worried that the defense will say this "presumption" is sufficient to satisfy the "reasonably believe his life is in imminent danger or that he's about to forcibly commit a felony" component. It stretches credulity, but I'm worried nevertheless, because at the end of the day, a jury has to decide.
 
Last edited:
orejon4 said:
I argued this earlier in the thread as the source of my frustration with defense counsel's efforts to paint Trayvon as "that kind" of kid.

As for the interpretation, do you think the court will dig into the sponsor's legislative intent to determine if that is the correct interpretation of the law?

In the closing arguments the prosecution is arguing that Zimmerman's presumption that Trayvon was doing something illegal constitutes "going over the line". I'm worried that the defense will say this "presumption" is sufficient to satisfy the "reasonably believe his life is in imminent danger or that he's about to forcibly commit a felony" component. It stretches credulity, but I'm worried nevertheless, because at the end of the day, a jury has to decide.
Click to expand...

IMO, Zimmerman's presumption would not be taken into account, as he had no reasonable/provable basis to believe that his life was in imminent danger as TM was unarmed, not menacing or creating a disturbance in any way. I doubt the judge would let that stand. You are correct in assuming that juries can make very poor decisions.
 
Loki said:
IMO, Zimmerman's presumption would not be taken into account, as he had no reasonable/provable basis to believe that his life was in imminent danger as TM was unarmed, not menacing or creating a disturbance in any way. I doubt the judge would let that stand. You are correct in assuming that juries can make very poor decisions.
Click to expand...

Rep added. I didn't know the judge got to determine whether Zimmerman's fear of danger was reasonable. I thought that was left to the jury as well. Thanks for shedding some light. Do you primarily practice criminal defense?
 
orejon4 said:
Rep added. I didn't know the judge got to determine whether Zimmerman's fear of danger was reasonable. I thought that was left to the jury as well. Thanks for shedding some light. Do you primarily practice criminal defense?
Click to expand...

No primarily contract law, but have done some criminal pro bono work on behalf of a women's shelter/domestic violence.
 
goodlove said:
i personally been a victim of a crime and a victim of the pilice not wanting to do the job dispite me knowing who did it. after a year of fone calls and letters they decided to ask the suspewct an they confessed. it coulkd have taken 3 months with trail and all. i had to twist arms. let that had been a famous or a wealthy person.
Click to expand...
Could you give a detailed explanation of your experience of being a victim of a crime?
 
Stumper said:
The State didn't meet it's burden of proof. You live in this country, abide by its courts, laws and are protected by them. However, when a decision doesn't go your way, the entire system is broken, it's racist, blah blah, riots in the street and violence.

I saw no white riots when OJ was acquitted. Rioting in the streets will just make the black community look stupid.
Click to expand...
Police across the country are bracing for riots regardless of which verdict the case decides to take. You are right with what you've said in bold. I'm not sure if the state hasn't met its burden of proof yet. We'll have to wait until Friday, or whenever the Jury decides to close it.

I just hope the State doesn't end up losing the case and we find out a few weeks later that Rachel Jeantal's testimony (I understand De La Rionda's statements in defense of Jeantal) and a few other people are to blame for the loss.
 
Stumper said:
The State didn't meet it's burden of proof. You live in this country, abide by its courts, laws and are protected by them. However, when a decision doesn't go your way, the entire system is broken, it's racist, blah blah, riots in the street and violence.

I saw no white riots when OJ was acquitted. Rioting in the streets will just make the black community look stupid.
Click to expand...

Probably out of shock due to a collective disbelief that the law didn't serve their wishes for the first time since the Voting Rights Act. I agree with you that rioting is stupid and counterproductive, but blacks aren't the only people to ever riot. Remember the white Irish-Americans during Boston school desegregation?
 
Instead of Bernie De La Rionda explaining the State's case, he is just replaying all the interviews of Zimmerman. Extremely weak case, devoid of facts.
 
orejon4 said:
Probably out of shock due to a collective disbelief that the law didn't serve their wishes for the first time since the Voting Rights Act. I agree with you that rioting is stupid and counterproductive, but blacks aren't the only people to ever riot. Remember the white Irish-Americans during Boston school desegregation?
Click to expand...

People riot when they get their way.

I remember when the avalanche won some such cup or something in 98'.
They thrashed downtown Denver.

I don't think rioting is right, mind you. It's just proof that large groups of people can be stupid and dangerous at the same time.
 
From a strict legal perspective, I would not be surprised if GZ walks, or gets convicted of something short of murder or even manslaughter per the links below. The feds could then possibly step in and go for a possible hate crime charge, but that could be a difficult conviction as well.

On a personal level I am still hoping for a conviction on the 2nd degree murder charge as I do believe the accounts of Zimmerman stalking and initiating the altercation that resulted in TM's death. Should be interesting...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...r-manslaughter/story?id=19598422#.Ud8Tn1PF9SB

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-pa...weak-little-hope-zimmerman-will-be-convicted/
 
My take....

The Prosecutor did an excellent job picking apart Zimmerman's changing of his story.

Note...There were two separate facts things could have been blended here that I think the Prosecution missed on -

1. The Prosecutor challenged GZ's claim that TM reached for (or grabbed) his gun, that how could TM see the gun when it was dark and holstered back on his hip? Sounds reasonable @ the State.

2. The Prosecutor later also challenged GZ's contention that TM was straddling him up to his armpits (effectively restricting GZ's arms). So he asked the jury, how could GZ have gotten his own gun out if that was the case? Sound reasonable @ the State.

I would have liked the Prosecutor to have connected these separate acts and added...
IF Trayvon was 'straddling him with his knees up to his armpits' (and thus locking GZ's body with his legs), how could Travvon have even seen the gun on his back hip AT ALL, let alone in the dark??
Did he just decide to stop 'hitting GZ's head in the concrete", look behind him at his left ankle, lift his leg (which would make his own position MORE imbalanced and vulnerable) suddenly notice a gun on GZ's hip, THEN with his leg still lifted, move down and back to reach and grab GZ's gun??

Because that would have been the only way, and that BS scenario would never jive with GZ's testimony that 'they both struggled for the gun' while TM was straddling him up to his armpits.
 
Loki said:
From a strict legal perspective, I would not be surprised if GZ walks, or gets convicted of something short of murder or even manslaughter per the links below. The feds could then possibly step in and go for a possible hate crime charge, but that could be a difficult conviction as well.

On a personal level I am still hoping for a conviction on the 2nd degree murder charge as I do believe the accounts of Zimmerman stalking and initiating the altercation that resulted in TM's death. Should be interesting...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...r-manslaughter/story?id=19598422#.Ud8Tn1PF9SB

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-pa...weak-little-hope-zimmerman-will-be-convicted/
Click to expand...

Agreed at bolded.

I also don't see how he can walk. He basically targeted and caused the death of an innocent man, not even the Defense can (or did) counter that most basic fact.

I was also reading that some of the lesser chargers have up to 25yrs in sentencing, so he could still do much time.
 
Bliss said:
Agreed at bolded.

I also don't see how he can walk. He basically targeted and caused the death of an innocent man, not even the Defense can (or did) counter that most basic fact.

I was also reading that some of the lesser chargers have up to 25yrs in sentencing, so he could still do much time.
Click to expand...

When will they expect a verdict?

Or is it unknown at this time?
 
Bliss said:
Agreed at bolded.

I also don't see how he can walk. He basically targeted and caused the death of an innocent man, not even the Defense can (or did) counter that most basic fact.

I was also reading that some of the lesser chargers have up to 25yrs in sentencing, so he could still do much time.
Click to expand...

The defense can counter that...it's called self defense. He'll walk.
 
Doubt it, Stumper. Prepare your tissues. ^ ^ ^

Alinoa said:
When will they expect a verdict?

Or is it unknown at this time?
Click to expand...

The Defense begin their closing arguments tomorrow at 9am, then the Prosecution have a rebuttal option to the Defense's closing. So after jury instructions, they will probably get the case to deliberate by tomorrow afternoon...
 
Bliss said:
Agreed at bolded.

I also don't see how he can walk. He basically targeted and caused the death of an innocent man, not even the Defense can (or did) counter that most basic fact.

I was also reading that some of the lesser chargers have up to 25yrs in sentencing, so he could still do much time.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree 100% that he should do time and A LOT of it, although with a lesser charge usually comes earlier possible parole, especially with prison overcrowding. Per the bolded part above, from what I see this will all come down to the self defense argument. IMO the prosecution has not presented a very strong case to disprove his assertion that he killed out of self defense, if the jury believes the self defense argument, he very well could walk.

While it is obvious to most of us here that Zimmerman profiled and killed an innocent teen out of prejudice, none of that matters in a court of law, only what can be proven.
 
Alinoa said:
When will they expect a verdict?

Or is it unknown at this time?
Click to expand...


After 3 hours of defensive closing arguments starting tomorrow morning at 9am, the prosecution gets a final 30 minute rebuttal. ...After that rebuttal, the case is given to the jury. ...they might then come back with a verdict any time between a few hours after that rebuttal--- all the way to as late as Tuesday. ...in the mean time 15 black young people died over the weekend at the hands of folks who look nothing like Zimmerman:...Their blood is also crying out for our intense attention. ...
 
Last edited:
Archman said:
After 3 hours of defensive closing arguments starting tomorrow morning at 9am, the prosecution gets a final 30 minute rebuttal. ...After that rebuttal, the case is given to the jury. ...they might the come back with a verdict any time between a few hours after that rebuttal--- all the way to as late as Tuesday. ...
Click to expand...

Mahalos Arch and Bliss.

I have my own ideas of what should be decided.

I wouldn't be able to deliberate. Lets just put it that way.
Hope he is found guilty.

Not to be disappointed if he's not, it is Florida after all, but I have a good feeling about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom