State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Blue Velvet, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #1
    Since jury selection has now begun, even though there's a much older thread on this case, perhaps it might be best to start afresh with a new one that's forward-looking and centred around the upcoming trial, as it unfolds over the coming months.

    Even though I'm fairly opinionated regarding this story, to start this thread, I'll leave it to Wikipedia to neutrally summarise:



    The LA Times gives a brief précis of how jury selection works in this case:

     
  2. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
  3. thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
  4. macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    So, from 300 perspective jurors down to six?

    Get set for the appeals process to take the next 20 years for this case.

    BL.
     
  5. macrumors G5

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    Given the notoriety of this case, I'm surprised the trial is being held in Sanford.
     
  6. thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #6

    If that's the case, if I'm busy, would you mind giving the thread a little bump some time in 2033?
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    That's the other thing. This trial could be moved elsewhere, but it would have to stay in state. And with that, and how much media attention this case has had, they will be hard pressed to find 6 people who really do not know much about it.

    But a move of the trial should definitely be in order. Key West at the farthest.

    BL.
     
  8. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    I've made these points before, but since I have a new thread. :)

    1. The Stand Your Ground Law is a legal abomination procreated by conservative idiots. Any law that says you can start a fist fight, but when you get in over your head, start to lose and will get a good thrashing, or (wink, wink) feel like your life is in danger (personal feeling that is ripe for abuse), you can then pull out your gun and shoot the person you started the fight with.

    2. Zimmerman saw the suspect, profiled him, followed him against 911 operator instructions, ended up in a confrontation with Martin, which either one could have initiated face to face action.

    3. According to reports, Martin was alarmed by this guy following him, as evidenced by calling his girl friend. For whatever reason, a fight started, based on I would assume verbal instigation coming from either person. If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, I don't see it happening. If Zimmerman did not carry a gun and decide not to use that gun, it would not have happened. Zimmerman was the local association vigilante who was carrying a gun despite the homeowner association rules (reported in the news) that neighborhood watch not carry weapons. Unless the sequence of events has been misrepresented by the press, it is pretty obvious that Zimmerman committed manslaughter or 2nd degree murder in his vigilance to protect his neighborhood.

    Of course these days when it's ok to shoot your wife's lover or your prostitute who you think is ripping you off, then hey what the heck, lets issue guns to everyone and let the fun begin...
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #9
    I just hope these jurors are truly objective and see Zimmerman for the blood thirsty monster he is. I hope he rots in prison for the rest of his life only to be protected by his boyfriend (who would be named Trayvon, yeah I'm dreaming but that would be some awesome irony).

    These "stand your ground laws" need to go as they are nothing more than an excuse for a bunch of guys who want to act tough by waving around a big gun as they're probably just making up for a much smaller gun.
     
  10. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10
    Stand your ground has nothing to do with this case. Zimmerman's lawyer will argue self-defense.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    vrDrew

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    Characterizing a defendant in a criminal trial as a blood thirsty monster probably isn't going to win you many points in the "truly objective" sweepstakes.

    Personally, I think it is an outrage that Florida (and other states) have these ridiculous "stand your ground" laws. Its one thing to act truly in self-defense (ie. an attacker comes at you with a weapon) - its another thing entirely to stalk, confront, and kill another human being just because you don't like the way they look or they way they are behaving. If Treyvon Martin had been hammering on the door of Zimmerman's home with an iron pipe I could maybe understand a "stand your ground" defense. But the fact that, contrary to the instructions of the police dispatcher, Zimmerman confronted Martin in the street, pretty much eliminates the "self-defense" portion of his claim.

    But that doesn't necessarily make Zimmerman a "blood thirsty monster." I think its more likely he is one of those silly young men who want to be a "hero." But lacking the skills, training, and dedication to actually join a profession where "heroism" is part of the job (ie. police officer, firefighter, combat soldier, etc ) he rushed into a situation he was unable to either control or properly react to.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    I agree.

    People, in general, try to do the right thing, but because they are misguided, ignorant or short-sighted they actually cause harm when it was not intended.

    IMO, Zimmer is not a monster ... just a foolish man who felt his gun gave him license to play out his hero fantasies.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #13
    So, does place the burden of proof on Zimmerman, to show that Martin initiated the hostilities?
     
  14. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #14
    Which, given what is known (ie he started following him despite the 911 operator saying that he shouldn't) and the like, will be hard to do. If there is any proof that he tried to engage Martin in any way, an argument of self defense is going to be very hard to prove.
     
  15. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #15
    I'm not a lawyer, I only play one in PRSI. :D
     
  16. Huntn, Jun 12, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2013

    macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #16
    The provisions in this law certainly do apply, if events have been reported accurately, a defense of Stand Your Ground could be argued by the defense lawyer if he wanted too. The law does not just apply to home invasion.

    The problem with this law is it's potential for abuse. I don't have a problem with the concept of, someone enters your home with the intent to do you harm, you have a right to defend youself including deadly force if necessary. The problem comes when you have a law that basically says if someone is in your home without your consent, you can shoot them. Ripe for abuse IMO. Almost like the guy who shot the kid on his front porch who was looking for help.

    Even worse is the notion that you can start a confrontation, get into a fight, discover you are going to lose and get a beating, but to avoid that outcome can legally whip out your gun and shoot that person. IMO, the law is horribly written giving a green light for those people on the edge of the laws intent to commit murder.

    FloridaStandYourGround.org

    Does anyone here believe that when you getting the snot beat out of you, from a fight you started, this gives you the right to kill the other person with a gun? How do you decide what is reasonable? How do you maintain your perspective when you are being hit? What is "great bodily harm"? How badly was Zimmerman beaten? Do you think the bodily harm he received justified him shooting Martin? Hey, you don't even have to be hit, all you have to do is "believe" you are in imminent danger or say you did. ;) Green light for folly.
     
  17. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17

    I'm well aware of the law. Zimmerman waived his right to a pre-trial SYG hearing. Had he won that, he would be immune to prosecution both criminally and civilly. Wonder why they chose not to have one.
     
  18. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    I'm glad they are not trying to use SYG as a defense. It's still a horrible law. :)
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    There is NOTHING in the law that says you are required to obey a 911 operator who is not present on the scene. The fact that he disobeyed the operator will be a fact that the jury weighs, but if the defense can show that the "victim" was an aggressor, then self defense is still available. The operator's instructions shouldn't be a factor unless the state has some other evidence that this hispanic guy had intentions of murdering the kid.

    From everything I have seen, the most the state has is that in a flash, either the "victim" attacked the defendant, and he used self defense, or the defendant was following this kid, and for reasons no one knows (after calling 911 and knowing police are on the way), a guy decided, hey, it might be cool to shoot this kid.

    Which one sounds more likely?

    Just because you don't use the pre-hearing motion, does not mean you are prohibited from introducing evidence along those lines at trial. As a defendant, you don't do a hearing on a motion if you suspect you might lose because you give your best evidence, under oath, to the prosecution. Better to save your big guns for trial.

    --yes, I'm a former defense attorney.

    (edit) I hate stand your ground. I think it is going to be abused, and it requires some adjustment, however, in this case, even without SYG, this defendant should walk. I don't think the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, after calling 911, knowing police were on the way, made a decition to murder a black kid who happened to be in his neighborhood. It just seems like a case where the defense has more arguments than the state, and the state has the burden.
     
  20. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #20
    I don't think he can get a fair trial in Florida no matter my feelings on the matter.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    Why? After you answer, what do you think of having professional jurors? I don't want a jury of my peers, I want a jury that consists of people with legal training and who know that emotions and all the BS are nothing more than emotions and BS. I want 12 people who know that beyond a reasonable doubt means something, and who ignore TV shows like CSI, and who can objectively look at the evidence and actually know what it means.

    (edit) Actually, I guess those would be my peers.
     
  22. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #22

    Hey counselor, how about we wait and see what evidence is presented before we let Zimmerman walk?
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    I'm all for that, but he is presumed innocent, so until there is evidence that says he did commit a murder, then why don't we start with that presumption?
     
  24. macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #24
    To much news about it..I even heard about it on SAT 1. I would imagine the state of FL has been inundated with new's..
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    Casey Anthony got a fair trial. Just because someone has heard of something doesn't mean they can't be impartial.
     

Share This Page