Predict the Zimmerman verdict

Nekochan wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:If the Black community feels they're justified in  rioting if Zimmerman is found "not guilty" Is the White community  justified in rioting if Zimmerman is found "Guilty?"

Slice...great to see you!!!

Thanks!
It's good to be seen!
I tell ya, America may have some problems, but it sure is better than anything I've experienced. Good to be back in the good old US of A.

Also I found it troublesome when the prosecution switched switched Martins position from being on the bottom during the fight to being on the top.

The prosecution did not switch positions. They impeached Zimmerman's story when they showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the story Zimmerman gave would not have allowed martin to see the gun, see his shirt move up and expose the gun, or grab the gun as he told his friend immediately after the police interviews where he said he shot him because his shirt went up and he was going for the gun. The demonstrative evidence of showing that Zimmerman was lying was not making their element of manslaughter which is the death of the victim, rather it was impeachment where if there was the absence of justification in the killing of Martin, he is guilty of manslaughter. The witnesses and Zimmerman made it clear that there was physical contact between the two people. Physical contact is not justification. There must be a credible fear to justify the shooting. The defendant must have evidence of self defense, I saw zero evidence of self defense because of the credibility of Mr. Zimmerman. One juror could have found Zimmerman credible, and there will be a hung jury. I do not expect a NG. From all reports the jury was attentive, and I suspect they saw exactly what I saw.

2seaoat wrote:Also I found it troublesome when the prosecution switched switched Martins position from being on the bottom during the fight to being on the top.

The prosecution did not switch positions.  They impeached Zimmerman's story when they showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the story Zimmerman gave would not have allowed martin to see the gun, see his shirt move up and expose the gun, or grab the gun as he told his friend immediately after the police interviews where he said he shot him because his shirt went up and he was going for the gun.   The demonstrative evidence of showing that Zimmerman was lying was not making their element of manslaughter which is the death of the victim, rather it was impeachment where if there was the absence of justification in the killing of Martin, he is guilty of manslaughter.   The witnesses and Zimmerman made it clear that there was physical contact between the two people.  Physical contact is not justification.   There must be a credible fear to justify the shooting.  The defendant must have evidence of self defense, I saw zero evidence of self defense because of the credibility of Mr. Zimmerman.  One juror could have found Zimmerman credible, and there will be a hung jury.  I do not expect a NG.  From all reports the jury was attentive, and I suspect they saw exactly what I saw.

Your reply speaks volumes. I leave you to your opinion without comment. Have a great day!

Slicef18 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Also I found it troublesome when the prosecution switched switched Martins position from being on the bottom during the fight to being on the top.

The prosecution did not switch positions.  They impeached Zimmerman's story when they showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the story Zimmerman gave would not have allowed martin to see the gun, see his shirt move up and expose the gun, or grab the gun as he told his friend immediately after the police interviews where he said he shot him because his shirt went up and he was going for the gun.   The demonstrative evidence of showing that Zimmerman was lying was not making their element of manslaughter which is the death of the victim, rather it was impeachment where if there was the absence of justification in the killing of Martin, he is guilty of manslaughter.   The witnesses and Zimmerman made it clear that there was physical contact between the two people.  Physical contact is not justification.   There must be a credible fear to justify the shooting.  The defendant must have evidence of self defense, I saw zero evidence of self defense because of the credibility of Mr. Zimmerman.  One juror could have found Zimmerman credible, and there will be a hung jury.  I do not expect a NG.  From all reports the jury was attentive, and I suspect they saw exactly what I saw.

Your reply speaks volumes. I leave you to your opinion without comment. Have a great day!

That's all you can do is just leave him to his opinion when he totally contradicts himself and makes no sense. His statement of "there must be credible fear to justify the shooting" says it all.

2seaoat wrote:Also I found it troublesome when the prosecution switched switched Martins position from being on the bottom during the fight to being on the top.

The prosecution did not switch positions.  They impeached Zimmerman's story when they showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the story Zimmerman gave would not have allowed martin to see the gun, see his shirt move up and expose the gun, or grab the gun as he told his friend immediately after the police interviews where he said he shot him because his shirt went up and he was going for the gun.   The demonstrative evidence of showing that Zimmerman was lying was not making their element of manslaughter which is the death of the victim, rather it was impeachment where if there was the absence of justification in the killing of Martin, he is guilty of manslaughter.   The witnesses and Zimmerman made it clear that there was physical contact between the two people.  Physical contact is not justification.   There must be a credible fear to justify the shooting.  The defendant must have evidence of self defense, I saw zero evidence of self defense because of the credibility of Mr. Zimmerman.  One juror could have found Zimmerman credible, and there will be a hung jury.  I do not expect a NG.  From all reports the jury was attentive, and I suspect they saw exactly what I saw.

Your reply speaks volumes. I leave you to your opinion without comment. Have a great day!

Slicef18 wrote:

Bob wrote:


Blacks committing a lot of crime may be true and that may have been Zimmerman's mindset.  But it would not justify Zimmerman being the aggressor and committing murder/manslaughter on a black person who had committed no crime.

True, but being pummeled and having your head pounded against the concrete (if that's what happened) would be reason to use any means necessary to survive the beating.

I absolutely agree and I've been arguing that from the beginning.  

So if Zimmerman was not defending himself then he's guilty of a crime.
And if Martin was assaulting Zimmerman,  Zimmerman is not guilty of a crime.
For me it's that simple.

Having an opinion about either of those scenarios is easy for me.  What is difficult for me is deciding beyond a reasonable doubt if either scenario did actually occur.  I can't do that with the available evidence.  Others may can.  But since I can't do that,  and I still have reasonable doubt about Zimmerman being the aggressor,  if I'm on the jury and I go by the law, I have to vote to acquit.

Bob wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Bob wrote:


Blacks committing a lot of crime may be true and that may have been Zimmerman's mindset.  But it would not justify Zimmerman being the aggressor and committing murder/manslaughter on a black person who had committed no crime.

True, but being pummeled and having your head pounded against the concrete (if that's what happened) would be reason to use any means necessary to survive the beating.

I absolutely agree and I've been arguing that from the beginning.  

So if Zimmerman was not defending himself then he's guilty of a crime.
And if Martin was assaulting Zimmerman,  Zimmerman is not guilty of a crime.
For me it's that simple.

Having an opinion about either of those scenarios is easy for me.  What is difficult for me is deciding beyond a reasonable doubt if either scenario did actually occur.  I can't do that with the available evidence.  Others may can.  But since I can't do that,  and I still have reasonable doubt about Zimmerman being the aggressor,  if I'm on the jury and I go by the law,   I I have to vote to acquit.

Exactly. We can't decide which scenario actually occurred so it would be against our laws to find him guilty of anything.

I still have reasonable doubt about Zimmerman being the aggressor,

You have misstated the law. Zimmerman being the aggressor has nothing to do with the elements of manslaughter because we already know the victim of this crime is dead. The question before the jury based on the homicide instructions was the killing justified. Self defense is justification. Zimmerman being the aggressor to accomplish that self defense is still justification. I can only hope the jurors have paid attention to the jury instructions, because consistently on this forum I am hearing about race riots and the state having to prove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor beyond a reasonable doubt.....that simply is not the standard.

Exactly. We can't decide which scenario actually occurred so it would be against our laws to find him guilty of anything.

You neither understand the law or the evidence in this case.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Exactly. We can't decide which scenario actually occurred so it would be against our laws to find him guilty of anything.

But I'll be the first to admit that this method of delivering/not delivering justice is definitely not problem-free.

Because if I decide to commit a crime, I know that if I can intentionally do it in a manner that makes it difficult for a jury to not have "reasonable doubt", then that burden of proof gives me an advantage.

2seaoat wrote: I still have reasonable doubt about Zimmerman being the aggressor,

You have misstated the law.  Zimmerman being the aggressor has nothing to do with the elements of manslaughter because we already know the victim of this crime is dead.   The question before the jury based on the homicide instructions was the killing justified.   Self defense is justification.  Zimmerman being the aggressor to accomplish that self defense is still justification.   I can only hope the jurors have paid attention to the jury instructions, because consistently on this forum I am hearing about race riots and the state having to prove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor beyond a reasonable doubt.....that simply is not the standard.

Oh come on you're just splitting hairs now. So let me restate it for you.

I still have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS NOT defending himself.

But it doesn't matter how it's worded.  Because if Zimmerman was not defending himself that automatically makes him the aggressor since he's the only one in possession of the firearm.

And your sentence "Zimmerman being the aggressor to accomplish that self defense is still justification" is not the way I would put that.
With the way I use language,  I never define one's defending one's self as "aggression".  I define self-defense as a response TO aggression.

Bob wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Bob wrote:


Blacks committing a lot of crime may be true and that may have been Zimmerman's mindset.  But it would not justify Zimmerman being the aggressor and committing murder/manslaughter on a black person who had committed no crime.

True, but being pummeled and having your head pounded against the concrete (if that's what happened) would be reason to use any means necessary to survive the beating.

I absolutely agree and I've been arguing that from the beginning.  

So if Zimmerman was not defending himself then he's guilty of a crime.
And if Martin was assaulting Zimmerman,  Zimmerman is not guilty of a crime.
For me it's that simple.

Having an opinion about either of those scenarios is easy for me.  What is difficult for me is deciding beyond a reasonable doubt if either scenario did actually occur.  I can't do that with the available evidence.  Others may can.  But since I can't do that,  and I still have reasonable doubt about Zimmerman being the aggressor,  if I'm on the jury and I go by the law, I have to vote to acquit.

Remember the map you posted, Bob? How did any of this occur so far from Zimmerman's vehicle?...if he was returning to it.

I remember the map I posted, tex, but I don't understand how that should change my take on this (which is what I assume you're implying).

For seaoat:


self-de·fense
n.
1. Defense of oneself when physically attacked
2. Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
3. Law The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.

I don't see how from that you can characterize someone who is engaging in self-defense as being an aggressor.

I still have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS NOT defending himself.


Do you understand Bob what you have just said. The state has a dead body. There is not one scintilla of evidence or reasonable doubt that anybody other than Zimmerman killed the victim. The only element left which there may be reasonable doubt is was the killing justifiable. You have just stated above that you have reasonable doubt on the self defense which would make this justifiable. If you doubt the self defense, you must convict because there is no justification for the killing. This is a simple common criminal trial. These usually take place in a bar or behind a bar, but as we speak, across this country there are hundreds of similar cases where there might not be murder, but the self defense is argued. We have people who have approached this case as a racial case. It is not. It should have been charged immediately. It should not have the fanfare it has. George Zimmerman is a common criminal who has lied to justify his killing of a 17 year old kid. The color of the kid or Mr. Zimmerman makes no difference. This talk of riots is exceptional......it would be like me talking about my cancer and talking about some miracle cure.....it simply does not happen except in extraordinary situations. Riots on racial trials are not an automatic. They have happened, but to make that conclusion one has to jump to the conclusion that this was a racial trial.......this was a simple criminal trial which the jury verdict will confirm. It was an unjustified killing of a 17 year old kid. Sure the racial profiling was important, but the state knowingly charged 2nd degree because all prosecutors know that if they argue 2nd there is a high likelihood that the jury will compromise on the manslaughter. This has been a very good trial.

Bob,
The dictionary is not what defines legal instructions to a jury. The supreme court approved pattern jury instructions define:


3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.

Read in all cases.
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

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

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or

Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.


A person defending themselves can be the aggressor if the bold print conditions exist.

2seaoat wrote:I still have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS NOT defending himself.


Do you understand Bob what you have just said.   The state has a dead body.   There is not one scintilla of evidence or reasonable doubt that anybody other than Zimmerman killed the victim.   The only element left which there may be reasonable doubt is was the killing justifiable.   You have just stated above that you have reasonable doubt on the self defense which would make this justifiable.  If you doubt the self defense, you must convict because there is no justification for the killing.  This is a simple common criminal trial.   These usually take place in a bar or behind a bar, but as we speak, across this country there are hundreds of similar cases where there might not be murder, but the self defense is argued.   We have people who have approached this case as a racial case.  It is not.   It should have been charged immediately.  It should not have the fanfare it has.   George Zimmerman is a common criminal who has lied to justify his killing of a 17 year old kid.   The color of the kid or Mr. Zimmerman makes no difference.  This talk of riots is exceptional......it would be like me talking about my cancer and talking about some miracle cure.....it simply does not happen except in extraordinary situations.   Riots on racial trials are not an automatic.  They have happened, but to make that conclusion one has to jump to the conclusion that this was a racial trial.......this was a simple criminal trial which the jury verdict will confirm.   It was an unjustified killing of a 17 year old kid.  Sure the racial profiling was important, but the state knowingly charged 2nd degree because all prosecutors know that if they argue 2nd there is a high likelihood that the jury will compromise on the manslaughter.   This has been a very good trial.

When you use the term "reasonable doubt" in a sentence it can get confusing.

For example when I write this...
"I still have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS NOT defending himself"
... at first glance it's difficult to tell what is meant by that sentence.
What makes it difficult is that it's hard to word that sentence without it either introducing a double negative or giving the appearance of a double negative.

But maybe this will help clear up the language abnormality...
I have a reasonable doubt.
And it's the prosecution's contention that Zimmerman was not engaging in self-defense, is what I have reasonable doubt about.

So, the next thing you said...

The only element left which there may be reasonable doubt is was the killing justifiable. You have just stated above that you have reasonable doubt on the self defense which would make this justifiable.

... no longer applies. Because what I have reasonable doubt about is the prosecution's contention that there was no self-defense.

Now do you get it?

2seaoat wrote:I still have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS NOT defending himself.


Do you understand Bob what you have just said.   The state has a dead body.   There is not one scintilla of evidence or reasonable doubt that anybody other than Zimmerman killed the victim.   The only element left which there may be reasonable doubt is was the killing justifiable.   You have just stated above that you have reasonable doubt on the self defense which would make this justifiable.  If you doubt the self defense, you must convict because there is no justification for the killing.  This is a simple common criminal trial.   These usually take place in a bar or behind a bar, but as we speak, across this country there are hundreds of similar cases where there might not be murder, but the self defense is argued.   We have people who have approached this case as a racial case.  It is not.   It should have been charged immediately.  It should not have the fanfare it has.   George Zimmerman is a common criminal who has lied to justify his killing of a 17 year old kid.   The color of the kid or Mr. Zimmerman makes no difference.  This talk of riots is exceptional......it would be like me talking about my cancer and talking about some miracle cure.....it simply does not happen except in extraordinary situations.   Riots on racial trials are not an automatic.  They have happened, but to make that conclusion one has to jump to the conclusion that this was a racial trial.......this was a simple criminal trial which the jury verdict will confirm.   It was an unjustified killing of a 17 year old kid.  Sure the racial profiling was important, but the state knowingly charged 2nd degree because all prosecutors know that if they argue 2nd there is a high likelihood that the jury will compromise on the manslaughter.   This has been a very good trial.

Self defense does not require you be in mortal danger.
LEGALLY, self defense only requires one "believe" they are in danger of "bodily harm." They DO NOT need to believe they are in "mortal danger." This is Florida law. A woman being raped may use any lethal weapon under Florida's definition of "self defense."

Florida Statute 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

IF (and only if) Zimmerman's contention is true, that Martin started the fight and was beating on him, then if I was a juror I would apply this law in favor of Zimmerman.

And since I have a "reasonable doubt" (and just so we don't get fucked up by the wording again that means I have a reasonable suspicion that the prosecution has it wrong when it contends Zimmerman was not defending himself), then by law as a juror I am required to apply the burden of proof and vote to acquit.

To not convict Mr. Zimmerman of manslaughter, you need to believe that the killing was justified.  It is that simple under the instructions.   Bob, if you believe the killing was justified.  You would vote not guilty.   I did not find the killing justified.  I would vote for manslaughter.   However, what we vote does not matter, but to misstate the law as given to the jury is simply not correct and one of the criticisms of the jury system is that citizens are incapable of understanding the complexities of evidence and the law as instructed.  I disagree.  I think jurors usually pay attention.......I however do not believe all observers do the same.

Under the instructions I would have to vote NG if I had consistent statements from Mr. Zimmerman which conformed to the physical evidence that he feared imminent death or GREAT bodily harm. The facts which were put into evidence showed clear lies to create a more favorable self defense excuse to justify shooting an unarmed teenager, inconsistent physical evidence with that story, and repeated opportunity for the defendant to cure his lies, which he failed to do. In the absence of evidence which could undue these lies and physical evidence which proves the same, a jury should find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. There are very qualified people who can make a lucid argument for either verdict, but what wears me down is the utter idiocy of TV talking heads who are giving law from their state, or are making statements which are patently false. On this forum it is like fingernails on the blackboard for me to watch people try to conceptualize some of these issues.......I have been very direct with some of the most incompetent folks on this forum, and I am now the forum jerk, but having done mechanical work on cars for three years in high school with dealerships......if a person told me you fill tires on a car with gas to make it run......well I would be shocked, yet when people make legal opinions and do not understand concepts....again.....blackboard and fingernails.

2seaoat wrote:To not convict Mr. Zimmerman of manslaughter, you need to believe that the killing was justified.  It is that simple under the instructions.   Bob, if you believe the killing was justified.  You would vote guilty.   I did not find the killing justified.  I would vote for manslaughter.   However, what we vote does not matter, but to misstate the law as given to the jury is simply not correct and one of the criticisms of the jury system is that citizens are incapable of understanding the complexities of evidence and the law as instructed.  I disagree.  I think jurors usually pay attention.......I however do not believe all observers do the same.

No that is ABSOLUTELY NOT CORRECT,  seaoat.  It's not correct because what you have ommited is crucial.

Because you have completely ignored one of the most significant legal principles in our entire criminal justice system.  The burden of proof.
It's not just a phrase that you can gloss over and ignore as you have done.
It is paramount if you have regard for the law.  

Here is what you said...

To not convict Mr. Zimmerman of manslaughter, you need to believe that the killing was justified.  It is that simple under the instructions.

Not it's not that simple.  You have to believe something BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  Not just believe it.  If you have a reasonable doubt about your belief,  then the law is telling you your belief doesn't count when you're making your decision as a juror. It's THAT simple.

If you're a juror in the civil justice system you would be correct,  seaoat.
Because that burden of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence",  not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Preponderant is defined as having superior weight, force, importance, or influence.
Making that burden of proof a lot more subjective.  Your "belief" would suffice.  And it wouldn't matter even if you have a reasonable doubt.
Even with a reasonable doubt,  your belief would meet the burden of proof.

The theory is that it shouldn't be as easy to put somebody in prison as it is to take money from them in a lawsuit.
I didn't invent any of these concepts so don't try to blame me for it.  It just is what it is.  But it is THE LAW so if you value that law you abide by it.
If you choose not to value the law then so be it.  I aint gonna penalize you for it because I have no police force or prisons or judges or prosecutors at my disposal to enforce it.  lol

Not it's not that simple. You have to believe something BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Not just believe it. If you have a reasonable doubt about your belief, then the law is telling you your belief doesn't count when you're making your decision as a juror.


Again Bob.....I will be patient. In the law there are Affirmative defenses to criminal charges. An affirmative defense can justify the otherwise proven crime. A self defense affirmative defense requires some evidence of the same to overcome the otherwise proven elements of a case. Yes, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is a burden to present evidence that the self defense instructions have been met, and the otherwise proven manslaughter case can be excused because the killing was justified. The two elements of manslaughter which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are as followed:
1 The victim is dead..................do you have reasonable doubt
2 The defendant intentionally caused the act or acts that caused the death of the victim......................do you have reasonable doubt

The defense has asserted an affirmative defense which means they must show evidence that can justify the death, and the instructions say that if manslaughter by act is justified, the jury must find a NG verdict. Florida contrary to what the idiot talking heads have been saying is not a negligence Manslaughter state....it is an ACT state, so now the burden does shift to the defense to show the evidence which justifies the killing which as an affirmative defense destroys and otherwise perfect manslaughter case where the two elements have been met. I have tried for weeks to communicate this on this forum, and I am consistently met with responses which quite frankly do not understand the concepts, the instructions, the law, or the facts in evidence. There are people who did not even know the state had the final closing.......If I seem like a jerk....let me try instructing you on how to repair a Wulitzer, or tell you the age of a machine and I am a decade off.......this is a simple criminal case which has a common fact pattern. This is not rocket science, but the lack of understanding on this case, and the discussion of racial riots......utter ignorance and prejudgment.