Don’t forget manslaughter, a lesser included offense..so called experts claiming any trial is over before the jury speaks may get bit in the ass..
What does the law have to do with this trial?
He is going to be convicted and the excuse "He shouldn't have followed him" given even though there is not one single solitary shred of proof GZ ever followed Traydemark™.
Remember, he WATCHED Traydemark™ then drove past him, parked his car and called 911. That is when Traydemark™ started walking towards him "with his hand in his waist". He then circled GZs car (to see if he was alone) then disappeared. That's when GZ said "These guys always get away"..GZ then ran to see if he could catch up and find Traydemark™...You cannot follow someone if you do not know where they are!
The 911 operator then said "we don't need you to do that" in which you hear GZ stop. He then walks to see the name of the street he is on when Traydemark™ came out of hiding and attacked GZ.
“Many conservative commentators claimed early on that Zimmerman had acted improperly (Mona Charen, Rich Lowry, Heather Mac Donald, Robert VerBruggen, and Gregory Kane). “
Not a commentator of course, but Alan West also jumped on GZ early on and AFAIK has never apologized for it.
I am no coward. I have a high pain threshold. However, when faced with bodily injury when I was doing no wrong, I have no pause in using my weapon. (At least in a vacuum.) Now, with this case, I will analytically assess the pounding I will take. The hood has won in this case. I am willing to go through a lot of pain to not go though what Zimmerman has.
Now if I had my head being punched in the pavement, then my post is completely irrelevant. The next time I get punched I may be dead. I will kill to stay alive. This case has given me pause in standing my ground, literally. I will run away instead of facing the crap that Zimmerman is going through, even though I may be in my right to stand my ground.
There is no freedom and liberty in out nation as long as we have thug underclass that is dealt with in a PC manner.
If the state of FL was following the law they never would have charged GZ with a crime much less 2nd degree murder. There is not a shred of evidence.
If someone was on top of me pounding my head and fisting my nose, i sure as hell would shoot.
If the jury uses its common sense re the evidence it will be Not Guilty by a landslide and that is being said before the defense even puts on its case.
Show trial, like the Dreyfuss affair. A member of a protected class gets his head smashed by a member of presumed oppressive class.
I admit I am guilty of profiling every time I am out and about.
Zimmerman will go to jail, the mob demands it.
Pretty ironic that after Martin’s mother’s testimony this afternoon that it was Martin’s voice on the 911 tape calling for help, the prosecution rested and the jurors were given the choice of going home for the week or letting the defense begin its case - they chose to stay, giving Zimmerman’s lawyers the chance to put his mother on the stand - she said it was his voice on the tape, thereby immediately contradicting what was supposed to be a major point of advantage for the prosecutors - when things go right.......
It's difficult to forget that a Florida jury believed a theory of a murder in which a child was alive one minute, and somehow magically dead sometime later. The last person to have seen her alive was her mother. Her mother hid evidence pertinent to the investigation from the police for months and behaved during the child's disappearance as if she was quite happy that her daughter was dead. Yet the defense actually presented no alternative theory of the crime, they merely insinuated one, and a Florida jury accepted that, even though in introducing the idea that an accidental death had occurred it was incumbent under Florida law for the defense to develop that theory of the crime.
Sorry if some of us are not as sanguine about how this is going to be resolved based on past determinations.
In the instant case, I believe the judge has already committed serious errors, and some of them strike me as reversible. She should have admonished Rachel Jentael on several occasions about her attitude, warned her it was disrespectful to the court, and failing to improve her outlook, held her in contempt. She did not. She repeatedly has cut the defense off during pertinent questioning and allowed an extended presentation of Zimmerman's knowledge of Stand Your Ground, when that evidence was not the least bit relevant to the case. She has also allowed hearsay to be introduced on several occasions, knowing that given the emotional vulnerability of a witness the defense would almost certainly not object. She should never have allowed a running commentary by a forensic examiner who did not even examine Zimmerman. That testimony is completely irrelevant, based on photographs is no better than hearsay, and has nothing to do with his state of mind, which is what the self-defense statute is about.
We should not expect her instructions to the jury to be clear, unbiased, or even professional. She's an Ito-wannabe. Even if Zimmerman is found guilty of manslaughter, this looks to be far from over.
It isn’t George Zimmerman who is on trial. It is the women on that jury who are on trial. If there is one honest and decent person on that jury this case is over. But just as there were not 10 righteous people in Sodom, there may not be 1 honest person on that jury. That’s what is so scary. That’s why the depravity of the culture and the lies of the media are so dangerous to us all.
It’s an emotional case, and the prosecution is playing to the jurors’ emotions, not reason. Keep in mind these jurors are uninformed women chosen for being uninformed, and any legal statues are Greek to them. Certainly a lot will depend on the judge’s instructions to the jury, and the best we can hope for, in my view, would be a hung jury with one or two of these women having clear minds and not allowing themselves to be swayed by the emotional arguments of others.
I was on a mock jury organized by a pharmaceutical firm in preparation for a trial, where the firm was accused of contributing to the death of an AIDS patient, a heterosexual man (as far as we could tell), who was cavalier about observing the required drug regimen, using the drug which has kept many other AIDS patients, including some famous ones, alive for years. A loss would have been devastating for this firm’s big business selling this drug, so they organized this mock jury, actually two or three juries composed of a cross section of residents of the county where the actual trial would take place.
It was done by a usual marketing firm that paid each of us a couple of hundred, and filmed and recorded the proceedings, which included actors or perhaps actual attorneys presenting to us both sides of the case. What happened later at the actual trial I haven’t checked.
Anyway, a father and husband was dead, the family heartbroken, broke, a tragedy, and the women on my mock jury, except the one Indian with a post-graduate degree, all emotional and irrational (some of the men, too), when it was quite clear that the plaintiff, that is the dead man’s family, didn’t have a case.
I can’t believe how many people are confidently predicting acquittal. Then again, Romney supporters were also pretty confident. People are slow to realize what has happened over the last 20 or so years. A system/society with Barack Obama sitting at its pinnacle is certainly capable of convicting a man without evidence.
When you place elected or not elected corrupt and incompetent people in office such as Angela Corey and others higher up or lower down, injustice happens.
There’s a consideration for the future in all this. If someone has to justifiably use lethal force, does that someone wait for the police to show up and face a similar mess as Zimmerman has faced, or does that someone just leave and never acknowledge responsibility if there is the opportunity to do so.
This consideration is not just applicable to that someone, it is also applicable to anyone who hears about the incident. Running away is frequently considered a sign of guilt even in the case of objective innocence, but after the Zimmerman fiasco it might be considered a sign of intelligence.
I just found out today that Trayvon had marijuana in his system. And the goofball prosecution witness that was on the stand all day said that the marijuana in his system could have made him act in a not normal way. Of course, none of this was said in front of the jury, and the judge ruled that the jury couldn’t hear that. The talking heads after that segment was over said that that was reversible error and was definitely grounds for appeal.