Skip to comments.George Zimmerman Is Destined for a Hung Jury
Posted on 04/21/2012 3:29:09 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
There is a XXX movie title in there somewhere.
The arraignment is set for May 29th but his lawyer can request an immunity hearing to challenge the evidence of probable cause to indict before that. He hasn’t done that yet which isn’t unusual. He’ll want to have all of his ducks in a row to do that.
Students watch the OJ verdict:............................. LOL, in parts of my town they were dancing in the streets as if WW II had come to an end. OJ won because DNA science was way over the head of the jurors. It was like trying to teach trigonometry to them with no math background.
I know. But they really said that.
I think the broken nose and wounds to the back of the head would constitute "reasonable" fear of grievous bodily injury. If that is really what the law requires, then this is much ado about nothing, legally speaking.
A "Sister Souljah" moment eh? You are right, it would be so unexpected and so welcome to the naive that it would reframe his whole persona as a race pimping swine. But I won't hold my breath, he lacks the imagination necessary to pursue such a course even as a sociopathic gesture.
Florida's statute, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, provides for a pretrial hearing to go over the evidence. If the judge decides, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant acted in self-defense, the case is over. No trial. No voir dire. No stinkin' jury. Also, the statute provides that the defendant is immune from civil action.
I believe that the single most important export of the British Empire, and the reason it's reach was wide and largely peaceable despite UK being a small country, was British common law. It is a great institution and it saddens me to see it fall into disuse in the US., while Kenya follows to some large extent the common law tradition passed on by the UK. While much of what Scalia writes is astonishingly good, he despises the common law.
So did Adolf Eichmann.
All it takes to hang the jury is one vote. But, is there anyone with the ba**s to do so; knowing that the New Black Panther Party will come after them and their family?
I want the Black Panthers to apologize for being thugs. I want them to understand civilized people do NOT put bounties on free citizens.
Contrary to what they think, we are a country of laws - at least until their kind ( Panthers) get their way. We are NOT some sh*t-hold third world thugocracy - yet.
I want the black community to apologize for having so many criminals among their ‘offspring’ that rational people assume a black kid out at night is up to no good.
I want the poverty pimps to apologize to Zimmerman’s family for putting this young man through so much grief - just for defending himself against a man who was attempting to murder him by bashing his head against the concrete.
And I want the MSM to apologize to equating ‘checking out a person who doesn’t live in a neighborhood’ with a thug who thinks appropriate ‘payment’ (for possibly being ‘followed’) is to attempt to kill the person by sitting on them and bashing their head against the street.
Waiting, waiting, waiting for excuses, PC revenge, etc....
The argument will be that the syg law will be invalidated because he continued to pursue Trayvon. If Zimmerman had not pursued him, there would not have been a confrontation, and everyone would be sipping Dr Pepper and eating skittles.
I want the Black Panthers to apologize for being thugs. Panthers need to understand civilized people do NOT put bounties on the heads of free citizen - they owe us an apology.
I want the black community to apologize for having so many criminals among their offspring that rational people assume a black kid out at night is up to no good.
I want poverty pimps to apologize to Zimmermans family for putting this young man through so much grief - just for defending himself against a man who was attempting to murder him by bashing his head against the concrete.
And I want the MSM to apologize for equating checking out a person who doesnt live in a neighborhood with a thug who thinks appropriate payment (for possibly being checked out) is attempted murder by sitting on that person and bashing their head against the concrete.
Waiting, waiting, waiting for excuses, PC revenge, etc....
That thought just made me realize something; black neighborhoods have thugs who attack people from outside the neighborhood - namely gangs.
Zimmerman had a well-documented history of "checking out people who didn't live in the neighborhood" with the cops, and never once did he attack any of those people.
Trayvon was a gang-banger wannabe who would have interpreted any observation of him as a gang-member getting ready to attack him, so he made a preemptive strike.
The entire incident is not any more complicated than that.
Had Trayvon not been a gang-banger wannbe and acted accordingly, he would be with us today.
Or, like most gang-bangers Trayvon was thin skinned and ready to kill if he was 'dissed'...
You're also right about Zimmerman - he's been community watch for years - and never killed before - even studied criminal justice at college... Of course if Zimmerman hadn't been pinned to the ground having his head bashed against the concrete, he wouldn't have 'killed' this time either.
What's the statistic? One out of four black males is in prison, on parole, or in the criminal justice system... And we're suppose to act like they're 'just like anyone else'? Yeah. Right.
Liberals buy that crap BECAUSE blacks keep White Liberal Elites in office. If the black community said the moon was made of peppermint candy - the liberals would agree - and they'd call us racist for not agreeing. Of course, liberal elites know better, but they would agree. Ninety percent of the vote buys deception.
Blacks don't do give us 90% of their vote - and we don't have to buy their peppermint candy crap.
“that meant King did not have a jury of his peers.”
That is funny. For King to have a jury of peers, they would have to release persons from prison. That is where all his “peers” are. ;-)
An even better point.
To condense your point even further; it would appear that George Zimmerman carries himself with respect for himself and others and Trayvon Martin appears to have had contempt for himself and others. I won’t recite the examples that lead me to that conclusion because we’ve all read about them by now.
If Z did that, he'd be out in 2 months. Unfortunately, it would be feet first.
It would be like Nixon going to China. But of course with B-ho being about at the level of the dirt on RMN’s shoe leather, it won’t happen.
it is immunity from arrest (to prevent agenda prosecutors who have personal issues with citizen self defense. Like the present prosecutor)
the law also provides specific immunity from civil suit. This was done as tort reform. It cut the legs out from under the slap suits from brady campaigners and the relatives of criminals victimizing a person for the second time.
It is a good law. It is hated by the criminal class and the tril lawyers.
there is no civil suit allowed as a matter of law.
unless the race baiters can tamper with the jury there can be no dollar pay out.
we are also forgetting this may never reach a jury.
(btw foxnf had a witness demonstrating the position of zimmerman and how he was being beaten. (back on grass, head on corner of concrete) AND he demonstrated the shot was an upward shot that went up front and out the back.
combine that with the investigator’s smart alec testimony then the prosecution becomes more and more suspect)
has anyone ever been in this judge’s courtroom and observed his demenor?
some judges punt everything over to the jury so they don’t have to make hard choices.
The fact she withheld evidence is a serious problem for her. She has an affirmative duty to disclose.
As the judge observed, it is a very thin file. Most of the paperwork is from media outlets.
If it's a matter of law, the judge is going to rule and can't punt. If it's a matter of fact, the judge should be 'punting' to the jury except for situations where, as a legal certainty, it's appropriate to rule. If there's a question of fact that must be determined to reach a decision and that fact isn't known to a legal certainty, then the jury of the defendant's peers should be determining the fact.
I'm frequently not happy with 'facts' as determining by a jury but I'd be less happy with a system where a judge (a federal judge with tenure for life, or a judge elected based on how the public perceives he or she rules) decides the facts based on his or her prejudices. And a large percentage of judges do have prejudices. That's how judges develop reputations after time on the bench. Pro-corporation. Anti-drug company. Don't believe the testimony of law enforcement officers/do believe the testimony of law enforcement officers. Harder on rapists; treat rapists the same as other defendants; believe women of flexible character had it coming, etc.
We have juries for a reason - and there are times when a defendant waives his or her right to a jury for a reason. I've served on two juries and been the chairman both times - both rape of a minor by a family member. I was stunned at how serious the jurors took it once the door to the jury room closed. People who had been kids and prima donnas in the jury box and during the trial poured over facts and testimony, and conflicting evidence. They were willing to deliberate more than a day and not rush things so everyone could talk and a new opinion could filter through the group. Almost swore I heard the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background.
Dancing Itos to be replaced by the
“Ballet of the Angela Coreys?”
(Disney Dancing hippos to be replaced by a blob?)
ah but stand your ground was passed to prevent juries from making an emotional choice to in essence prevent a criminal prosecution but still throw a defendant to the civil trial attorney sharks.
If a finding on stand your ground is always going to require a fact finding then no judge will ever have to make a hard choice and it will always be punted to the jury when it should have been decided as a matter of law.
I am now wondering if this would be a matter that would allow an interlocutory appeal. (appeal before the final conclusion of the case)
Running out the door and would have to research it later - but my understanding is that the issue of whether Florida Statutes 776.012 or 776.041 (the SYG and SYG if aggressor provisions) are applicable are subject to interlocutory appeals.
And you're clearly right. On the determination of whether those provisions of Chapter 776, the legislature has pulled the decision from a jury and made it a judicial decision.