17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[buttslinger]

The POLICE are pissed that the DA turned on them when pressure from ON HIGH said to fry Zimmerman for the National TV cameras.
The LAW that the cops went by that night said Zimmerman was allowed to carry a gun, and was allowed to use it when he felt his life was in danger. In spirit, that law is understandable.
This is the United States.
The FLIP SIDE of that Law says you don't go up and hassle some guy for walking home from the store. You don't kill someone because you're losing a fist fight.
Zimmerman broke the first Law of the Penal Code: Innocent until proven guilty. That's the first thing they teach you at the Police Academy.

What possible reason would you even have to stop a guy walking down the street?

[natina]

Can Zimmerman win over the jurors?


John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
(CNN) -- Trial lawyers use an expression -- "You can't unring a bell" -- after a jury is exposed to something damaging. Even if a judge commands people to disregard that something, the harm is done once the words have been uttered.
George Zimmerman may be wishing that several ringing bells sounded in his attorney's opening statement last week could be unrung, beginning with a now infamous joke.
After a streamlined prosecution opening in which a rapt courtroom was told of efforts to resuscitate Trayvon Martin's lifeless form and heard a straightforward argument that Zimmerman shot Martin "because he wanted to, not because he had to," Zimmerman's attorney Don West chose to open his defense by telling a joke.


Resorting to humor -- even in traffic court -- is fraught with risk, but seems a particularly unwise idea at the outset of a murder case in which the defense must counter the appearance of casual and callous indifference on Zimmerman's part. Even worse, perhaps, it runs the risk of appearing to trivialize the trial itself. (The joke chosen even implies that selected jurors who weren't savvy enough to dodge their civic duty will now have their time wasted.)
Prosecutors will tell you that the most significant challenge to securing a guilty verdict is to persuade initially resistant jurors to grasp the gravity of a case, making them at least open to returning a guilty verdict. Several post-joke comments made by West in his opening could unwittingly pave a path to conviction.
West said that it was a dangerous dog in Zimmerman's neighborhood that forced his hand, necessitating that he buy a 9 mm Kel-Tec PF automatic firearm. The attorney matter-of-factly suggested it was the American way for an ordinary person, faced with an uncontrolled animal in his community, to procure a firearm. (Firing shots at a menacing dog could easily imperil others, of course.)
Arguing that during the confrontation with Martin, Zimmerman's head was struck against the pavement, West told the jury: "When you get your bell rung, stuff happens." While defending an emotional case like this is admittedly a tricky high-wire act, these words suggest an act of vengeance by an armed man rather than a genuine effort to avoid death. It will not be surprising to hear those words repeated back in the prosecution's closing statement. Five of the six jurors are mothers for whom "stuff happens" may seem an insufficient accounting for the termination of a life cut short shy of two decades.

By his lawyer's account, Zimmerman's worries were not confined to perceived community dangers, but to his own physical well-being. He wanted to learn martial arts, West said, but washed out of fight school, where he was described as too "soft."
Many defense attorneys deliver short openings or don't open at all because of the risk of a bad backfire. West's lengthy opening resulted in a composite picture of a person who easily conjures threats and fears, sought a gun as a leveler for his insecurities and whose response to these perceived threats could be seen as questionable and retaliatory.
Criminal defendants are not only at the mercy of the state's awesome powers, but also must live with the tactical decisions of their attorney. Trying to persuade an appeals court to overturn your conviction because of detrimental choices made by your lawyers at trial is all but impossible.
On Monday, the prosecution resorted to the often potent technique of using a defendant's inconsistent statements in an attempt to collapse his believability and blunt possible jury empathy for him. Prosecutors showed a video of Zimmerman giving an expansive explanation of what happened during a scene walk-through the day after the shooting, followed by playing a lengthy taped interview that was conducted by Sanford police a couple of days later.
The prosecution hopes that jurors will agree that the more Zimmerman explains his actions, the more self-serving he sounds, and the less trustworthy he will appear, something vitally important for someone who, when all is said and done, offers the only account detailed enough to justify using lethal force.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/opinio...ss_igoogle_cnn

[broncofan]

In all of my years I have never been a member of such a lynch mob... and while such a powerful official should no better than to give in to certain types of public outcries... those who did participate in the swaying of them deserve full blame as well.

I don't think I'm swayed by public outrage. I was outraged based on what I perceived as an injustice. I am not outraged because other people are outraged nor should I be responsible for their excesses. I also don't really think I should have to temper my response unreasonably just because other people have bad judgment.

For instance, when Spike Lee is giving out addresses (incorrect ones it turns out) hoping that he can encourage vigilante violence why should that be laid at my feet? I have never supported that type of extra-judicial punishment, which is part of the reason I find Zimmerman's actions appalling to begin with. Like Trish, I want due process for Zimmerman and though prosecutors have discretion not to prosecute, I think prosecuting him for manslaughter at least is the right choice. If I recall, prosecutors only have to believe there is probable cause to sustain a charge. They do not have to be convinced at the outset beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges they pursue will yield a conviction. As they become convinced of a defendant's innocence, they have a responsibility not to pursue those charges.

As for self-defense, I am convinced that what George Zimmerman did was beyond what is and should be permitted by law. Self-defense in most states is an all or nothing defense and is not used to mitigate criminal liability if the mens rea and actus reus of the more severe charge is satisfied. However, the concept of "imperfect self-defense" which is used in a few jurisdictions makes the most sense to me in these kinds of difficult cases. Someone satisfies imperfect self-defense and mitigates a murder charge to manslaughter if they can establish that while their life may not have been imperiled enough to justify deadly force they held a subjective (though not objectively reasonable) belief that they were in such danger.

The facts so far appear as follows to me. George Zimmerman followed someone and engaged in what could colloquially be referred to as harassment. There was a confrontation and a fistfight ensued. Zimmerman was losing the fistfight and probably quite badly. He then pulled out his gun and saved himself further injury and humiliation by killing the person he was fighting. His attacker was unarmed and had been followed without reasonable cause by an armed man who was engaging in a pattern of profiling young black men. Whether this last fact makes Zimmerman a racist is not my focus. His vigilance and officiousness was uncalled for, precipitated a confrontation that he was too anxious to end with deadly force. He created each and every risk that culminated in a young man's death.

[starkem]

This thread is too long to read to make an informed commentary. I will, rather, "try to get in where I fit in."

Remember the Bernard Goetz story in NYC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhar...Criminal_trial

There is a great comparison and contrast in that story to victim(s), shooter, perception of danger, self defense rights and law, public reaction, etc.

I promise not to watch this Zimmerman case because I believed it would anger me to assess the developments in this matter. I wondered why there was no discussion of it here until I read the last page of this thread. It prompted me to watch the trial for the first time yesterday.

Out of all I observed yesterday (including talking heads commentary). I find it interesting that black people (particularly our youth) seemingly present a more severe threatening and menacing effacement that warrants lethal force by a civilian -and in similar cases the police authorities as well present such culpability. Whereas, some people have not to worry about mistakenly or intentionally being subjected to such extremes.

[fred41]

Sounds like this would be a tough case to decide on as a juror so far:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/us...ents.html?_r=0

[starkem]

The trial is a mockery. There will be concessions for everyone at the end of the day and parting gifts for everyone , including the media. I doubt if anything is as it seems....

[fred41]

The trial is a mockery.

Please explain this statement.
Have you ever witnessed a trial in courtroom...or served on a jury in a criminal case?
It is often said that trial is a search for truth. It can't be perfect because we don't have a God Cam...so we go by evidence. Sometimes there isn't any...sometimes it's mostly circumstantial...sometimes it's pretty damning and cut and dried.
I have seen a fair amount courtroom proceedings in my life...so far from what I've read (not witnessed obviously) about this particular trial..it doesn't come across as a mockery.

[starkem]

You know, I was coming back to this thread to state that "mockery" may be too strong of a word or even misplaced.

I will indulge your inquiry to say this however: I refer to the prevailing circumstances leading up to outcry for justice and the subsequent grand jury and trial as evidence that the trial, drama and courtroom media coverage serves to pacify pendants on both sides of the issues of wrongful death and/or right to vigilance and self defense. That is a mockery of justice in my personal opinion, but not as the trial perse.

Accordingly, and as to the one day of the entire trial that I only watched yesterday's segment: I observed no sense of mockery. In fact, I particularly like the testimony of the Medical Examiner, expert witness that testified as to Zimmermans condition after the fatal encounter. I have a certain disdain/respect for lawyers, judges, juries and courtrooms that I will leave to the readers own conclusion.

I do think that your inquiry of my statement was justified as such. Hopefully the answer conveys some clarity. Ahh...wait! I just thought of the word: transparent, illusion -a trial of superficial significance to appease those similarly effected to the expense of a mockery of justice to those with some exposure to the above mentioned professionals and procedures. LOL. That is definitely an extremely harsh statement. (smiles). Perhaps, I will withdraw and acknowledge the futility of my statement as it pertains to this case to play it on the safe side.

Please explain this statement.
Have you ever witnessed a trial in courtroom...or served on a jury in a criminal case?
It is often said that trial is a search for truth. It can't be perfect because we don't have a God Cam...so we go by evidence. Sometimes there isn't any...sometimes it's mostly circumstantial...sometimes it's pretty damning and cut and dried.
I have seen a fair amount courtroom proceedings in my life...so far from what I've read (not witnessed obviously) about this particular trial..it doesn't come across as a mockery.

[starkem]

There is no way from what I saw yesterday from the prosecution that they will be able to prove murder 2. Granted, I have not any other portions of the trial, but I think it was a little zealous and presumptuous on the part of the state to seek the higher penalty.

Of course, manslaughter is not off the table (according to what was reported), and Zimmerman has been his own worst enemy -Zimmerman having presented so many alleged discrepancies with regard to the fatal occurrence. Having only seen one day of this trial' I still find it rather unsettling that some of the news analyst that I watched (lawyers) said that it appears that the prosecution is blowing the case. I'm not sure if the same was suggested on other post cort day analysis shows like MSNBC.

*shrugs*

[fred41]

The problem with media trials is the human factor. Usually it should be about whether or not a defendant is guilty...but (and especially when there is media coverage)...the stakes are higher: a successful defense attorney can make more money in the future, and a successful prosecutor can go higher up the political ladder. So they sometimes have a bigger audience to play to than just the jury.
..and then there is the judge who has to referee the whole thing (and deal with their own, often inflated egos).

...but this is still, in my eyes, a relatively simple trial...not too many witnesses ..and only one defendant. I doubt the defense is going to complicate this, but you never know what will happen in a case until both sides have rested.

If the prosecution aimed too high, then the jury can still convict on the lesser included charges...(again..read this one page..it tells you what they might be towards the middle: http://www.jlellis.net/blog/zimmerma...uded-offenses/ ) If they don't find him guilty of anything, there will be a civil trial...or they could wind up hung and we do this all over again. That's how it works.
It's hard to say what will happen, because I'm not sitting in that jury box. I'm not the one who has to decide if there's enough evidence to convict the defendant of anything...but that is what a trial is for. I can read stories about the testimony...but I'm not there...hearing it live...watching facial reactions..deciding who sounds truthful and who doesn't.
..up to now though...if you go by Zimmerman's story as published by the media...Murder 2 probably won't happen...maybe not manslaughter either..it depends how much of his story you believe...of course he can always take the stand and ruin it for himself...you never know...the human element makes trials unpredictable.
...but it's up to a jury (and in some cases a judge). Based on what they see and hear. Not what we read and hear.

..because a lot of us probably wouldn't have been picked as a juror in this case anyway.