Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I also heard on the radio the lawyers for both sides were working on coming to an agreement re the instructions for the jury. I wasn’t aware that this was open to that kind of (name removed by moderator)ut.I assumed the questions followed a fixed formula that would then lead the jury to a logical conclusion.:confused:
 
By an easy margin, the evidence does not convict GZ

That does not mean he will get off. If he goes to jail, the media, the local governmental authorities and the race-biased public are to blame.

If convicted, this will go down as another OJ Simpson trial, but in reverse.

I canceled my newspaper subscription long ago due to the media’s extreme bias in other matters. What more can I do to send a message that I’m fed up with it? It is a vicious moral crime to try someone in the media instead of leaving it to court of law. And it is an equally vicious moral crime for local governmental authorities to push for a preselected verdict. In the reverse words of someone famous, I don’t know how many times I have been ashamed to be an American over the past few years.
 
JamesCaruso said:
By an easy margin, the evidence does not convict GZ

That does not mean he will get off. If he goes to jail, the media, the local governmental authorities and the race-biased public are to blame.

If convicted, this will go down as another OJ Simpson trial, but in reverse.

I canceled my newspaper subscription long ago due to the media’s extreme bias in other matters. What more can I do to send a message that I’m fed up with it? It is a vicious moral crime to try someone in the media instead of leaving it to court of law. And it is an equally vicious moral crime for local governmental authorities to push for a preselected verdict. In the reverse words of someone famous, I don’t know how many times I have been ashamed to be an American over the past few years.
Click to expand...
Well said:thumbsup:
 
JamesCaruso said:
By an easy margin, the evidence does not convict GZ

That does not mean he will get off. If he goes to jail, the media, the local governmental authorities and the race-biased public are to blame.

If convicted, this will go down as another OJ Simpson trial, but in reverse.

I canceled my newspaper subscription long ago due to the media’s extreme bias in other matters. What more can I do to send a message that I’m fed up with it? It is a vicious moral crime to try someone in the media instead of leaving it to court of law. And it is an equally vicious moral crime for local governmental authorities to push for a preselected verdict. In the reverse words of someone famous, I don’t know how many times I have been ashamed to be an American over the past few years.
Click to expand...
Some states still don’t allow cameras inside of the courtroom, which I believe makes cases less likely to be sensationalized or editorialized.
 
scipio337 said:
Some states still don’t allow cameras inside of the courtroom, which I believe makes cases less likely to be sensationalized or editorialized.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. Then the only remaining factor is the undue influence put on the police and courts by governmental authorities to charge and prosecute certain crimes and not others. We even have that influence on the Federal scene as of late.
 
Jeanne_S said:
I also heard on the radio the lawyers for both sides were working on coming to an agreement re the instructions for the jury. I wasn’t aware that this was open to that kind of (name removed by moderator)ut.I assumed the questions followed a fixed formula that would then lead the jury to a logical conclusion.:confused:
Click to expand...
Jury instructions are tailored to the case. Convictions have been overturned due to minor issues in jury instructions.

I was kind of shocked that the judge wouldn’t let in the jury instruction that said following is not illegal (which it isn’t). The judges wanted the defense to show her a statute that proves it’s not illegal to follow someone…
 
Dawnia said:
I was kind of shocked that the judge wouldn’t let in the jury instruction that said following is not illegal (which it isn’t). The judges wanted the defense to show her a statute that proves it’s not illegal to follow someone…
Click to expand...
Most people (let alone judges) know that is not how our legal system works.
 
This is a long thread,so if these issues have already been discussed,my apologies.Apparently,prior to this incident,this particular neighborhood was subjected to eight break ins,mostly by black youths.In fact GZ neighbor was such a victim home alone with her three children.So considering these facts,It is no wonder GZ was suspicious of TM. We’re these facts of priorvbreakin allowed as evidence for the defense?
 
Jeanne_S said:
This is a long thread,so if these issues have already been discussed,my apologies.Apparently,prior to this incident,this particular neighborhood was subjected to eight break ins,mostly by black youths.In fact GZ neighbor was such a victim home alone with her three children.So considering these facts,It is no wonder GZ was suspicious of TM. We’re these facts of priorvbreakin allowed as evidence for the defense?
Click to expand...
Yes. The police discussed them, and one if the defense witnesses who had been a victim of a break-in–and may have been the one who was in her home with her baby when it happened–also testified.
 
SamH said:
How can they change the charges AFTER the defense rests? The prosecution wants “child abuse” considered because Martin was 17?

Why not add jay walking and a parking violation for where he left his truck?
Click to expand...
Perhaps aiming for a mistrial?🤷

Then we can all agree that he got off on a technicality.
And some politician will want another law to close the loopholes.

Big picture. This is more than Zimmerman, it is about further regulation of our lives.
 
Jeanne_S said:
This is a long thread,so if these issues have already been discussed,my apologies.Apparently,prior to this incident,this particular neighborhood was subjected to eight break ins,mostly by black youths.In fact GZ neighbor was such a victim home alone with her three children.So considering these facts,It is no wonder GZ was suspicious of TM. We’re these facts of priorvbreakin allowed as evidence for the defense?
Click to expand...
The State is trying to use that against him. The past crimes “proves” that GZ had intent. Intent to do what exactly, they don’t say. I guess we’re just suppose to assume. 🤷
 
Dawnia said:
Jury instructions are tailored to the case. Convictions have been overturned due to minor issues in jury instructions.

I was kind of shocked that the judge wouldn’t let in the jury instruction that said following is not illegal (which it isn’t). The judges wanted the defense to show her a statute that proves it’s not illegal to follow someone…
Click to expand...
Walking in the rain with iced tea and skittles isn’t illegal. Should that also be part of the jury instruction?

The argument put forward by the prosecution and the judge’s decision were very reasonable.
 
kelvinf said:
Walking in the rain with iced tea and skittles isn’t illegal. Should that also be part of the jury instruction?

The argument put forward by the prosecution and the judge’s decision were very reasonable.
Click to expand...
The ice tea and Skittles are irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the incident between GZ and TM anymore than the color of the grass. The following is a key element of the case and is not as the State is suggesting provocation or evidence that GZ is guilty. Now if I was the judge, I wouldn’t have let in the jury instruction as it was written, because there were portions of it that weren’t impartial, but I would have still instructed the jury that the following alone is not a crime or evidence of a crime.

The judge pointed out that even a misplaced comma in jury instructions can get a case overturned. The judge did tell West that if he didn’t like her decisions he could always appeal. Which is not a great comfort if you’re the one on trial.
 
Dawnia said:
The ice tea and Skittles are irrelevant. …
Click to expand...
Maybe. They may be as relevant as Martin’s marijuana pictures, marijuana postings, gun pictures, thug postings, thug pictures. They point to who Martin was, where the young man was headed in his life, why he chose to confront Zimmerman rather than safely go home. They point to possible reasons as to why he was aggressive toward Zimmerman, if he was under the influence of something and not acting as someone who was not under the influence of something.

With that being said, I am not saying they were reason enough that Martin was shot. The fact remains that Zimmerman shot an unarmed man. But, they might be reason enough that Zimmerman saw a different young man than was portrayed by the media, a small, completely innocent kid, and had every reason to fear that his life may be ended by that young man if he didn’t defend himself against an attack by that young man.
 
SwizzleStick said:
Maybe. They may be as relevant as Martin’s marijuana pictures, marijuana postings, gun postings, thug postings. They point to who Martin was, where the young man was headed in his life, why he chose to confront Zimmerman rather than safely go home. They point to possible reasons as to why he was aggressive toward Zimmerman, if he was under the influence of something and not acting as someone who was not under the influence of something.

With that being said, I am not saying they were reason enough that Martin was shot. The fact remains that Zimmerman shot an unarmed man. But, they might be reason enough that Zimmerman saw a different young man than was portrayed by the media and had every reason to fear that his life may be ended by that young man if he didn’t defend himself against an attack by that young man.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman shot an unarmed man… who was beating his head into the sidewalk.

Isn’t *this *the central point of the case? Self-defense requires reasonable fear of death or seriois bodily harm. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the sidewalk, then Zimmerman had a reasonable fear and used his gun in self-defense.

It does not seem that he shot with the intention of killing Martin, just stopping the beating.

ETA: the rest of what occurred involved no illegal acts and so seems irrelevant–wouldn’t that be right?
 
kelvinf said:
Walking in the rain with iced tea and skittles isn’t illegal. Should that also be part of the jury instruction?

The argument put forward by the prosecution and the judge’s decision were very reasonable.
Click to expand...
Acting in a manner similar to the judge in this case “Can you site the law that says walking in the rain with iced tea and skittles is legal”?
 
St_Francis said:
Zimmerman shot an unarmed man… who was beating his head into the sidewalk.

Isn’t *this *the central point of the case? Self-defense requires reasonable fear of death or seriois bodily harm. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating his head into the sidewalk, then Zimmerman had a reasonable fear and used his gun in self-defense.

It does not seem that he shot with the intention of killing Martin, just stopping the beating.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top