Zimmerman Trial About To Commence

[Bocefish]

Bizarre twist in the trial. Apparently the prosecution has conceded Trayvon was on top and they brought in a mannequin-like dummy as a prop and one of the prosecutors straddled the dummy as if he was reigning down punches and was trying to show how it was possible that Trayvon was retreating as he was shot.

More epic failure on the state's side showing the jury how Trayvon actually was the aggressor and now the state is trying to show some sort of reasonable doubt. WTF?

Ummm... how is that proving Z is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder2 or even manslaughter??

 

[JickyJuly]

Zimmerman's a dead man either way, and that's fine by me.

 

[AliciaLeigh]

Two things have been proven in the trial so far.

One is that witness testimony is completely unreliable. You've had some people 100% certain that Trayvon's voice is on the tape, and others who are 100% certain George's voice is on the tape. Some people say George was on top, some people say Trayvon was on top. So I say all witness testimony in the case should be completely disregarded, including the testimony of George Zimmerman, who not only has self-serving interest, but also has not been completely honest in the past.

So the other thing that has been proven with actual physical evidence is that Trayvon was winning the fight against George. Trayvon has been proven to be on top, at least when he was shot. George had serious fight wounds (like his fucked up face), Trayvon did not.

Now, before any one brings up the armed versus unarmed bullshit, I would like to remind everyone that unarmed people are ABSOLUTELY lethal. You do not need a weapon to beat someone to death. Recently a guy in my state was charged with murder because he started a simple bar brawl, punched a guy in the head, who hours later died of brain bleeding.

So, looking at ONLY the physical evidence that George was getting his ass kicked, it is a reasonable conclusion that George Zimmerman felt he was in imminent danger of further serious injury or death inflicted by Trayvon Martin. In that situation, deadly force, even imbalanced (ie armed versus unarmed) deadly force is legal and justified. This reasonable justification of self defense puts the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense was not allowed.


Now, even with Trayvon winning the fight, George could still be guilty of murder (unable to use the self defense defense) if one of the following was provable BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT:
1) He stalked Trayvon Martin with murderous intent (ie, purposely putting himself in a situation with the intent of using deadly force, like, hey, let's go rile up some niggers so one of them attacks me and I can have an excuse for shooting him!)
or
2) He initiated the fight AND Trayvon had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger, justifying Trayvon using lethal force (smashing George's head into the pavement).


Note on #2 - You can actually start a fight and still be able to claim self defense, if you break off the fight or attempt to flee and the original victim still threatens you with lethal force. Think of a situation where you punch a guy and then quickly run away. He isn't allowed to shoot you in the back, because you are no longer a threat and he is no longer in danger. If he's shooting at you and you run into a dead end and have no choice but to turn around and shoot back, you are justified in doing so (although you may still be guilty of the initial assault and battery... and perhaps, in some states, felony murder?).

Here have been some arguments on why #1 should apply:
- George may have been a racist, or at least, didn't like that fucking punks always got away. Well, in the USA, being a racist isn't illegal. I don't care if stand on the street with an "I HATE NIGGERS" sign like Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3, it still does not justify someone using physical violence against me. It's also not justification for violence that you may have improperly racially profiled someone. Being a racist is not, by itself, murderous intent.
-George may have disregarded a suggestion from a police dispatcher to not follow Trayvon Martin. This is not illegal, and does not justify violence. It does not constitute murderous intent.
-George could have stayed in the car and avoided a confrontation. True, but getting out of the car was not illegal, and did not justify violence. There is no proof that George left the vehicle with murderous intent.

As for #2, it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman initiated the fight or otherwise threatened Trayvon Martin's life.


What it boils down to is that George Zimmerman made a series of bad decisions that night, but none of those bad decisions were illegal decisions. The only evidence of an illegal act that night is that of Trayvon Martin's physical attack on George Zimmerman. If you have an opinion otherwise, those opinions do not equate to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what is required to convict somebody of 2nd degree murder.

George Zimmerman should walk.

Though your post probably isn't favorable among most people, I completely agree with you.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming days now that we're down to closing arguments.

 

[bawksy]

Zimmerman's a dead man either way, and that's fine by me.

You are disgusting, and so is everyone who liked your post. Don't think the people of this forum are not paying attention. You have shown your true colors.

 

[Jupiter551]

^ lol...

A lot of people believe he's likely guilty, and that if he gets off it's a sign that your justice system is a failure - most people, myself included, have trouble following and agreeing with applications of justice that we find morally offensive.

BTW, your point about unarmed force being deadly - yes, it can, in some specific circumstances but not in MOST cases, or are you advocating guns being pulled at every fistfight? In the time factor described Trayvon would have had to be Jet Li to be a credible threat to Zimmerman's life. He's been caught in a number of lies - I listed some of them above. It makes his credibility worthless and makes it much more difficult for a reasonable person to believe any of the other things he's said.

 

[Jupiter551]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...efense-accused-of-attacking-woman-with-knife/

PS. we need to know if he had marijuana in his system in the weeks prior to the alleged attack, totally relevant thx.

 

[bawksy]

A lot of people believe he's likely guilty, and that if he gets off it's a sign that your justice system is a failure - most people, myself included, have trouble following and agreeing with applications of justice that we find morally offensive.

You are WELCOME to believe whatever you want, although I think rational people believe otherwise. In any case, I find it morally reprehensible that you would wish death upon someone you have never met after he has already had his day in a court of law. Even more ironic is that Zimmerman has been accused by some of participating in vigilante justice, yet here you are, advocating for vigilante "justice" against Zimmerman.

BTW, your point about unarmed force being deadly - yes, it can, in some specific circumstances but not in MOST cases, or are you advocating guns being pulled at every fistfight? In the time factor described Trayvon would have had to be Jet Li to be a credible threat to Zimmerman's life. He's been caught in a number of lies - I listed some of them above. It makes his credibility worthless and makes it much more difficult for a reasonable person to believe any of the other things he's said.

If you watched the news, you'd know that an expert witness testified today that the fight, which lasted about 40 seconds before George pulled a gun, was much longer than most fights last and was plenty long enough (meaning more than 30 seconds by his opinion) to merit an escalation of force. No, I am not advocating pulling a gun in every fight, but your assessment about Jet Li skills needed to be lethal with your bare hands is dead wrong. I'm going to guess you've never been in a real fight.

And I already agreed that George's testimony was worthless.

 

[Jupiter551]

A lot of people believe he's likely guilty, and that if he gets off it's a sign that your justice system is a failure - most people, myself included, have trouble following and agreeing with applications of justice that we find morally offensive.

You are WELCOME to believe whatever you want, although I think rational people believe otherwise. In any case, I find it morally reprehensible that you would wish death upon someone you have never met after he has already had his day in a court of law. Even more ironic is that Zimmerman has been accused by some of participating in vigilante justice, yet here you are, advocating for vigilante "justice" against Zimmerman.

BTW, your point about unarmed force being deadly - yes, it can, in some specific circumstances but not in MOST cases, or are you advocating guns being pulled at every fistfight? In the time factor described Trayvon would have had to be Jet Li to be a credible threat to Zimmerman's life. He's been caught in a number of lies - I listed some of them above. It makes his credibility worthless and makes it much more difficult for a reasonable person to believe any of the other things he's said.

If you watched the news, you'd know that an expert witness testified today that the fight, which lasted about 40 seconds before George pulled a gun, was much longer than most fights last and was plenty long enough (meaning more than 30 seconds by his opinion) to merit an escalation of force. No, I am not advocating pulling a gun in every fight, but your assessment about Jet Li skills needed to be lethal with your bare hands is dead wrong. I'm going to guess you've never been in a real fight.

And I already agreed that George's testimony was worthless.

I've been in a few fights over the years, no more or less than most men probably, but I've never felt in fear for my life even when I was on the losing end.

I'm not advocating killing him, nor is Jicky as far as I can tell, she is more or less saying she won't lose any sleep over it. Neither will I. I can't really imagine shooting dead an unarmed person, that's all. It would take a lot for me to believe he was justifiably defending his life, and what I've seen doesn't even come close to it - maybe other people have lower standards of proof.

 

[bawksy]

It would take a lot for me to believe he was justifiably defending his life, and what I've seen doesn't even come close to it - maybe other people have lower standards of proof.

Personally, getting my head hit into concrete would make me fear for my life. But what matters is not what you or I think, it's what George was thinking when he pulled the trigger. Unfortunately, nobody will ever know the answer to this, except George himself. It sucks, because it's up to the appointed jury of George's peers to figure out what was going through George's head, based only on the evidence presented. We will know soon what exactly these six women believe. Maybe they will make the right decision, if there even is such a thing, and maybe they won't. Maybe they're fucking idiots who will use woman logic instead of rational thought. But we have to trust the system. You cannot take it upon yourself to be judge, jury, and executioner.

It is important to note again that, legally, George doesn't need to prove he was defending his life. The prosecution needs to prove that he WASN'T defending his life, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm not advocating killing him, nor is Jicky as far as I can tell, she is more or less saying she won't lose any sleep over it. Neither will I.

It looks clear as day to me that she is advocating it, even bordering on threatening it herself. Even if not, how can you not understand that being okay with it is the same as advocating it?

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil, which we must fear most. And that is the indifference of good men."

 

[Anonymous]

Zimmerman's a dead man either way, and that's fine by me.

You are disgusting, and so is everyone who liked your post. Don't think the people of this forum are not paying attention. You have shown your true colors.

Wow! If we've managed to disgust the ACF "resident troll" (the same person who told an ACF model "go kill yourself" for absolutely no reason...same person who had an avatar pic of two cocks covering someone's eyelids), that's impressive!

 

[Jupiter551]

I'm not advocating killing him, nor is Jicky as far as I can tell, she is more or less saying she won't lose any sleep over it. Neither will I.

It looks clear as day to me that she is advocating it, even bordering on threatening it herself. Even if not, how can you not understand that being okay with it is the same as advocating it?

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil, which we must fear most. And that is the indifference of good men."

That's one hell of a fanciful stance coming from people who seem happy to stand around when a grown man shoots and kills an unarmed minor doing nothing other than walking home, with the result that he'll potentially be walking away scot-free.

Remember- there may be many things in doubt that evening but here are three things that are considered beyond doubt:

1. Trayvon was unarmed.

2. Trayvon was minding his own business.

3. Zimmerman killed him.

 

[bawksy]

You're right about all of those things, but you're missing the crucial step that is at the core of this case. Yes, Trayvon was unarmed. Yes, Trayvon was minding his own business. Yes, George initiated the encounter. Yes, George should probably have left him alone. But here's the thing.

Nobody forced Trayvon to "ground and pound" George Zimmerman.

Based on the evidence presented, Trayvon made the decision to initiate violence which culminated with George killing him.

There were many bad decisions made that night, but nobody twisted Trayvon's arm and said hey, you have to attack George Zimmerman.

Again, being unarmed is certainly relevant to the facts of the case, but does not by itself mean that Trayvon was incapable of putting George's life in danger.

Everyone is trying to make Trayvon out to be an angel but there is clear evidence that he was the first to use violence, and it's what got him killed. You can call George Zimmerman an asshole all you want for creating the situation where violence was possible, but you can't call it Murder 2.

 

[Jupiter551]

Well what I consider to be the crucial point I think you're missing is that not all of us consider Zimmerman's circumstantial evidence, much of which is based on his own suspect account, is all that clear. Many people think the evidence is clear. Many people watch Fox news.

 

[Bocefish]

Remember- there may be many things in doubt that evening but here are three things that are considered beyond doubt:

1. Trayvon was unarmed.

2. Trayvon was minding his own business.

3. Zimmerman killed him.

If by minding his own business, you mean confronting the neighborhood watch guy before breaking his nose and bashing his skull on the sidewalk just prior to getting shot, you could be right.

ETA: If he was truly minding his own business, he would have made it home to his father's and maybe had to answer a couple of questions from the police.

 

[bawksy]

Well what I consider to be the crucial point I think you're missing is that not all of us consider Zimmerman's circumstantial evidence, much of which is based on his own suspect account, is all that clear. Many people think the evidence is clear..

No, I completely understand that most of what happened that night is clouded and uncertain. Nobody knows exactly what the fuck happened.

But in order to declare someone guilty, in order to convict someone, you DO have to be absolutely clear, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since you agree that nothing is clear, how can you believe that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in the legal definition of self defense?

 

[Jupiter551]

Well what I consider to be the crucial point I think you're missing is that not all of us consider Zimmerman's circumstantial evidence, much of which is based on his own suspect account, is all that clear. Many people think the evidence is clear..

No, I completely understand that most of what happened that night is clouded and uncertain. Nobody knows exactly what the fuck happened.

But in order to declare someone guilty, in order to convict someone, you DO have to be absolutely clear, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since you agree that nothing is clear, how can you believe that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in the legal definition of self defense?

Because as I referenced about a page ago, in a 2010 Florida District Court ruling, the judge found that while the prosecution had to prove that the defendant did in fact commit the act of the killing, the onus of proof was on the defendant in so far as they admitted to the killing but argued that it was in self-defense, to prove that they were in fear for their lives - which means if you don't believe Zimmerman is credible, nor is his story, and nor are his "very insignificant" injuries.

 

[bawksy]

Let's go back to that. I've copied it here for reference.

The defendant has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on the issue. But the presentation of such evidence does not change the elements of the offense at issue; rather, it merely requires the state to present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Your conclusion that the "onus of proof" is on the defendant is wrong.

If you actually read what you posted, you'll see that the defendant merely needs to provide "sufficient" evidence (whatever the hell that means), and NOT evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, should you actually make it to the second sentence of what you posted, you'll see that even so, it's still on the PROSECUTION to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the self-defense claims are false.


So, I don't know what "sufficient" means, but I haven't seen the prosecution argue yet that Zimmerman has not met this threshold. I guess we'll find out tomorrow mid-morning when the judge meets with the lawyers to go over jury instructions.

 

[Jupiter551]

Let's go back to that. I've copied it here for reference.

The defendant has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on the issue. But the presentation of such evidence does not change the elements of the offense at issue; rather, it merely requires the state to present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

Your conclusion that the "onus of proof" is on the defendant is wrong.

If you actually read what you posted, you'll see that the defendant merely needs to provide "sufficient" evidence (whatever the hell that means), and NOT evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, should you actually make it to the second sentence of what you posted, you'll see that even so, it's still on the PROSECUTION to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the self-defense claims are false.


So, I don't know what "sufficient" means, but I haven't seen the prosecution argue yet that Zimmerman has not met this threshold. I guess we'll find out tomorrow mid-morning when the judge meets with the lawyers to go over jury instructions.

I know what I posted, I included the second part because it was important to the interpretation of the first, and because I don't believe I need to take statements out of context, I believe facts speak well enough on their own, in context.

The ruling finds that in order for the judge to instruct the jury to decide whether or not the issue is self-defence/not self-defence as opposed to murder/not murder the defendant must in the first case have met a sufficient burden of proof, after which having been met the prosecution then has the burden of proof to prove one outcome or the other.

PS just as a matter of interest I'd be very keen to know where people get their news about this case, which newspapers, tv stations, youtube channels etc.

 

[bawksy]

Ok I think we're mincing words but we both agree on the jury instructions thing. Is it relevant to the fact that you think that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense? That's what I'm still trying to figure out here, how anyone could be absolutely certain that Zimmerman did not fulfill the legal definition of self defense.

 

[Bocefish]

The ruling finds that in order for the judge to instruct the jury to decide whether or not the issue is self-defence/not self-defence as opposed to murder/not murder the defendant must in the first case have met a sufficient burden of proof, after which having been met the prosecution then has the burden of proof to prove one outcome or the other.

Doesn't apply.

Z doesn't have to prove shit other than saying it was self defense and describing what happened. If the DA thinks otherwise, they arrest and charge him. Then the state has the onus of proving it was whatever they charged him with beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Jupiter551]

Ok I think we're mincing words but we both agree on the jury instructions thing. Is it relevant to the fact that you think that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense? That's what I'm still trying to figure out here, how anyone could be absolutely certain that Zimmerman did not fulfill the legal definition of self defense.

Because "absolute certainty" isn't the standard of proof, I consider myself a reasonable person (I'm sure most people consider themselves reasonable), and I believe it irrational and illogical for Trayvon to have had no history of violent behaviour, not be intoxicated, responding to having been followed by a strange man in a car and verbally challenged to then follow that man back (like a ninja?) and somehow what, get around in front of him to punch him in the nose? Wait, this is the same guy who the police said his story was inconsistent. This is the same guy who once said Trayvon tried to grab the gun in a police interview but then told a biographer he DID grab the gun? Oh the DNA conveniently went missing...same as with the shirt...sure, the most obvious answer is there WAS no DNA, but somehow they want us to believe it COULD be missing...like come the fuck on - hahah.

Forget "reasonable doubt", his attorneys are apparently aiming for "implausible lolz".

 

[bawksy]

So, your evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is your opinion that Trayvon couldn't possibly have acted illogically? Because we, as human beings, never do anything stupid? Also, did you miss today when they were discussing how Trayvon's phone had a bunch of text messages about how he got into lots of fights? No history of violent behavior my ass.

But that's beside the point. It doesn't matter if he had a history or not. There's a first time for everything. We can't know what was in Trayvon's head. All we can do is examine the physical evidence which points to Trayvon giving George reasonable fear that his life was in danger.


Every time we almost zero in on physical evidence and facts of law, you ramble off again about your opinions of what could or could not have happened. It's getting old and I'm going to bed.

 

[Bocefish]

Every time we almost zero in on physical evidence and facts of law, you ramble off again about your opinions of what could or could not have happened. It's getting old and I'm going to bed.

That's because emotional opinions (believing TM was an angel) don't have anything to do with the facts or physical evidence. :lol:

 

[Jupiter551]

So, your evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is your opinion that Trayvon couldn't possibly have acted illogically? Because we, as human beings, never do anything stupid? Also, did you miss today when they were discussing how Trayvon's phone had a bunch of text messages about how he got into lots of fights? No history of violent behavior my ass.

But that's beside the point. It doesn't matter if he had a history or not. There's a first time for everything. We can't know what was in Trayvon's head. All we can do is examine the physical evidence which points to Trayvon giving George reasonable fear that his life was in danger.


Every time we almost zero in on physical evidence and facts of law, you ramble off again about your opinions of what could or could not have happened. It's getting old and I'm going to bed.

Err just how do you think jurors form their judgements other than as 'opinions' of the evidence before them? They're not specially qualified, the whole point is they're meant to be Mr and Mrs Average exactly BECAUSE it's meant to be every day people deciding if he's guilty - and if they think he's a liar and don't believe his story he'll be going to jail - it's that simple. It operates (hopefully) on an honest assessment of the facts before the juror and (hopefully not) on bias.

Even if he does get acquitted, and I half believe Fox news is just winding you guys up so you can rant and freak out when he's jailed, it doesn't mean he's innocent. It'll be OJ Simpson all over again and a miscarriage of justice is deeply wrong, regardless of the skin colour.

 

[Mirra]

What makes you think anyone believes Trayvon Martin was an angel? Some people simply feel George Zimmerman to be the one with more fault in the situation.

I happen to be one of those people because I feel like the things we KNOW point to George Zimmerman being the one in control of the situation.
Those things we know being:

• George followed Trayvon
• George was armed; Trayvon was unarmed
• George approached Trayvon
• Trayvon was shot and killed

That said, things look good for George Zimmerman. Apparently evidence shows Trayvon was on top and eye witness testimony is all over the place. George's previous testimony is also garbage, but that doesn't prove he wasn't defending himself. We can surmise from this that Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight. I don't think we can really know who started the fight though. Being pinned under Trayvon would have made it rather difficult for Zimmerman to flee whether he would have or not and stand your ground laws say he wouldn't have had to anyhow.

It still bothers me though because so much seems inconsistent... and Zimmerman's suspect statements along the way make me wonder what he is/was trying to hide or if he's just an idiot. The fact Zimmerman was apparently injured, Trayvon was apparently mostly uninjured (other than the fatal gunshot wound that is), but the fight being serious enough that Zimmerman felt his life was threatened also doesn't sound right to me. Yet Zimmerman had enough control/strength/luck to be able to grab his gun, point it at Trayvon's chest, and pull the trigger but there's no evidence that Trayvon (who was winning this fight, right?) did anything to try and stop him as he went for the gun? It just seems so... unlikely but it's not impossible I guess.

Though now I have just put "We Both Reached for the Gun" from Chicago in my own head.

Err just how do you think jurors form their judgements other than as 'opinions' of the evidence before them? They're not specially qualified, the whole point is they're meant to be Mr and Mrs Average exactly BECAUSE it's meant to be every day people deciding if he's guilty - and if they think he's a liar and don't believe his story he'll be going to jail - it's that simple. It operates (hopefully) on an honest assessment of the facts before the juror and (hopefully not) on bias.

That's part of the whole jury instruction you and bawksy have been going back and forth on though. The specially qualified judge provides instruction to guide the jury in making their decision based on the applicable laws.

 

[bawksy]

I happen to be one of those people because I feel like the things we KNOW point to George Zimmerman being the one in control of the situation.
Those things we know being:

• George followed Trayvon
• George was armed; Trayvon was unarmed
• George approached Trayvon
• Trayvon was shot and killed

Yes, George caused the situation. The perhaps racially charged, but non-life-threatening, not-at-all-illegal situation. It's a reasonable opinion that he's an idiot for doing so.

But being the biggest idiot in the world does not make it "more your fault" when someone ELSE decides to initiate violence.

It has NOT been proven that George had any idea that this could turn out to be a life-or-death situation. It has NOT been proven that George caused Trayvon to turn around and jump out of the bushes. It has NOT been proven that George caused Trayvon to punch him in the face and smash his head into the pavement.


I was on this jury once where all the jurors were white. The defendant was Hispanic and was pretty clearly a loser who likely had a criminal record. He was accused of hitting an ex girlfriend, and the only prosecution evidence was the testimony of the victim, which was inconsistent at best. The defense put on an amazing rebuttal, essentially proving beyond a doubt that the "victim" had actually approached her ex boyfriend from out of nowhere as he was with his new girlfriend on the sidewalk, started the fight, hit him first, and did not actually sustain any recorded injuries in the fight. Furthermore there was no evidence, except the "victim" (who was now proven to be the aggressor)'s testimony, that the defendant had even raised his hand, at all, ever.

This was clearly a clearly a case of "not guilty". But then this one juror says, "Well, we can't prove he's guilty of what he's been accused of, but I feel he's guilty of SOMETHING." That was a very scary thing to hear a juror say, and I feel like that's the mindset of the people who want to see Zimmerman crucified.

 

[Bocefish]

Now the state wants to include the charge of child abuse. It's almost getting comical. I figured the judge would be instructing the jury to consider a lesser charge of manslaughter, but now the state also wants them to consider murder3. Personally, I think that's unfair to expect the defense to defend against every possible charge in the books that might be thrown at them AFTER the trial.

SANFORD, Fla. (CBS Tampa/AP) — A judge said Thursday that jurors in the George Zimmerman case can consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, but she delayed ruling on whether they may also consider third-degree murder after defense attorneys called the proposal “outrageous.”

Prosecutor Richard Mantei argued that instructions for third-degree murder should be included on the premise that Zimmerman committed child abuse when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin because Martin was underage.

But defense attorney Don West called the proposed instruction “a trick,” and he accused the prosecutor of springing it on the defense at the last minute.

“Just when I didn’t think this case could get any more bizarre, the state is alleging child abuse?” West said. “This is outrageous. It’s outrageous the state would seek to do this at this time.”

West questioned how Zimmerman could be charged with child abuse while Martin was on top of Zimmerman “pummeling him.”

Judge Debra Nelson says she will rule on the proposal later. The judge, however, agreed with the prosecution that jurors could consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.

West said he wanted the six jurors to only consider the second-degree murder charge or not guilty.

“The state has charged him with second degree murder. They should be required to prove it,” West said. “If they had wanted to charge him with manslaughter … they could do that.”

Jurors could begin deliberating as early as Friday. Prosecutors were expected to give closing arguments Thursday afternoon, followed by the defense closing on Friday morning.

 

[Anonymous]

When you said 'child abuse', at first I thought you were talking about the accusation of him molesting his cousin. But then again, that supposedly happened when they were only ages 6 and 8.
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/07/state- ... on-claims/

 

[Bocefish]

Nah, that was a part of the 3rd degree felony charge because Trayvon was 17. I seriously doubt the judge will allow that, but who knows.

If the prosecution is allowed to present all the charges they're discussing, 2nd degree murder, felony 3rd degree/child abuse, aggravated assault, and manslaughter, the jury might feel the State is railroading GZ.

It's as if the state is admitting they have no F'ing clue what exactly Z did wrong, if anything, so we are letting you, the jury, decide. :snooty:

ETA: The judge just nixed the possible 3rd degree felony/child abuse charges as being unsupported by the evidence.

 

[Jupiter551]

Nah, that was a part of the 3rd degree felony charge because Trayvon was 17. I seriously doubt the judge will allow that, but who knows.

If the prosecution is allowed to present all the charges they're discussing, 2nd degree murder, felony 3rd degree/child abuse, aggravated assault, and manslaughter, the jury might feel the State is railroading GZ.

It's as if the state is admitting they have no F'ing clue what exactly Z did wrong, if anything, so we are letting you, the jury, decide. :snooty:

ETA: The judge just nixed the possible 3rd degree felony/child abuse charges as being unsupported by the evidence.

Heh the prosecution aren't the only one to have pulled bizarre tricks out, the fact the idiotic joke-telling attorney is objecting to this as a 'stunt' is hilarious. Obviously quite rightly threw out the child abuse stuff, though I would hardly be surprised to learn it was described out of any context, the prosecution may have simply been trying to prove a point.

As for the possible manslaughter, good - there are degrees of culpability, the jury should be able to make a judgement with a range of possible decisions and sentences. Anyway what are you bitching for? I thought this was all done and dusted as far as you were concerned? Isn't this a slam dunk? lol.