DOJ going after Zimmerman?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    Really?

    That's a common procedure (I had no idea... :laugh: )


    Actually, everything besides your opinion of Nelson in that post is pretty widely known by all...

    The point of me bringing up the the defense's actions is that it refutes your comments about the defense having to do anything at all.

    The jury could have been sent into deliberations without anything being presented by the defense...and could have come to the same not guilty decision based solely on the prosecution's presentation

    THAT DECISION WOULD HAVE AFFIRMED NOTHING about the defense's version of events



    Go back a few posts....you are asserting the exact opposite.
  2. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    I don't know if you asserted that but that's GZ's version of events that a number of you are arguing somehow is proven to be true through the decision of the jury.

    Are you now saying that's an unsubstantiated story?


    I agree.
    :grin:
  3. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    No, this is just another of those typical episodes with you where you thrash around all indignant about something, then when you are eventually educated on the subject, you backpedal and revert to, "hey I'm just here with an open mind trying to learn stuff" mode. Never mind that you started off the conversation telling the people who know what they're talking about that they don't know what they're talking about, and you do. :roll:

    No, you don't.

    In short, the Zimmerman case is not like the O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony trials where the defendants denied killing the victim and the State simply failed to prove that they did. It's different because here, the Defendant admitted to killing the victim. However, he claimed he did it in self-defense. Since GZ admitted to killing TM, that means that in order for the Jury to acquit him, they had to assign at least some credibility to his affirmative claim of self-defense.

    So while GZ's acquittal doesn't necessarily prove that his version of events is what happened, under the circumstances Zimmerman's "not guilty" verdict is somewhat more of an exoneration and vindication of him than, say, O.J.'s or Casey Anthony's. Or any other "not guilty" verdict where the outcome resulted only from rejection of the State's claims, not the necessary acceptance of at least some aspect of the Defendant's.
  4. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    So, if GZ's story had to be believed to whatever extent it had to be...


    Why would they have an option to move for acquittal before even offering a defense?

    Was acquittal possible without a defense even being offered?
    Yes.
  5. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,440
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,808
    no one truly knows how the fight initially started and who provoked whom other then Zimmerman

    that being said, the case was over during jury instruction when the judge disallowed the part of the Florida law that the defendant cannot claim self-defense if he "initially provokes the use of force against himself", essentially stating to the jurors to judge the case based on starting from what happened once Zimmerman was getting his ass beat.
  6. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26

    Bolded is correct and the rest is BS. See if you can figure out why. Take your time.
  7. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,926
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,613
    Then it was over from the beginning of the state's case, because, as noted on the other thread you said exactly this on, the state did not make a showing in evidence or in argument that Zimmerman actually started a fight at all or that he provoked it. The provocation can't be a broader existential thing, it's pretty specific and tangible. It's getting in someone's grill about doing their wife, or something.

    Can't get instructions on things for which there is no actual evidence.
  8. secgator
    Offline

    secgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,798
    Likes Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,031
    Well....Sybil, the multi-personality, psychotic member has returned once again. It is still relatively early in the day so a potential banning record is in reach. Current daily record stands at 4....making 5 or more today should be easy for Blakejah.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

    Addendum: In the time since I posted this, he has already been canned and had his post removed. Prophetic huh?:grin:
  9. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    They can move for any relief they want. That's a procedural matter, it's the same in every trial. Why do you think that in this particular trial, the Judge denied their motions?
  10. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,924
    Likes Received:
    645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,342

    So, your conjecture is that the jury's verdict was an outright acquittal on both counts, meaning that the State failed to prove the elements of 2M and Manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, and without consideration of the affirmative defense of the justifiable use of deadly force.

    Then why did the jury send a second question to the Court, inquiring whether the justifiable use of deadly force was a defense to both counts, just before reaching their verdict ?

    So which is dumber, your conjecture . . . or the State's case in chief ?

    Tough one.
  11. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Reading comprehension is no longer taught?

    Here is what Row asserted

    "Please explain how the evidence proves that TM attacked GZ first and without reasonable provocation"
  12. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    So then how was it reliant on the jury to affirm GZ's story for him to gain acquittal?


    To be honest after losing that request....the defense could have simply not called anyone and won acquittal by the lack of the state to put on a satisfying case.

    The jury decision has NOTHING to do with the believability or the innocence of GZ
  13. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,926
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,613
    "Obviously, you're not a golfer" -- The Dude, reacting to a grown man not recognizing a bowling ball.

    Are you seriously getting butthurt that the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (and probably almost everyone else's, btw) allow a defendant to move for JOA at the end of the state's case in chief? Or seriously think that making such a motion should preclude them from putting on a case? The hell?
  14. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    Well, I gave it a thorough review and couldn't find one bit of B.S. in there. Then it occurred to me...I'm looking for something that you would regard as B.S.

    So to match your perception level I gave it to my neighbor's 3-year old kid to look at, and it was all Greek to him. So now I understand your difficulty. Sorry, my bad.

    Let me try again, at a 2 year-old level this time:

    George kill Trayvon. :dead:

    George say, Trayvon hit me first! :beat:

    Mr. Bernie say, George you lie! :lie:

    Mr. Bernie tell the ladies, George kill Trayvon! George bad! :angry:

    George say, I kill Trayvon but I not bad! Trayvon hit me first! :cry:

    Mr. Bernie say, nuh-uhh ladies! Don't believe George! Believe me! George bad! Send George to jail! :fuming:

    But...the ladies thought Mr. Bernie was a silly goose. :roll:

    Even though George killed Trayvon, the ladies let him go free. :yes:

    Mr. Bernie told them George was bad...but they did not believe Mr. Bernie. :no:

    Justice was done...which made all the Conservatives happy, because they like law and order. :grin:

    ...but that made Row6 mad like Mr. Bernie, because Row6 HATES it when Conservatives are happy! :angry:

    Row6 spent the whole day trying to ruin the Conservatives' happiness. :grinch

    But the harder Row6 tried, the harder they all laughed at him, and the madder he got! :fuming:

    Just when Row6 thought he couldn't get any madder...uh-oh! What time is it?? :whoa:

    Naptime for Row6! He ate his apple slices, drank his juice box, rolled out his mat and..... :asleep:

    Then everyone went back to having a quiet, peaceful afternoon. :happy:

    .....until Row6 woke up from his nap! :taz:
  15. PSGator66
    Offline

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,509
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +924
    They already wasted enough tax payer dollars by even trying Zimmerman.
  16. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    I think you've forgotten why this point was even being debated...


    It was your assertion that jury acquittal had to include some level of affirmation of GZ's story...

    The fact that the defense could have immediately rested and the jury could have found that the State's case on its own didn't provide enough evidence to meet the requirements of the law nullifies your position.

    The jury acquittal could have come without affirming one damn thing about GZ's story

    If the jury said the state didn't event present enough evidence for its theory then GZ is acquitted without regard to any sort of affirmation of his version of events
  17. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,924
    Likes Received:
    645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,342
    Some people on this thread just like being beaten up.

    And they are not even packing.
  18. MastaG8r
    Offline

    MastaG8r New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,039
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    305, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +44
    The state put on a prima facie case that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. That's why GZ's Motion for Acquittal was denied at the close of the State's case. At that point, it then became necessary for GZ to put forward affirmative evidence that his killing of TM was justifiable homicide. He did so, and the Jury ultimately found his defense credible enough to at least view the Defense's accusations with reasonable doubt, if not disbelieve the accusations entirely.

    Without affirmatively persuading the Jury that there is at least some merit to his claim of self-defense, GZ goes to prison.

    Whereas other Defendants such as OJ or Casey Anthony did not have to persuade their juries of anything because unlike GZ, they did not admit that yes, I did kill the person who I am accused of killing.
  19. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    73,593
    Likes Received:
    5,290
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +11,432
    what this thread tells me is there are certain people on this thread who believe that GZ stalked TM, that it was racially motivated and that he started the fight deliberately so he could KILL TM-there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate that theory so I guess it is all done with smoke and mirrors- you are as bad as the birthers that despite all kinds of evidence to the contrary still believe prezBO born in Africa
  20. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,173
    Likes Received:
    621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,452
    I'll sort of agree with Row here. The insanity defense doesn't provide a good analogy to justifiable use of force because FL law puts the burden on the Defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance while it places the burden on a justifiable force defense on the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence the jury instruction that if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the use of force was justified you must return a verdict of not guilty.

    Essentially an acquittal means that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force was not justified.

Share This Page