Wow! It sounds like the JUDGE, not the jury, may have freed Zimmerman.

[Kablooie]

Florida law states that a defendant cannot claim self-defense if he "initially provokes the use of force against himself".
This clause of the law was deliberately withheld from the jury in the instructions from the judge.

The jurors were instructed to consider the situation only after the scuffle started and were not able to include the fact that Zimmerman tracked down Martin. (Which seems to me to be the primary aspect of the whole situation.)
If they had, Zimmerman might have been considered the aggressor and therefore his whole self defense argument would have been moot and he would have gone to jail.

The defense lawyer argued to keep this clause of the law out of the instructions. The prosecution argued the other way and the defense won, thereby insuring a Zimmerman victory.

It's a fairly convoluted set of arguments but you can read the details of this decision and why it was made here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html

[snappyturtle]

1. WOW! is right. That omission in the instructions to the jury is criminal

in itself. imho

[leftyohiolib]

9. mis-trial?

[Pelican]

16. Doesn't work that way...

Only appeal on conviction...

State can't take another whack at it.

[Kingofalldems]

23. So will you be rooting for Dunn this fall?

[Pelican]

57. I certainly hope...

... He gets a fair trial.

A quick google search shows that he is already having problems with that.

[Anansi1171]

177. Is anyone here surprised by this response? Dunn's not getting justice? Wow!

Care to cite specifics?

[Pelican]

184. There ya go...

2 recused judges make for a difficult trial...

[tavalon]

174. Yup, that's why now that we have confirmation that OJ killed Nicole, he can't be retried

[loudsue]

235. How do we have confirmation that OJ killed Nicole?

I hadn't heard any new evidence.

[tavalon]

247. Last month Kaeto Kailen

decided that since his perjury couldn't come back to haunt him and that OJ was in prison for something else, he would spill. His true story makes more sense that that not true one.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Nope. A verdict of "Not Guilty" ends the matter.

It can't be retried, appealed or anything else. The case is closed as a state criminal matter. The Feds can take it up as a civil rights violation but that will be a very hard case for them to prove.

[Blackford]

45. There have been cases legally reopedn and retried

but massive corruption must be proved before that ever happens, and even then it's rare and varies from state to state.

[freedom fighter jh]

191. Yeah, didn't Bernhard Goetz get convicted on his third trial? nt

[nsd]

249. Goetz had one criminal trial.

There was a lot of back and forth over what the indictment would say and then, after the criminal trial, Goetz (not the state) appealed the one thing he had been convicted of. There was also a separate civil lawsuit.

[caseymoz]

207. They could bring you up on a different set of charges.

I've seen prosecutors do that, but personally, I've always thought it was clearly double jeopardy. So, to be consistent, the same applies to Z.

[donnasgirl]

39. Good thought

But can not be done, once the jury says not guilty it is the end of the trial.

[Spazito]

47. The only way a mistrial can be declared is if there is found to be jury misconduct...

The State has no right of appeal, reversible error is a right given only to the defense.

[Half-Century Man]

87. What about this route?

Either in a Federal Civil Rights Court or in a Judicial Review Action via petition or by Southern Poverty Law Center.

1. Judge left out pertinent instructions normally included in cases. Ergo; Judaical misconduct.
2. Take action to unseat the judge; inquire as to motivation (racist omission?)
3. Take action to disbar the District Attorney for not objecting to jury instruction read aloud in court. (Gross misconduct or racist omission).
4. Court Officer misconduct is argued as equivalent to jury misconduct in Federal Civil Rights Court and/or Judicial Review
5. use ruling to retry GZ.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

96. Won't work

Jeopardy has attached, Zimmerman cannot be re-tried in a Florida court for Martin's death.

[Half-Century Man]

103. Too damn bad.

Can we still use this route to remove the Judge and District Attorney, or at least censer them.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

130. You can try anything

It won't work though.

[JDPriestly]

196. He can be tried in a civil court, and he can't take the Fifth.

But as I understand it the stand Your Ground Law requires the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal fees and costs if the defendant wins.

I would like to see Zimmerman cross-examined. That is what needs to be done.

[Spazito]

108. The Judge's ruling would not be considered judicial misconduct...

and can only be considered as reversible error if the defendant was found guilty and appeals on those grounds.

Jeopardy was terminated with the jury's acquittal verdict.

"A jury's verdict of acquittal terminates jeopardy, and verdicts of acquittal cannot be overturned on appeal even if there is overwhelming proof of a defendant's guilt or even if the trial judge committed reversible error in ruling on an issue at some point during the proceedings. This fundamental maxim of double jeopardy jurisprudence entrusts the jury with the power to nullify criminal prosecutions tainted by egregious misconduct on the part of the police, the prosecutor, or the court, a tremendous bulwark against tyranny in a democratic society."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-ends.html

[Half-Century Man]

166. Thanks for the skinny

I never studied law and just thought that might be a way in.

[Spazito]

167. You're welcome! n/t

[totodeinhere]

118. No, but if the judge committed gross malfeasance she can be

sanctioned for it. But that would not change the outcome of the trial.

[Warpy]

170. Yes, the instructions required the jury to be mind readers to come up with a "guilty" verdict

The standard for self defense and the violation of it should have been part of jury instructions.

There should be a mistrial declared. It's beginning to look like the fix was in, thanks to Zimmy's daddy who was a judge.

[truedelphi]

251. How would the mistrial thing-ee be declared?

I know that if errors that affected the defendant were made, the defendant has the right to appeal through the courts. But how does Trayvon's family go about getting this to happen? Is it even a possibility? Is there precedence?

[X_Digger]

252. No, once acquitted, it isn't reversible.

Nor can GZ be tried (criminally) for a greater charge, or for federal murder charges, etc etc.

Most talking heads have been talking about federal civil rights violations, hate crimes, etc- but even that is a bit of a stretch since the FBI has already determined there wasn't much evidence of racism in their review of the case before the state trial.

[Warpy]

254. Because the judge didn't tell them the legal standard for self defense

and any altercation, if it happened, would not have met that standard for Zimmerman.

[naaman fletcher]

253. Jimmy's daddy was not a judge

That keeps being repeated and it is just not true.

[bvar22]

206. "That omission in the instructions to the jury is criminal"

I totally agree.

Federal Dept of Justice....... you can NOT avert your eyes from this.
If you do NOT Step UP NOW,
you are complicit.

[11 Bravo]

2. I wonder if that could be considered a reversible error.

[naaman fletcher]

5. No

You can't reverse a not guilty decision.

[PatrynXX]

109. OJ knows that too

hence why he's basically confessed to the crime by now...

[anomiep]

61. Even if it were

I don't think the state can appeal a not guilty

[rl6214]

3. The judge was in the tank for the prosecution.

[COLGATE4]

11. Which is why the defense won.

[gcomeau]

27. You mispelled "defense" -eom

[donnasgirl]

58. When people

Are hurt by a decision that they become upset over spelling is the last thing on ones mind.

[gcomeau]

72. Whoosh... see post 71. -eom

[donnasgirl]

90. My head

Is up my butt right now, so please forgive me if I don't get it. I just had to put my dog down and I am not thinking to good.

[premium]

100. I am so sorry for your loss.

Hugs to you.

[donnasgirl]

113. Thank you

[vankuria]

149. So sorry

I've been down that road and I know how heartbreaking it is. Sending hugs your way.

[premium]

151. You replied to the wrong post,

but we know who you meant.

[vankuria]

211. Oops!

Thanks for pointing that out! I'm sure she knew who I meant!

[CitizenLeft]

102. I'm so sorry about your dog

been there, more times than I want to think about.

[donnasgirl]

114. Thank you

I feel like I lost my heart and soul, he was just a big gentle bum.

[warrant46]

117. That's the worst thing about dogs

They don't live long enough.

[skeewee08]

175. sorry for your loss sending hugs your way

[Gothmog]

127. I am sorry for your loss

My bearded collie is 14 and I am very worried about him

[reusrename]

146. I'm very sorry about your pal.

It's a very difficult time, and all this other stuff on top of it must be overwhelming.

[donnasgirl]

180. I want to thank you all

I and my family are devastated over his loss, Thank all of you and even though we have never met I want to say I love you all. Thank you again.

[midnight]

197. So sad to hear about your loss.... People need to stop fighting with each other and start

protecting each other from guns flying off the shelfs in this country and laws assisting all kinds of nonsense for people to pull out their guns to solve crime on their own.....

[treestar]

62. not if colgate is English, Canadian, Australian

[gcomeau]

71. They spell defense...

..."p-r-o-s-e-c-u-t-i-o-n"?

News to me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

82. eh?

[PSzymeczek]

115. HUH?

Sounds like quite the opposite, to me.

[YarnAddict]

195. Please explain

I got a little nervous watching because she was doing things that I thought might lead to appeals. She practically begged Zim to testify, in spite of his lawyers clearly objecting. She overruled objections by the defense and sustained the prosecutions objections repeatedly. It was pretty clear that she wanted to rip West's head off and throw it in his face.

Maybe I was just being overly sensitive because I didn't want to see endless appeals, and have the Martin family go through it over and over again.

So please, if I was seeing something that wasn't there, please tell me what you saw. Thanks!

[JDPriestly]

199. Florida seems to have a low conviction rate compared to other large states.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023265537

[Anansi1171]

178. And the prosecution was in the tank for the defense.

That's how it works in Florida! We know since 2000 they have a different measure of physics where institutional power in all ways pulls to the white...er, the right.

[TheProgressive]

4. Sounds like a mistrial to me...

[Lochloosa]

8. Nope. Zimmerman can never be tried for the same crimes again.

[TheProgressive]

10. I am well aware of double jeopardy.

If it is a fact that the judge left out critical information, at least the judge should be held accountable.

[ag_dude]

31. I'm not sure you know what mistrial means then.

[TheProgressive]

40. Mistrial: A trial rendered invalid through an error in the proceedings.

[TheProgressive]

65. There was a time when Duers did not find it necessary to insult fellow posters.

Ever think that *you* may be wrong...

[Igel]

124. Yes, there was.

But not in the last few days. Insults and accusations fly and the rules are either subject to jury nullification or nobody objects to them.

In a few cases I've seen posts that were the subject of abuse get self-deleted, possibly at mod request or possibly because the abuse or PMs weren't worth it. Or perhaps the poster just independently reconsidered after a bout of solipsism.

[Dawgs]

75. Dude, it's okay to be wrong. You can admit it.

I've done it many times.

[whopis01]

133. Exactly - and since this trial can't be rendered invalid by that, there will be no mistrial. n/t

[marions ghost]

33. Where and how are judges held accountable?

IMO it almost never happens.

[totodeinhere]

121. The state bar can sanction her. But you are right. It is seldom done. n/t

[totodeinhere]

119. Yes, she can be sanctioned for it and I hope she is. But that won't

change the verdict.

[cascadiance]

41. And the problem here is that if our justice system fails us, "Street justice" will happen more...

... and our society will break down more and more each day.

Between Snowden, George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin, and many other recent incidents, the masses are losing respect for our government's ability to provide civil avenues to address their grievances and what they perceive as violations of the civil order of our society.

And there are many different and sometimes extreme perspectives of where this "civil order" should be. We're witnessing the eye before the storm unfortunately I think where civilization is starting to break down. At some point "the rule of law" will seem like a distant joke of the past. I hope this stops, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Lochloosa]

105. I disagree and I'll tell you why. 60 years ago there never would have been a trail.

GZ would have had drinks bought for him by the local sheriff.

Our system is not nor will it ever be perfect, but they are better than they used to be.

[LarryNM]

226. +1 n/t

[Control-Z]

107. Not in Florida.

How does that work on the Federal level?

[Lochloosa]

152. There is a possibility of trying him for violation of TM's civil rights.

That would be on the Fed level.

[premium]

160. There is probably a very, very slim chance that the DoJ will file civil rights charges.

Here's an interesting article.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/07/15/civil-rights-case-zimmerman-won-simple/u4NNXk5VRdpQMPZIB5R23M/story-1.html

Civil rights case vs. Zimmerman won't be simple

The department says it’s reviewing evidence to determine whether criminal civil rights charges are warranted, but legal experts see major barriers to a federal prosecution — including the burden of proving that Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch leader, was motivated by racial animosity — and say Justice officials would likely be saddled with some of the same challenges that complicated the unsuccessful state case.


‘‘The Justice Department would face significant challenges in bringing a federal civil rights case against Mr. Zimmerman,’’ said Alan Vinegrad, the former U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. ‘‘There are several factual and legal hurdles that federal prosecutors would have to overcome: They'd have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street.’


In this case, federal prosecutors pursuing a civil rights case would need to establish, among other things, that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity, even though race was barely mentioned at the state trial.


Lauren Resnick, a former federal prosecutor in New York who secured a conviction in the killing of an Orthodox Jew during the 1991 Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn, said the Justice Department could conceivably proceed under a theory that Zimmerman interfered with Martin’s right to walk down a public street based on his race. But even that is difficult since the conflict occurred in a gated community, which may not fit the legal definition of a public facility. Prosecutors would also probably need to prove that trailing Martin on the street constituted interference, she said.


Samuel Bagenstos, a former No. 2 official in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said: ‘‘This is an administration that hasn’t shied away from bringing hate crimes cases that are solid prosecutions based on the facts and the law, but from what I've seen this would be a very difficult case to prosecute federally because the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted because of Trayvon Martin’s race. If you’re trying to prove racial motivation, you are usually looking for multiple statements related to why he is engaging in this act of violence. I think it’s a difficult case to prove.’’

And then the DoJ would have to get past it's own FBI investigation.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE86B1AD20120712

(Reuters) - FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.

Given all this, my prediction is that the DoJ will hem and haw for a couple of months and then say that they don't have enough evidence to support a racially motivated hate crime, or even a hate crime.

[premium]

14. Nope, trial is already over

but the judge can be sanctioned if misconduct is proven, and that is a high bar to reach.

[senseandsensibility]

6. I watched the coverage of this case on MSNBC

and, although I couldn't watch every second of it, this seems like a very important aspect of the trial. I didn't hear anyone discussing this. Maybe I missed it, but did anyone else hear about this at the time?

[City Lights]

7. That is so messed up!

[Lurks Often]

12. Here is the applicable FL statute

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041

Paragraph a would seem to be the relevant part

[DonRedwood]

13. Isn't Zimmerman's uncle a judge in Florida who works with that police dept?

[GreenStormCloud]

21. No. George Zimmerman’s uncle is a Deputy Sheriff in Orange County, California

Neither was Z's father a judge. Some years ago Virginia scrapped their Justice of the Peace system and replaced them with Magistrates who perform essentially the same duties. Z's father was a Virginia Magistrate.

[truth2power]

76. Ah! Thanks for that. I've been telling my friends that his father was

a judge, because that's what I read.

[FarPoint]

208. His daddy was

Judge Roy Bean....

[fadedrose]

15. WOW is right....

thanks for posting.....k

There are no clean hands in this mess . . . but only Trayvon and his parents got punished for everyone's wrongs. A real scapegoat....

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I said it yesterday

It was the instructions.

[uponit7771]

19. ****BINGO**** The judge ROYALLY SCREWED UP!! Not only that but they weren't allowed to even

...consider negligence !!!!!

Z entered a situation when he was not supposed to and advised NOT to

[JustAnotherGen]

24. I'm telling you

They are going to do the same thing in the dunn trial.

[Morganfleeman]

26. Prosecution wasn't arguing negligence

It wasn't alleged in the criminal complaint and under Florida case law, you can't instruct the jury on culpable negligence if it was not contained in the complaint.

[uponit7771]

138. thx

[Spazito]

20. I read that article and it got me to thinking...

how badly did the Judge tie the hands of the prosecution, not only with this ruling, but in the pre-trial hearings as well. With all the criticism of the prosecution's handling of this case, how many of those criticizing them know whether they chose not to raise certain issues or were not allowed to due to the Judge's rulings?

Ruling inadmissible the fact Zimmerman began the incident by following Trayvon Martin certainly tied the prosecution's hands as well as the jurors in that they were not allowed to even hear that argument.

[naaman fletcher]

37. That's not true at all

The jury heard repeatedly the argument that Zimmerman followed Martin.

[Spazito]

43. No, they did not in terms of evidence, not in terms of testimony...

and that is the CRUCIAL difference, the Judge did not allow that to come in. The jury instructions make it clear the jury are to consider only the evidence.

[naaman fletcher]

46. so you want them to consider non-evidence?

I don't understand what everyone is complaining about.

[Spazito]

51. It was only non-evidence because the Judge ruled it inadmissible...

which is what the OP is about. The Judge's ruling and it's ramifications to the case. It might help you to understand the debate if you read the article/again.

[naaman fletcher]

55. I did read it,

The judge denied the state's request to add specific language to the jury instructions advising them that self defense is not applicable if GZ was the initial aggressor. The judge denied the state's request to add that jury instruction.

That is not the same as "ruling inadmissible" the state's long running argument that Zimm pursued Martin.

[Spazito]

60. Yes, in essence, it is. If it is not in the jury instructions on what to consider...

it cannot be considered by the jury.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Betcha

The same instructions are given in the Dunn trial.

[X_Digger]

25. This is news? We've been discussing that all along, with the relevant statute.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

However, had they included the instructions, the defense would have argued (2)(a) above- that since (in their version of events) TM was on top of GZ, it was still justified.

[Morganfleeman]

38. Correct

Even if you are the initial aggressor (which would need to be proven), if the other person escalates to non-proportional deadly force, you are still entitled to claim self defense when using deadly force. So if I mug someone without a weapon (and assume for the sake of argument my victim is not in reasonable fear of his life) and the person attempts to stab me with a knife and I shoot and kill them, then I am protected even though I was the mugger. The law often produces results that seem illogical to people.

[X_Digger]

56. Well, no, in that case, it would be during the commission of a crime

And would fall afoul of (1).

[onenote]

139. Change the hypothetical to a simple assault

Which, under Florida law is not a "forcible felony" (a term that encompasses aggravated assault, not simple assault). Then the hypothetical holds.

[kestrel91316]

98. FAIL. Muggers don't ever get a free pass on killing their victims, no matter how hard they fight bac

[pintobean]

50. 2b is relevant, as well.

Screaming for help would clearly indicate a desire withdraw and terminate the use of force.

[JVS]

78. Not to open up a can of SYG worms here, but it seems like the language about withdrawl in 2b...

is related to the concept of duty to retreat.

[JVS]

73. Oops, I didn't see your post before I posted mine.

I'm a bit surprised that the author of the article would fail to note the exceptional cases here. That's pretty sloppy writing and can be inflammatory when read uncritically.

[X_Digger]

83. No worries.

I'm just surprised that so many DU'ers seem surprised by this law, when it's been quoted ad nauseum.

[Whisp]

28. o gawd...

[Xyzse]

29. This is true?

Makes me sick.

[LittleBlue]

30. Because following someone is not a provocation

Hence she didn't include it. Including something like that could result in successful appeal.

I have no idea why DU is so adamant about this idea that following someone gives you leave to beat them up without repercussion. If that were true, I could turn behind me, claim someone is following me and beat the shit out of them, while the law says they are the aggressor. Ridiculous.

[kidgie]

88. I would call it stalking and not following.

I've been followed/stalked before and a I truly felt in imminent danger. A man followed me for a mile , finally made a U turn and parked on the my side of the sidewalk, got out with a shinny object , open the back door of his car and sat there with the door open. I ran like the wind and luckily got away. I truly believe Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon's arm and said " What are you doing here?" causing fear in Martin and triggering a "fight and flight" response. I believe Trayvon had every right to feel threatened. Once Zimmerman got out of his car he threw "self -defense" out the door. What happens when you stick your hand a bee hive? You are going to get stung. Zimmerman had not right to step into Trayvon's personal space and aggressively confront him.

[onenote]

134. The fact that you can call it stalking doesn't mean the judge can ignore the fact

that as defined by Florida law it was not stalking and was not illegal.

[LittleBlue]

144. Stalking someone doesn't give you legal right to beat them

Where are people getting this idea? First I've ever heard of it was this trial, the idea that you suddenly get the right to beat up someone who is stalking you.

[reusrename]

157. If someone is behaving in a menacing manner you have a right to defend yourself.

A woman doesn't have to wait until her assailant physically grabs her, she can mace his ass if he closes in on her in manner such that a reasonable person would feel threatened.

It's always been this way, as far as I know. A guy comes at you with a clenched fist, you don't have to let him get in the first punch.

Of course you can defend yourself against someone who presents a physical threat.

[LittleBlue]

159. We don't know that he behaved in a menacing manner

And besides, where is your legal citation for that?

You can't just suspect someone of being menacing and beat them up.

[reusrename]

169. It's always been this way.

FL law.

784.011 Assault.—

(1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

Following someone, by itself, is not unlawful, but if he continued to advanced on the kid in a threatening manner, especially after the kid asked him what his intentions were, then that becomes an assault. Remember, Zimmerman was also armed with a flashlight. If a reasonable person would think that Zimmerman was about to strike the kid, the kid has every right to defend himself.

[LittleBlue]

173. Following someone does not satisfy the definition of assault

Following them and even asking them what they're doing in this neighborhood, are you committing crime?, etc. is NOT assault.

It has to be an unlawful threat to do violence to that person. Merely approaching a woman and extending your hand does not satisfy that requirement, he could be extending it for a handshake or to give her something she dropped on the street. There has to be a threat.

[reusrename]

185. You've repeated exactly what I said in my post.

We seem to agree.

The Martin kid had every right to punch the guy in the nose if he reasonably felt threatened.

[LittleBlue]

192. The jury didn't think so

6-0. And that's all that matters.

If the prosecution could prove that Trayvon was being threatened, self-defense would have failed.

[reusrename]

194. Not true.

The judge allowed an expert to testify that it was all legit.

The jury deferred to the expert, exactly as expected.

Why should jurors wrestle with this if they can avoid it?

It was a travesty, plain and simple.

[kidgie]

161. You have a right to protect yourself.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that people should be sitting ducks and be submissive when an armed man acts aggressively towards you. Forget the following/stalking part, he came out of his car with a gun and confronted him with aggression. George initiated the fight.

[SirRevolutionary]

164. Zimmerman, by his own admission, also negelected to tell Martin he was neighborhood watch

Instead, he said Martin asked "what's your problem?" and Zimmerman claimed his answer was "I don't have a problem". I'd be pretty suspicious of an older guy stopping his car and following me around in the dark and rain and later adding that conversation myself.

[LittleBlue]

176. Trayvon did not know Zim was armed

It's not even realistic. If Zimmerman was brandishing a firearm, Trayvon would not have attacked him, and if he did, he would have ended up shot before a fight could happen. Only an insane person attacks someone with a firearm while unarmed.

The evidence makes clear that Trayvon did not know Zimmerman had a firearm before the fight started.

[kidgie]

181. How is it not realistic? It is not unheard of a person trying to get the weapon out somebodies hand.

Trayvon fought back because he felt threatened, plain and simple. He was not looking for a fight with Zimmerman. What other evidence other than Zimmerman's statement proves that Trayvon did not know a creepy stranger was not armed?

[clffrdjk]

201. The prosecution had a year and a half to prove.

your theory and they couldn't come up with any evidence to support it. All the prosecution had to do was prove that Zimmerman struck first, they couldn't do it. So what evidence do you have that the state couldn't find in a year and a half? Why did you sit on the sidelines with such evidence?

[kidgie]

213. The only one person that could answer that is dead.

Also, what evidence do YOU have that he did strike first other than the vigilante's side of the story. If someone is pointing a gun at you and you recipricate by striking him, don't you have a right to fight your life or do you simply give up and lay down.

[clffrdjk]

217. I don't have any evidence

but I don't need any. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt not for the defendant to prove innocence. The prosecution failed to come anywhere near proving their version of the events. Whats that saying about it is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to be imprisoned, yea in this case it may apply I don't know. But one thing is for sure I am not proclaiming someone a murdering racist without any evidence to support such claims.


as for you completely unrelated sidebar "If someone is pointing a gun at you and you reciprocate by striking him, don't you have a right to fight your life or do you simply give up and lay down."
You will never see me say a person does not have the right to defend himself/herself. but if you win be prepared to be treated like Zimmerman or worse.

[kidgie]

223. The prosecution was a big failure.

In my opinion he was profiling him and I will tell you why. He has a history of calling police on people of color. His myspace account had the following: “I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”
In the recording you can hear him say fuckin co*ns under his breath no one can tell me otherwise. This shows a pattern of unacceptable behavior and character.

[Tigress DEM]

233. Your sentences are out of sync. Stalker and Stalkee are being confused.

IF someone is following you, intentionally, obviously and with a gun in their possession, it may not fit the term of "stalking" legally - there may need to be intent and previous association to make the "stalking" connection......

BUT if you are the OBJECT of someone's undue attention, as Trayvon was, especially if you are unarmed and they have a gun, you have the right to self defense.

Not ONLY was Trayvon NOT stalking Zimmerman, he was being stalked BY Zimmerman which gave Zimmerman ZERO legal ground to stand on and why the judge had to exclude part of the law in the jury's deliberation.

Zimmerman's claim was that he "feared for his life" because of what happened after he confronted Trayvon who defended himself against a nutcase with a gun.

Zimmerman's claim is that he was NOT stalking Trayvon, merely being a good citizen by investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood, ie someone committing a WWB -- Walking While Black.

[JoeyT]

183. The people claiming following isn't a provocation

would rapidly change their tune if it were a black man following a white woman after dark.

[Chico Man]

186. Not true

Black men follow white women in the dark all the time.

If the woman turned around and stabbed the guy do you think she wouldn't be in trouble?

[Skittles]

202. so if someone targeted, stalked and killed one of your loved ones

you'd think that was just peachy keen......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[valerief]

32. The fact that the jury CHOSE to accept those terms means they're STOOPID.

Jury nullification is standard operating procedure. Fuck the unjust legislature! The jury can decide AND SHOULD HAVE DECIDED what's just. BUT THEY DIDN'T!

[totodeinhere]

122. I would not go that far. It is not reasonable to expect the jury to understand the complicated

nuances of the law and in most cases any jury will take a judge's instructions at face value. The fault here lies with the judge and I hope that she is sanctioned for malfeasance on the bench.

[valerief]

172. No. The buck stops with the jury. It's time we took responsibility for our criminal legislators shit

[jmg257]

34. "Florida law states..."

"Florida law states that a defendant cannot claim self-defense if he "initially provokes the use of force against himself"."


Might want to recheck that...."fact".

[Kablooie]

48. That comes from the article. I haven't checked it out myself otherwise.

[jmg257]

63. Figured that. Someone already posted this above:

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. Prosecution and Defense spent a full day arguing over the jury instructions.

If this is true, I fault Prosecution for not requiring that it be included. The judge stayed out of the negotiation with the exception of 3rd Degree Felony Murder/Child Abuse. Prosecution wanted that as a lesser included offense and she ruled against them.

[X_Digger]

66. No, the prosecution tried to get that in the instructions.

But since they hadn't argued that GZ's behavior before the confrontation rose to the legal definition of an aggressor, it wouldn't apply.

Had they successfully argued so, the defense would have argued that their version of events would allow GZ to avail him of self-defense (see my post above citing the relevant law.)

[ctaylors6]

68. Prosecution can't require

that the judge include a jury instruction. They can only argue that it be included. Which they did during the charging conference last week. The state argued against the inclusion since provocation in FL requires physical force or threat of physical force. The judge sided with the defense without explanation.

At least 3 different times since Friday/Saturday, I've posted a youtube video of the relevant portion of the instruction arguments. If you can't find it, but want to see it, I can look for it again.

Edited to add: Sorry for the duplicate point, X-Digger! I guess I typed too slowly.

[Ruby the Liberal]

79. So what you are explaining is that

RELEVANT elements of the codified law are allowed to be omitted if the defense doesn't like them?

[X_Digger]

86. What is and isn't included in jury instructions are argued by both sides.

It's a procedural matter as to what can and can't be included, based on a myriad of things- the content and legal theories involved in the prosecution, the defense, the evidence presented or rebutted, what witnesses testified about, etc.

The judge made the decision. In this case, the prosecution never made the case that GZ should be treated as the 'aggressor' (from a FL law standpoint) so that section of jury instructions wouldn't apply.

[ctaylors6]

99. Not at all

I'm saying that the judge decides what's included in the instructions.

Each side presents its version of what it thinks the jury instructions should be. The individual components of the instructions usually come from standard jury instructions. If the parties disagree on whether a particular provision should be included, then they present their arguments to the judge, and the judge makes a ruling.

The process is like any motion or issue the judge decides. Each side gets to present its position, and the judge decides.

I'm sorry if my wording in previous post was confusing.

There are videos of the arguments for this particular provision on youtube if you want to see exactly how it went in this case.

[Ruby the Liberal]

188. I am just really surprised that something codified

that is germaine to the decision making process would be deliberately left out.

[mzmolly]

36. She also garbled on about Stand Your Ground.

[Morganfleeman]

42. Had nothing to do with the stand your ground statute.

The jury instruction for self defense refers to someone standing his or her ground, but this does not relate to the SYG statute. That is a standard jury instruction describing justifiable use of deadly force.

[Kablooie]

49. SYG was used by Zimmerman at the beginning to attempt to avoid prosecution.

But it wasn't part of the trial itself.

[rollin74]

81. SYG law was included in the jury instructions

so it may have played a role in the outcome of the trial

[rollin74]

74. the so-called stand your ground statute Florida 776.013(3) was read word-for-word to the jury

what the judge said during jury instructions:

"if George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"


Key controversial element of SYG law in Florida:

§ 776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[mzmolly]

135. Link?

Eom

[wercal]

52. Actual Florida Code

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Jury instructions:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

[hfojvt]

53. not sure what difference that makes

I mean, many DUers will always be convinced that it is all Zimmerman's fault, because he got out of bed that morning, or something. I mean, if he had not gotten out of bed that morning, Trayvon would still be alive.

But did the state ever prove that Zimmerman "initially provoked the use of force"?

And what would be considered a reasonable provocation? If somebody tells me "the Jets suck" do I then get to beat the crap out of them, and if they fight back they can be charged with battery because they provoked the fight? I mean, if they cannot kill me in self defense, then they should not be able to assault me in self defense either. Not when they provoked the whole fight by calling the Enterprise a garbage scow.

[Kablooie]

69. That would be for the Jury to decide. The fact it was decided by the judge doesn't seem appropriate.

[ctaylors6]

85. The judge is

definitely allowed to decide whether a jury should be instructed on something.

The jury is to decide any disputes of fact. If the state presented any evidence that Zimmerman provoked the incident by physical force or threat of physical force, and the state took the other side, it would be for the jury to decide as a matter of fact what happened. If the state did not present any evidence of that during the trial, then the judge properly did not instruct the jury on it.

The defense clearly stated during the arguments about jury instructions that neither following someone nor legally carrying concealed legally amounted to provocation. The judge must have agreed with at least much (assumption based on her ruling to exclude the instruction), so any evidence that Zimmerman was following and/or legally carried concealed would not have been enough to get jury instruction in.

[John2]

136. The judge was wrong

if she did make certain assumptions like that. Merely following a person is not illegal, unless you are perceived to be stalking a person. Stalking has to be proven on more than one occassion. Merely carrying a concealed weapon is not illegal in itself.

It is when you place it in conjunction with following a person with the intent to use it. You can carry a concealed weapon, but having loaded it and with the safety off, can draw a reasonable inference, that you intend to use it. There is a difference in the meaning of "nor," or in "conjunction," such as following a person with a loaded gun. So the defense is playing with semantics and trying to be tricky. The Judge should have known that.

The fact is, George Zimmerman also knew he had the gun and it was already loaded with the safery pulled. It is up to the jury if they wanted to believe he regularly carried a loaded gun with the safety off in his holster. I don't know any gun safety manual that advocates that.

If iof you don't believe his words, then you can infer, George Zimmerman loaded and released that safety when he went after Trayvon Martin in the dark. That would place Martin in imminent danger of his life. The evidence goes again to Martin running and his conversation with Jenteal.

It also goes to Zimmerman claiming he shot Trayvon when he went for his gun and not after getting beaten. That is where Zimmerman is tripping further. Only Zimmerman knew the gun was already loaded and ready to fire, not Trayvon. Why would Trayvon go for a gun that he doesn't even know was loaded? The only way to explain that is if he saw Zimmerman approaching with the gun or Zimmerman already had it out.

[onenote]

141. It would be for the jury to decide only if the prosecution had made an attempt to show it.

[LanternWaste]

93. Much like many DUers will always be convinced he was ethically right to shoot an unarmed man,

"many DUers will always be convinced that it is all Zimmerman's fault, because he got out of bed that morning, or something..."

Much like many DUers will always be convinced he was ethically right to shoot an unarmed man, and was simply framed into attempting to commit money-fraud from his jail cell. Six of one, half a dozen of the other (insert rationalization here).

[John2]

120. I don't know how

you can compare insulting some football team to a grown man with a loaded gun following a 17 year old at night? This is the problem with the Zimmerman supporters. It is Zimmerman's fault because he racially profiled an unarmed innocent kid and followed him at night, only to take his life. You think I would allow you or Zimmerman to follow me at night with a gun? You best state what your business is if you do so. For a person like Zimmerman, you just as well carry your own gun if the law can't do their jobs.

[meaculpa2011]

123. Only if you can prove that the Jets don't suck.

As I sit here in my green and white Jets t-shirt reliving memories of the New York Titans, the Polo Grounds, Wahoo McDaniel, Don Maynard, Joe Willie and the most exciting 16-7 game in sports history.

I think that Scotty and his cohorts proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Enterprise should NOT be "hauled away AS garbage!"

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

54. This is what I've been trying to tell people. It was the judge who commanded that

the jury disregard the events leading up to the fight. In other words, to ignore the fact that Zimmerman followed and actively pursued Trayvon with the intent to confront him.

I believe that the prosecution's case rested entirely on the fact that it was Zimmerman who was the initial aggressor.

When the judge told the jury to disregard that very important point, I knew the case was already lost!!!

[onenote]

147. I don't think it was the prosecution's entire case.

In fact, I don't think the prosecution made any effort to establish that Zimmerman engaged in behavior that met the legal standard of being the initial aggressor (i.e. actually used force against Trayvon first or actually threatened Trayvon with the use of force).

The fact is that if the instruction sought by the prosecution had been included and Zimmerman was convicted, the case probably would end up having to be retried. Florida courts have often reversed decisions where an instruction is erroneously included.

On the other hand, not including it was harmless error. This is because the burden was on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act out of a reasonable belief that he faced imminent death or great bodily harm. Assuming that the reason the jury acquitted was that they concluded that the state had failed to meet its burden, they also would have had to reject the application of the exception since it doesn't apply unless the state proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act out of a reasonable belief that he faced imminent death or great bodily harm.

I'm not saying that this has to make sense to people. Just explaining the law.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

158. I don't think you explained very well. The prosecution seemed to be arguing

that had Zimmerman remained in his car, the resulting murder would not have occurred.

So, if the judge is telling the jury to disregard the part where Zimmerman refused to remain in his car, the events that transpired after that doesn't help the prosecution.

I believe the entire case rested on the fact that Zimmerman profiled and pursued Trayvon. Again, Zimmerman's actions at that point may not have been illegal, but his actions nevertheless caused the confrontation and the subsequent unfortunate events after that.

The prosecution never had a chance to prove anything if the state doesn't allow that very critical aspect of the story to come into play.

I say COLLUSION. I will continue to believe that until the day of my death.

[onenote]

168. If that is what the prosecution was arguing then they deserved to lose the motion

One does not become an initial aggressor in Florida (or in any other state I can think of) by simply getting out of a car and following someone. One of the leading treatises on criminal law (Wharton's Criminal Law) has explained that provocation requires the actual use of force by the aggressor against the other person or the issuing of an actual (not perceived) threat to use force. The treatise also indicates that it is not provocation to follow someone and demand from them an explanation of their conduct.

So I have trouble believing that the prosecution thought it could get the court to invoke the provocation exception simply based on the fact that Zimmerman got out his car or even that Zimmerman followed and confronted Trayvon. Moreover, under Florida law, even if Zimmerman's getting out of his car and/or following Trayvon was provocation (and the case law says it isn't). the state would still have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was not based on a reasonable belief, at the time he used deadly force, that he faced imminent death or great bodily harm. Given that this is the standard for claiming self defense, if the jury's decision was based on self defense, then the failure to give the provocation instruction would be harmless error.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

171. Maybe they did deserved to lose, but Zimmerman deserves to be behind bars.

I know we disagree, but let's just leave it at that.

[99th_Monkey]

59. Hopefully Holder/DoJ will ride into town on this horse?

I heard something about DoJ "reviewing" the case the other day.

[totodeinhere]

125. The DOJ might be able to bring civil rights violation charges or a hate crime charge.

But if the judge in this case committed malfeasance on the bench that is a matter for the state bar to deal with, not the feds.

[99th_Monkey]

132. Why can't the prosecution file an appeal, to FL Supremes?

based on the Judge's miscarriage of justice, in what she chose to withhold
from the jury?

[totodeinhere]

140. The law does not allow the appeal of a not guilty verdict. That verdict is final

no matter how much malfeasance went on during the trial.

[99th_Monkey]

143. Oops. nt

[Duer 157099]

64. After reading that link, I recall that exact moment when the Judge said that

I remember thinking "WTF????" and had the feeling that something really bad had just happened, but then I figured it couldn't be that consequential because of how quickly she came to that decision, and that I must have misunderstood something.

Seems I understood perfectly. Fuck.

[Baitball Blogger]

67. I hope the Federal investigation will sort this out.

[JVS]

70. Interesting, but if what she's referring to is section 776.041 of defense law, then she is making..

a false assertion by saying that self defense is forbidden to an initial aggressor. There are exceptions.

The blog she links to also misses part of it.

In general, the "initial aggressor" is divested of the right to use physical force in self-defense, much less deadly physical force, unless he withdraws from the encounter and indicates to the victim his withdrawal, and then the victim pursues. Thus, even in a "no duty to retreat" jurisdiction, such as Florida, the initial aggressor does indeed have a duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force. This should sound familiar to anyone who grew up with a sibling -- who can deny the innate sense of justice invoked by the words: "But s/he started it."

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/03/trayvon-martin-and-the-initial-aggressor-issue.html

But it actually reads as follows.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html


This seems to indicate that even after a provocation, self defense is an option, contrary to the author of the article's claim.

[John2]

91. Stop trying

to defend Zimmerman, he was guilty plain and simple. I would have voted that way of I was on the jury, for murder period. Now I will explain again why I believe I'm right.

Zimmerman lost his right to self defense period, when he profiled and pursued Martin. You need to pay particular attention to my next statements.

There was no such evidence by anyone in that case, Trayvon circled back or even jumped Zimmerman, except from Zimmerman. That is not evidence! When Zimmerman claimed Martin ran and he was pursuing him in his own words and the 911 operator, that is proven evidence.

The fact that Zimmerman also had a loaded gun on him when went after Martin is proven evidence. Zimmerman claims it was in his holster and concealed, but there is no evidence to prove what he says, except his word. So you have proven evidence and none that exist or can be collaborated.

It is not just simple to say he was just following Martin, but it was with a loaded gun. That automatically gives Martin a fear of being in imminent danger. The fact that Zimmerman already had it loaded and with the safety precaution off infers intent to use it.

You can also infer, Martin was apprehensive of Zimmerman from two pieces of evidence. The fact that he ran from Zimmerman and the conversation with Jenteal on the cell phone. That is all proven evidence.

Whatever occured from there, Martin had a right to claim self defense and could use any force, not Zimmerman. He never had the right over Martin. The only right he would have it would be if he used all available means to save his life, which no evidence exists, except using deadly force. Regardless of what Good saw or anyoneelse, there is no evidence of Zimmerman defending himself except shooting Martin.

And to go to the Depraved heart explanation, it was there. It was there in the profiling and Zimmerman referring to Martin as up to no good, Ahole and punk. It is all derogatory and shows ill will. Every element for second degree murder was there.

[JVS]

101. Who is right: Burke's article, the blog she links to, or the FL website where the law is written?

Those three webpages say three different things.

As far as the rest of your post, that's not relevant to my post.

[John2]

106. I read the

Florida Law myself before the case was decided. The initial aggressor, does not have the same immunity as a non aggressor. An initial aggressor has to use all means before claiming self defense. The confusion is, when Zimmerman or if Zimmerman was ever considered the aggressor. He was if Martin was afraid of him and feared for his life from the start. The fact that Martin ran from Zimmerman and Zimmerman had a gun on him, gives Martin reason to believe he was in imminent danger fron Zimmerman. Especially if he perceived Zimmerman as creepy or crazy.

[onenote]

150. You have not correctly described the standard for what it would take for Zimmerman to have been

the initial aggressor.

The case law in Florida makes clear that in order to be the initial aggressor, one has actually engage the other person with force or must actually threaten to use force. What Trayvon's perception may have been or not been does not matter from the standpoint of whether Zimmerman would be deemed the initial aggressor. The state would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon began when Zimmerman physically attacked Trayvon. I don't recall the state trying to do that, but I could be wrong. A But even if the state made out the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, Florida law would still allow Zimmerman to use deadly force unless the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman not only used or threatened the use of force initially but that such use of force (or threatened use of force) would have created a reasonable belief in Trayvon that he was threatened with loss of life or great bodily harm). Proving that beyond a reasonable doubt was a step beyond what the prosecution could do or even try to do because Trayvon was not alive to testify and there was no other evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.

[Bay Boy]

200. I thought I followed the trial pretty closely...

...but the part about Trayvon running off I am missing details on. Can you tell me at what point Trayvon ran off? Does anyone know where he ran off too? How did Zimmerman regain contact with Trayvon. Thanks.

[TorchTheWitch]

221. We can't know the details

All the details come from Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone. During his phone call with the dispatcher at one point he said that Martin ran away which is when he got out of his car and pursued him. Where he was, what direction he ran, or if he really did run at all really isn't known since this information all came from Zimmerman alone. However, Zimmerman saying that he ran away should have worked against him since it does show that Martin did attempt to get away from him.

How they encountered each other is the crux of the case. Zimmerman claimed he never tried to pursue Martin, that he got out of his car not to pursue him but to get an address, and that while walking back to his car Martin appeared out of non-existent bushes and ambushed Zimmerman which he changed to appeared from no where, they exchanged words and Martin punched him. The time frame between where Zimmerman said he was in relation to his car when he ended the phone call and said he started returning to his car and the time of the physical encounter starting going by Rachel's phone logs since she was on the phone with Martin at the time was two minutes. That time frame and Zimmerman's changing his story of how they encountered each other goes to prove that it is not how they encountered each other at all.

Given the time frame, the obvious lie that Zimmerman only got out of the car to get an address and not to pursue Martin especially since the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and he admitted he was, the physical evidence of Rachel being on the phone with Martin at the time of the encounter, that he was wearing his headset and carrying his phone as both were found in the grass next to his body show to any reasonable person that Martin did not attack Zimmerman, that Zimmerman did continue to follow Martin and caught up to him, that several other witnesses testified that they heard running footsteps of more than one person on the sidewalk just before the physical encounter that Zimmerman lied about how he encountered Martin and that the physical altercation started because of his pursuit of him and catching up to him.

The judge choosing to leave out all of this from the instructions was not her choice to make and for the jury to decide whether or not Zimmerman's story of how they encountered each other and who was the aggressor at that time. The judge removed that decision from the jury which was rightfully their decision to make since the defense and the prosecution greatly differed on this point and it had everything to do with whether or not Zimmerman was legally defending himself or not.

Still, the jury could still have and should have had found him guilty given that a reasonable person would not believe he was actually in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm since Zimmerman's own actions of lying about how his injuries occurred given the physical evidence and testimony of two doctors one of whom actually saw him the next day and was his own doctor and his not believing himself he needed medical care. His lying about and/or grossly inflating how he acquired his injuries shows that not even he believed they were significant and reasonable for a jury to find that he was in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm.

[Bay Boy]

237. It's obvious to all ( I hope)

that Z instigated this whole awful mess by profiling Trayvon as a criminal. But I have to assume that Trayvon broke off contact(where he ran away) with Z but decided, for what ever reason, to come back and confront Z. I haven't heard anyone say that Trayvon was trapped in a dead end or anything, such that he would have no escape.

[TorchTheWitch]

238. Not according to Rachel or common sense

First, Martin's friend Rachel was on the phone with him at the time of the encounter. Martin was not going looking for him, he was trying to lose him which is why he ran in the first place. According to her it was Zimmerman who caught up to Martin at some point and accosted him.

Further, he was wearing his headset for his phone, was connected to the phone call with Rachel as her phone logs attest and he had his phone in his hand. Both his headset and phone were found on the grass next to his body. Considering this physical and documented evidence it is not reasonable to believe Liar Zimmerman when he claimed that Martin attacked him especially since he changed his story about that... first he said that Martin sprang out from nearby bushes and attacked him, then when discovering there was not anything even resembling a bush anywhere near the area he changed his story to Martin just appeared up close to him out of nowhere, they exchanged words, and then Martin punched him.

Given the physical and documented evidence as well as Zimmerman lying about how they encountered each other telling two different stories about that it is not reasonable to believe that it was Martin who somehow decided to go back and confront Zimmerman after running away from him but that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin in the unaccounted for two minutes he claimed he was walking back to his car merely steps away which couldn't have taken more than a few seconds (and certainly not two minutes) and accosted Martin when he caught up to him just as Rachel said.

[sofa king]

241. Why assume that?

You've got a guy trying to save his own ass by putting a black kid on trial for his own murder. Why in the hell would you assume that the victim doubled back and attacked his pursuer, because that's what the murderer said he did?

In fact, if that were actually the case, it would have been provable. The GPS information from Zimmerman's phone, which should have been captured and tracked within a few meters as a result of Zimmerman's 911 call, could have been introduced to corroborate the murderer's claim, yet nowhere have I seen that GPS evidence supported Zimmerman's story.

Rather to the contrary, the state tried very hard to lose and not produce the GPS information from Trayvon Martin's phone. Somehow, all the GPS data from the day he died was "lost" and could not be introduced at trial.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-01-31/news/os-trayvon-cell-phone-new-tests-20130131_1_trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara-assistant-state-attorney-bernie

[Bay Boy]

242. That's the first I've heard of the GPS data...

...that would have been blockbuster evidence.

[sofa king]

243. GPS probably cannot be shut off, either.

Most phones have the option, buried deep in the menu, to turn off GPS tracking, but since NSA wants to know everything you do and say at all times, it's probably actually non-functional option. Rather, a "do not track" note is probably simply appended to the continuing flow of data.

The only plausible explanation for the loss of the data, aside from deliberate destruction of evidence, would have been that Martin was creeped out by his stalker, and turned off the GPS in case Zimmerman was tracking him, which also could have been used as evidence against Zimmerman.

So instead, the data was simply "lost," just like the radar tapes on 9/11 or Deborah Palfrey's prostitution client files, because it didn't help The Man.

[Bay Boy]

244. It could have been lost

because it didn't help the prosecution. Exculpatory evidence.

[sofa king]

245. Highly unlikely.

If this were a real trial in a real judicial system in a country bound by its own rule of law, maybe. But this is the fixed American judicial system protecting one of their own.

This can easily be shown by pointing out that if the loss of the data was not entirely beneficial to the defense, the defense would have ruthlessly attacked the break in the chain of evidence, exactly as OJ's attorneys did in that trial. The defense could have tried to create reasonable doubt by pointing out that the "lost" data would have been probative, and that probative evidence was destroyed by the prosecution.

They did not. Instead, they studiously avoided it, as did the prosecution, by mutual agreement. Because this was a flop, not a trial.

[Bay Boy]

246. Who are they protecting?

" But this is the fixed American judicial system protecting one of their own"

In regards to this comment.

[sofa king]

255. They protected a judge's son.

They did it through an artful and highly technical exploitation of the jury instructions, bolstered by critical lapses in police work which destroyed the only probative information in the prosecution's case.

[Bay Boy]

256. Oh come on...

...A judge's son? Robert Zimmerman is a retired magistrate....from Virginia. Do you think he wields enough influence to affect a judge in Florida? A magistrate is the judicial equivalent of a meter maid in the police world.
A Rodney Dangerfield type position.

[sofa king]

257. Unless he ain't.

Here's another example of a dead-end judge who turned out to be one of the most powerful people in Washington. Royce Lamberth spent most of the last part of his career conducting the three-ring circus that was the Indian Trust Fund scandal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_C._Lamberth

But the most important part of his career is acknowledged only in a single, sanitized sentence:

Lamberth was one of the judges on the FISA court.

The power that this simple Virginia magistrate projected, through careful media management (for example by getting Anderson Cooper to question, "now that Trayvon Martin looks scary, does this change the case?&quot was far, far beyond that of his public position.

That doesn't prove he's a Secret Squirrel judge, but it makes it more possible, in my own mind, that he had help from the highest echelons of corruption within our system.

[Bay Boy]

258. So you think this 'meter maid' was part of

some secret society like Skull and Bones? Seems far fetched.

[sofa king]

260. And yet everything broke his way.

Everything from carefully chaperoned public perception management to botched police work to favorable jury instructions to, today, post-trial image repair work, has fallen in favor of this person and his family.

Is not that also far fetched? Yet here it is for all of us to contemplate, if we allow ourselves.

[live love laugh]

77. AYFKM?

[ladjf]

80. By hook or crook, I believe that Martin was lynched. nt

[cthulu2016]

84. since the first sentence is a falsehood I quickly lost interest

[yellerpup]

89. My first thought was

that the verdict lay in some misinterpretation of the judge's instructions. The instructions were outrageously edited IMO.

[Matariki]

92. Does anyone think that the fact that Zimmerman's dad was a judge has anything to do with this?

Because they were WAY too smug during the trial.

[premium]

110. I don't know how many times this has to be said,

but Zimmerman's dad was NOT a judge, he was a Magistrate in VA., which is far different from being a judge in VA.

[Matariki]

126. Perhaps you need to clearly define your terms then

Because when I look up the word 'magistrate' the meaning is given as judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate

The actual point however being: "Good Ol' Boy Network".

[premium]

129. Here is a link.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Virginia_Magistrates

VA. Magistrate's don't conduct trials, don't render verdicts, they are basically low level court officers.

[onenote]

154. Correct.

From 2000 to 2007, Zimmerman's father was a "magistrate" in Northern Virginia. Under Virginia law, magistrates expressly are not considered judges. They don't need a law degree, they have no trial jurisdiction, and, at the time Zimmerman's dad had the position, couldn't even handle traffic tickets. They could set bail and issue subpoenas and warrants.

[onenote]

153. Is anyone else disturbed by the number of DUers who claim to know enough about this case

to make a judgment as to the legal correctness of the judge's instructions and the jury's verdict, but are fundamentally mistaken about something that has been repeatedly debunked for months and months?

[Matariki]

190. I'm disturbed by the lack of awareness of how racism makes injustice like this possible

[AndyA]

94. I always thought something must be missing

Zimmerman pursued Martin. Zimmerman acted first, which means Martin was the one who likely felt his life may be in danger first. Therefore, anything Martin did at that point should have been considered self defense, he was reacting to being followed. Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Doesn't make sense that someone who initiates an aggressive action toward another can then later turn around when that person reacts to them, and say what they did was in self defense.

Trayvon Martin was minding his own business. Zimmerman wasn't.

[glinda]

203. I think that is the bottom line. To me it does not matter

exactly what happened if you know that Zimmerman was following him, armed in the dark when he was told not to. Trevon was not guilty of anything... Zimmerman was the aggressor. I feel Trevon had every right to defend his self or run or whatever.

[avebury]

97. Are judges appointed or voted for in Florida?

In Oklahoma, judges are elected. If she is elected, I would be looking to vote her out of office for that error.

[whopis01]

142. It varies, but this one is in an elected position. Her term is up 2019. Long wait. n/t

[sofa king]

104. When the rule of law is a joke...

... Then one might expect the law to be bent to protect a criminal, but that criminal should NOT expect the corrupt laws to protect him once he escapes prosecution.

So I'm going to go ahead and say this awful thing, because I'm sure it has already been thought of and I am equally sure that someone else is already executing it.

George Zimmerman needs a "Where is George" website, one that details the location of his last public sighting, information on where he works and what he plans to do, where he lives and the routes he takes to work, where he shops and whom he dates.

This is for OUR protection, because a murderer has gone free and is within our midst. Zimmerman is furthermore a national public figure and therefore not subject to the same privacy guarantees that mere mortals enjoy.

Edit: And, he is NOT GUILTY, so tracking his movements should be as legal, free, and ubiquitous as the surveillance the rest of us enjoy, for our protection.

If some other person wishes to take that information and stalk Zimmerman with a paint-ball gun, and plaster him every time he steps out of his car, then so be it. If some other person wishes to use that information to hunt him like human quarry, that also is irrelevant to OUR PROTECTION, which is obviously lessened as a result of our corrupt court system and this person's continued freedom.

And if he dies in fear, hunted like a dog, then fuck him. I don't care and I'm sure some of you don't, either, because that asshole turned in his humanity card the moment he decided to leave his car and chase that kid.

So... where is George?

[sofa king]

222. I am clearly being inflammatory above....

... And it looks like I got someone whacked for it. If the mods wish to pull that post, I am okay with that. But it ain't gonna stop the Internet.

Hunting season is already open:

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=where+is+george+zimmerman#q=where%20is%20george%20zimmerman&cmpt=q

[DallasNE]

111. I Have Posted Elsewhere

That the defense team was able to successfully bully Judge Nelson. And with a 100% chance of appeal stemming from a guilty verdict Judge Nelson caved time and time again as she seem unsure of herself at several key moments and was unwilling to take a single risk. Justice often seemed secondary in such a pressurized situation. Results are measured by outcomes and the jury instructions are the key area where this comes into play.

The jury still has to explain how they simply ignored the 911 call with the scream that terminated the millisecond the shot was fired. Because of the circumstances there is a 100% chance it is Martin that is screaming so how could the jury have not seen this recorded call as the 600 pound gorilla in the room. Left out of the discussion so far is the role money had in the outcome of this case. The defense had it and the prosecution did not and no where does that show up more than in discovery. It was discovery, after all, where the defense learned that the girlfriend could not read cursive. Another indicator was the props the defense had at their disposal and the prosecution had none. The prosecution, for whatever reason, was starved for money.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

112. Why is it so hard to picture the State wanted to let him go?

They didn't want to arrest him in the first place.

See? Now that they did their little show trial anyone who has a problem with it can be accused of being a sore loser that's just trying to stir things up and who doesn't respect the rule of law.

Any of that sound familiar?

A REAL TRIAL would have had a REAL Prosecutor and they would have picked a FULL 12 panel jury with actual black people (gasp) serving.

I still picture this jury as being a bunch of Southern Belles wanting to get back to their tea and pressuring the one "mixed race" to go along with them.

A Federal case would investigate ALL of the players including the judge and the prosecution. Can you imagine if they find cash changed hands? If they offered as much as clearing a parking ticket to get this done it will mean jail time.

[Blue_Tires]

248. ^^^^^THIS

They also need to protect the cover-up turned half-assed investigation from the Sanford PD...

I read some account from way back that when the original police chief had to resign out of embarrassment/political pressure, the cops under him were burning mad with resentment...That's one of the reasons why I wanted the full involvement of the Justice Dept. from the start

[John2]

116. Everyone of

George Zimmerman's defenders continue to leave out that he was following Martin with a loaded gun. That is what makes it imminent danger. They can't prove that Martin turned back on Zimmerman and attacked him either. They are relying on Zimmerman's words, up until they can use John Good as his witness.

[Major Nikon]

128. I'm not so sure it was entirely the judge's fault

What you have to remember is that if the judge doesn't do their job, the case can be overturned or a new trial ordered by the appeals court. I don't really see how the jury could have not known Z was the initiator of the confrontation.

I blame the fucked up shoot-first law.

[rdharma]

131. Thom Hartman is addressing this on his show right now. nt

[uponit7771]

137. YES! and doing a GREAT job. syg WAS... WAS involved in the Jury instructions!!

[premium]

145. Yes he is,

but that's not going to change the verdict, the only thing that might, and I stress might, happen is that the bar association levies sanctions against her, and I have my doubts on that as it's a high bar to reach for judicial malfeasance.

[sofa king]

239. The feds'll put a note in her file.

I suppose it will take the FBI around five seconds to search their phone records for a single intermediary who called both Zimmerman's father and this judge, before or during the trial. They'll make a note of it in an unpublished report, and if this judge is ever considered for appointment to a federal bench, the report will be shown to a handful of Senators and that will be it for her.

This judge probably has an entire lifetime of George Zimmermans ahead of her, because she will forever be warming a state bench. That would be excruciating punishment for me; I can only hope it turns out to be the same for her.

[onenote]

155. You seriously don't understand the law. Seriously.

[premium]

165. No he can't.

The State only gets one bite of the apple. He's already been tried and acquitted on this alleged crime, that's it, the State can't come back and say, well, we're going to charge him on this again only this time it's going to be 1st Murder.
No DA in the country would even entertain that notion, you know why? Because of Double Jeopardy.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Double+Jeopardy

A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense. The evil sought to be avoided by prohibiting double jeopardy is double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law.

Good lord, this is basic Govt. 101.

[bvar22]

209. But the Dept of Justice CAN (and hopefully WILL SOON)...

...step in with a Federal Prosecution of Zimmerman for [font size=3]Depriving Trayvon Martin of his Civil Rights to walk unarmed ANYWHERE in the USA,[/font]
and, hopefully, tack on a well earned Hate Crime conviction in the process.

Justice Be DONE!

[premium]

212. The DoJ would then have to dispute it's own FBI investigation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE86B1AD20120712

(Reuters) - FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.

Eric Holder said it himself last year, the bar for a civil rights violation is a very high one.
There's also this.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/07/15/civil-rights-case-zimmerman-won-simple/u4NNXk5VRdpQMPZIB5R23M/story-1.html

Civil rights case vs. Zimmerman won't be simple

The department says it’s reviewing evidence to determine whether criminal civil rights charges are warranted, but legal experts see major barriers to a federal prosecution — including the burden of proving that Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch leader, was motivated by racial animosity — and say Justice officials would likely be saddled with some of the same challenges that complicated the unsuccessful state case.


‘‘The Justice Department would face significant challenges in bringing a federal civil rights case against Mr. Zimmerman,’’ said Alan Vinegrad, the former U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. ‘‘There are several factual and legal hurdles that federal prosecutors would have to overcome: They'd have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street.’


In this case, federal prosecutors pursuing a civil rights case would need to establish, among other things, that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity, even though race was barely mentioned at the state trial.


Lauren Resnick, a former federal prosecutor in New York who secured a conviction in the killing of an Orthodox Jew during the 1991 Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn, said the Justice Department could conceivably proceed under a theory that Zimmerman interfered with Martin’s right to walk down a public street based on his race. But even that is difficult since the conflict occurred in a gated community, which may not fit the legal definition of a public facility. Prosecutors would also probably need to prove that trailing Martin on the street constituted interference, she said.


Samuel Bagenstos, a former No. 2 official in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said: ‘‘This is an administration that hasn’t shied away from bringing hate crimes cases that are solid prosecutions based on the facts and the law, but from what I've seen this would be a very difficult case to prosecute federally because the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted because of Trayvon Martin’s race. If you’re trying to prove racial motivation, you are usually looking for multiple statements related to why he is engaging in this act of violence. I think it’s a difficult case to prove.’’

IMO, the DoJ will investigate for a few months and then say that they don't have the evidence of either a hate crime or a racially motivated crime to sustain a civil rights indictment and they'll drop it.

[vankuria]

156. Sounds like the whole case

was rigged from the start. Otherwise how could something so relevant to the prosecution be withheld?

[perdita9]

163. If this is correct, a judge in Florida needs to be disbarred.

[PoliticAverse]

179. That clause is misleading taken out of context...

The law indicates that even if you were the initial aggressor you are justified in using force if you believe you are in imminent danger of great bodily harm and can't escape...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

[defacto7]

182. I think we should all take heed....

The streets should no longer be considered safe for anyone. Rules of behavior and civility no longer apply.

[glinda]

204. That is what the NRA wanted. "Street justice/citizen cops".

[Cha]

187. That is Sickening. Justice4Trayvon didn't have a chance

in that Judge's Court of "Law".


New York, July 14



meta @metaquest

Peaceful protest for Trayvon Martin in San Francisco. pic.twitter.com/5GbQfX848X3:58

AM - 15 Jul 2013



Jasmyne Cannick @jasmyne

This is not like 1992, there are black, white, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, old and young marching together in solidarity.4:52 PM - 14 Jul 2013

705 Retweets 297 favorites ReplyRetweet

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/07/15/rise-and-shine-554/

[dkf]

189. Can't believe this person is supposed to be a law professor.

Misleading, deceptive...

She forgot to add the most important parts of the Florida law...the exceptions!!!

This woman should not be teaching anybody anything.

When a complete layman can dismantle the assertion by simply reading the law, that is a sad comment on the quality of the argument and the professor/attorney.

[matthews]

193. There was something 'funny' about this whole trial.

Questions that were especially relevant to Zs actions or motivation were either not asked or not followed up. The prosecutor seemed like he was half asleep or purposely ignoring testimony that he could have scored on or at least negated with proper follow-up.

And now this.

I was talking to my daughter and grandson about this and we were wondering if the only reason that there was even a trial was to shut everyone up who were demanding Z be arrested. Maybe they were trying to cover their butts with a show trial that wouldn't upset the white gun humper crowd by throwing the whole thing.

I'm getting too jaded. But by the time you get to be my age, especially having formed my opinions and my politics in the last couple of years of the 60s, and after having seen no real improvement in the political/social structure in this country to date, that's probably par for the course.

Oh yeah we had some years where things were quiet, but TPTB back then are still TPTB today. As Roger said

"Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss".

Won't get fooled again?

[glinda]

205. Yes...it was "fiction" and "advertising" broadcasted on Major Networks.

[geckosfeet]

210. Agreed. If ever there was a case of provocation, this was it.

[customerserviceguy]

214. I doubt that it made that much of a difference

But, if so, then it's another mistake in a long list of them made by the prosecution.

[indepat]

215. When the judge allowed a minimal amount of weed in Trayvon's system to be introduced in

evidence when also, as I recall, no testing had been made to see what might have been in Zimmerman's system following this fatal, but statutorily permissible and wholly legally justifiable, shooting under FL law, I had wondered what's up.

[Taitertots]

216. Its just the law... The Prosecution can't claim that Zimmerman's legal actions were provocation

And, in light of the fact that they presented no evidence or witness testimony that would indicate that he was the initial aggressor, it shouldn't be included in the jury instructions.

[blkmusclmachine]

219. CROOKED

[davidpdx]

220. I'm glad someone posted this

It's been mentioned before and I hadn't heard the actual instructions

[truedelphi]

224. Are you kidding me?

This is very much beyond the pale.

i am almost speechless.

[NealK]

225. That trial was a sick joke.

[gtar100]

227. That's really fucked up. Judge cherry picks the law for the defendant.

That is bias.

[Enthusiast]

228. A lot of judges, they just plain suck at their job.

Especially when they are biased.

[AngryOldDem]

229. But was that point EVER brought out by the prosecution?

Of course Zimmerman was the aggressor....the evidence on its face supports that. He had no reason nor the authority to approach Trayvon that night, and had less reason and authority to demand that Trayvon explain why he was there, and even less reason and authority to continue to confront Trayvon after the dispatcher told Zimmerman "you do not need to do that." (I am of the opinion that a police dispatcher is de facto part of the department, and a reasonable person would follow their instructions.)

Prosecution: "Jurors, put yourself in Mr. Martin's place. You're at a location where you have every reason to be, and all of a sudden you are approached, and then pursued, by a total stranger who then forces you into a confrontation. Do you think you have cause to feel threatened, and therefore cause to defend yourself?" Then add Zimmerman's blatantly racist comments and history of seeing trouble where there was none, and then let the jury decide.

Zimmerman loses all right to a claim to self-defense because it is clear he intended to incite. I'm sure the arguments are convoluted because they have to be to justify this flat-out prosecutorial and judicial incompetence. Zimmerman did not act according to any reasonable standard of conduct that night, and yet he gets off scot-free, and vigilantism -- with the implied target of minorities (especially minority males) -- gets a huge thumbs-up by the system.

Zimmerman in so many ways reminds me of the clods who were security guards at a homeless shelter where I worked several years ago. They were ALWAYS looking to start shit, and then be the first to claim that it wasn't their fault. They made our jobs 1000% harder because the staff had, for the most part, pretty good rapport with those who stayed there. One guard kept asking if he could carry his gun. Hell fucking no --- someone would have most certainly wound up dead. Zimmerman is of that ilk. Wants to play big, bad cop but doesn't have the God-given sense of a grapefruit.

[Soundman]

230. Not that it will make a difference to the close minded among us, but

It was blatantly obvious the judge was in the can for the prosecution not the other way around. Of course that would be common knowledge to those who actually watched the trial from beginning to end.

[MichaelKelley]

231. Hi

Once again it has been proved that the powerful person in any country can escape easily from the law as there is a lot more loopholes to help an offender to escape from any law. This situation not alone in the USA, but all over the world.

[Gman]

232. It wouldn't matter anyway

B37

[Tigress DEM]

234. HERE IS THE ACTION STEP - IMPEACH the JUDGE for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct

By telling the jury they could NOT use Florida LAW in the deliberation of the case, he overstepped his judicial authority and slanted the case AGAINST the victim of murder, denying the family the justice sought by bringing the case to court. He didn't just FAIL in his duty, he went AGAINST his duty as a judge to impartially weigh the facts of the case and see that the jury saw all facts in the case.

Florida law states that a defendant cannot claim self-defense if he "initially provokes the use of force against himself".
This clause of the law was deliberately withheld from the jury in the instructions from the judge.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc.shtml


EXCEPT he's probably only a District Judge.... is that still under the JQC's jurisdiction?

[LisaL]

236. He? At least you should know something about the trial before posting.

Judge was female.

[Tigress DEM]

250. Yeah, I saw "Nelson" and I thought male. I don't watch TV.

CNN has a timeline

Interestingly enough it would have been a lot different trial with the original judge. He caught Zimmerman lying to get a lower bail and busted him.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts


June 1, 2012 - Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. revokes Zimmerman's bond and orders him to surrender within 48 hours after the prosecution argues that Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, misrepresented their finances when Zimmerman's bond was originally set in April.

June 3, 2012 - At 1:45 PM, Zimmerman surrenders to authorities and is taken into custody at the John E. Polk Correctional Facility in Seminole County.

June 12, 2012 - George Zimmerman's wife Shellie is arrested and charged with perjury.

June 18, 2012 - Audio of six phone calls between Zimmerman and his wife Shellie are released, along with bank statements.

June 25, 2012 - Zimmerman's attorney files a motion requesting a "reasonable bond" be set for Zimmerman's release from jail.

July 5, 2012 - The judge sets Zimmerman's bond at $1 million.

July 6, 2012 - Zimmerman is released from jail after posting the required 10% of the $1 million bond ($100,000).

July 13, 2012 - Zimmerman's legal team files a motion requesting Judge Lester step down from the case. The motion claims Zimmerman cannot get a fair trial because Lester used "gratuitous, disparaging" language in the previous week's bail order.

August 13, 2012 - George Zimmerman appeals Judge Lester's refusal to recuse himself with the Fifth District Court of Appeals.

August 29, 2012 - A Florida appeals court grants Zimmerman's request for a new judge, saying Judge Kenneth Lester's remarks in a bail order put Zimmerman in reasonable fear of a fair trial.

August 30, 2012 - Judge Debra Nelson is assigned to replace Judge Kenneth Lester in the case of George Zimmerman.

[apples and oranges]

240. She had me fooled

Up until the final days, I really thought she was a fair,compassionate judge. Then as the trial was ending and people were so disgusted that they weren't watching as closely, she started allowing evidence about marijuana and bogus pro-Z re-enactments were shown to the jury. Meanwhile, prosecutors weren't allowed to mention Z's history of violence. The final nail in Trayvon's coffin was her instructions to the jury. She really fooled me.

[Zoeisright]

259. Fuck Florida.

I will never go there again. I'll visit the Caribbean if I want white sand beaches.