Judge's comments to Zimmerman--any lawyers care to comment?

[Benko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgDuu6i8MtE

I am aware from news of previous trials that the defendant in a trial does not need to testify.  I was not aware that the judge was allowed to do things like this.  I'd like the reaction of a lawyer, in case this is not what it looks like.

Thanks.

[Reub]

There is tremendous pressure from liberals and left wingers to lynch this man. I think that it is affecting the judge.

[notsheigetz]

I'm no lawyer and I've never even sat through a real trial but I've never seen anything like this either. The defense lawyers seemed completely flabbergasted. One thing you can't tell from the video is if this took place in front of the jury. If so, it's even more amazing.

Preparing myself for the verdict I was growing somewhat sympathetic to the idea that Mr. Zimmerman might be guilty of something because if he had just minded his own business and/or done what the 911 operator told him, none of this would have happened. This piece I just read changed my mind. It gives some additional background information that I'm pretty sure wasn't allowed to be admitted at the trial......

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoult ... e-n1638235

[Xan]

I wonder whether that would be grounds for overturning a conviction of any kind on appeal.

[notsheigetz]

I wonder whether that would be grounds for overturning a conviction of any kind on appeal.

I was thinking of that too, but as I said in my above post I couldn't tell if it took place in front of the jury or not.

[dualstow]

LA Times says the exchange took place before the jury returned from lunch.

[notsheigetz]

Down here in a Florida suburb I can report that the police are fully prepared for the reaction of white people if Mr. Zimmerman is found guilty.

[Bean]

Down here in a Florida suburb I can report that the police are fully prepared for the reaction of white people if Mr. Zimmerman is found guilty.

This can be taken two ways, and both are hilarious to me.

[Tyler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgDuu6i8MtE

I am aware from news of previous trials that the defendant in a trial does not need to testify.  I was not aware that the judge was allowed to do things like this.  I'd like the reaction of a lawyer, in case this is not what it looks like.

Thanks.

I'm no legal expert, but I've read elsewhere that this isn't all that uncommon.  Some judges specifically ask a defendant if they are choosing not to testify as a way of covering bases to remove one argument for appeal ("I wanted to testify but my attorney wouldn't let me") down the line.  Taking a confrontational tone in front of a jury would definitely be unusual, however.  If I were his lawyer, I'd still make a scene because the cameras were there even if the jury wasn't, and this trial is sadly more about public opinion than justice.

[MediumTex]

He could have just answered the first question with a simple "no" and then cited the Fifth Amendment for all of her follow up questions.

The reasons for his determination not to testify are not anyone's business but his own.

This whole trial has been painful for me to watch.  Zimmerman certainly could have done things differently, but as far as I can tell he broke no laws of any kind prior to being attacked.  I say "attacked" because the only one with any injuries prior to the gunshot was Zimmerman--are we to believe that the two were "fighting" when the only one with face or head injuries (or ANY injuries) is Zimmerman, and the only knuckles with any marks on them are Martin's?  Once Zimmerman was attacked, he didn't use deadly force until long after a reasonable belief could have been formed in his mind that he was facing the possibility of death or great bodily injury as a result of the attack.  In other words, how many times does a person who is larger than me and on top of me (as the evidence indicated) have to slam my head into a concrete sidewalk before it is reasonable for me to believe that I am in danger of suffering great bodily injury?

The fact of the matter is that the local police did not want to pursue any criminal charges against Zimmerman, the local DA did not want to seek an indictment, and no grand jury ever heard the state's case and issued an indictment.  The only people who wanted to see Zimmerman on trial were Florida politicians with track records of petty partisanship who went around the local authorities and the normal grand jury process to see this man put on trial for what is legally a pretty clear cut case of self-defense.

Zimmerman has basically had his life ruined, he has been bankrupted, he will have trouble finding employment and his personal safety will probably be in danger for the rest of his life, even if he is acquitted, which he should be.

This case is really about how viciously a private citizen can be bullied when the media and the government decide they want to team up.  To me, the only thing the government hasn't done to Zimmerman is fit him with a "madness helmet", but maybe they are just waiting until he receives his sentence of life in prison following his 2nd degree murder conviction that they brought against him, which was an absolutely absurd charge to bring against someone who killed another person in the middle of being attacked by that person, no matter how they had provoked the attacker in the first place by walking behind him or asking them why he was in a gated community if he didn't live there.

The fact that most of the media and much of the public apparently don't share my point of view on this case is perhaps the saddest part of it all.  I knew that people were dumb and gullible, I knew the media was only interested in agitating and titillating the public, and I knew the government would stop at nothing to hurt an individual once it was decided that hurting that individual would provide political benefits to those in power, but I apparently underestimated the scale of these factors.

I get sad and frustrated almost every time I see any coverage of this case, and I realize that my sadness and frustration are driven by the fact that however cynical I may have been about the public, the media and the government, apparently I wasn't cynical enough, because I am still outraged at what I am seeing.

It would be like if a rattlesnake went on a shooting spree and killed 40 people.  I would say to myself "I thought I understood the nature of rattlesnakes and the type of danger they represented, but apparently I didn't because this type of scenario never occurred to me at all.  I just never thought that even rattlesnakes could be quite that vicious."

[dualstow]

In the future, five different people will capture the entire scuffle on Google Glass.

[Pointedstick]

In the future, five different people will capture the entire scuffle on Google Glass.

...One of them being the shooter and the other being the shootee.

[Benko]

MT,

Thanks for weighing in.

1. "He could have just answered the first question with a simple "no" and then cited the Fifth Amendment for all of her follow up questions."

I'm sure that is true, but having the presence of mind to come up with those answers is beyond many people (not sure I could have come up with that).

2.  On another front:

"Eric Holder’s Justice Department used a “community relations”? unit to support and stage-manage public protests in Florida against George Zimmerman...

Lee, the former Sanford police chief, told CNN this week that he faced severe pressure from outside forces to conduct his investigation in an unprofessional way so as to placate the public."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

[MediumTex]

On another front:

"Eric Holder’s Justice Department used a “community relations”? unit to support and stage-manage public protests in Florida against George Zimmerman...

Lee, the former Sanford police chief, told CNN this week that he faced severe pressure from outside forces to conduct his investigation in an unprofessional way so as to placate the public."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

Does that sort of thing surprise anyone?  If so, why?

[dualstow]

In the future, five different people will capture the entire scuffle on Google Glass.

...One of them being the shooter and the other being the shootee.

They may as well add crosshairs to the augmented vision.

[Mdraf]

On another front:

"Eric Holder’s Justice Department used a “community relations”? unit to support and stage-manage public protests in Florida against George Zimmerman...

Lee, the former Sanford police chief, told CNN this week that he faced severe pressure from outside forces to conduct his investigation in an unprofessional way so as to placate the public."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

Does that sort of thing surprise anyone?  If so, why?

/PRISM off
This story is becoming uglier every day. Nothing surprises me from this DOJ any more.
/PRISM on

[moda0306]

This whole trial has been painful for me to watch.  Zimmerman certainly could have done things differently, but as far as I can tell he broke no laws of any kind prior to being attacked.  I say "attacked" because the only one with any injuries prior to the gunshot was Zimmerman--are we to believe that the two were "fighting" when the only one with face or head injuries (or ANY injuries) is Zimmerman, and the only knuckles with any marks on them are Martin's?  Once Zimmerman was attacked, he didn't use deadly force until long after a reasonable belief could have been formed in his mind that he was facing the possibility of death or great bodily injury as a result of the attack.  In other words, how many times does a person who is larger than me and on top of me (as the evidence indicated) have to slam my head into a concrete sidewalk before it is reasonable for me to believe that I am in danger of suffering great bodily injury?

The fact of the matter is that the local police did not want to pursue any criminal charges against Zimmerman, the local DA did not want to seek an indictment, and no grand jury ever heard the state's case and issued an indictment.  The only people who wanted to see Zimmerman on trial were Florida politicians with track records of petty partisanship who went around the local authorities and the normal grand jury process to see this man put on trial for what is legally a pretty clear cut case of self-defense.

Oh I think there are some other people that simply want to see justice done.  Me, for one.  That doesn't mean Zimmerman convicted, necessarily... but definitely an arrest and a trial.

Just because Zimmerman didn't beat the sh!t out of Martin before Martin proceeded to pummel him doesn't mean there's not a trial that should be had.  HE confronted Martin... most likely charging him in a very confrontational manner... who knows what happened, but if you invade someone's bubble aggressively and then end up shooting him after he kicks your ass for a while, there is no question in my mind that an arrest should be made. 

It would be one thing if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin without any kind of provocation, but this is basically an altercation that Zimmerman started, Martin escalated probably too far, and Zimmerman finished with by taking Martin's life.  If there's anything that's sovereign to us, it's our life.  It comes before property or anything else.  Never should it be taken so lightly when one person has taken another's.

His life is ruined... you're right.  I don't think he's a bad guy.  Probably just sick of the crime in his community and got a big head about it... could have happened to a lot of people I know.  But if YOU confront somebody else's privacy, and THEY end up dead, and there are no witnesses that can give a clear account that you're not at fault, there better damn well be a tight investigation.

These stand your ground laws seem a little ridiculous.  The idea that you can take someone's life and just walk away from it with a good story that nobody can back is a recipe for disasters like this.

[Xan]

Zimmerman specifically didn't claim "stand your ground".  That would have required the defense to prove that Martin started the fight.  They went with old-fashioned self-defense.

[Benko]

there is no question in my mind that an arrest should be made. 

""Lee, the former Sanford police chief, told CNN this week that he faced severe pressure from outside forces to conduct his investigation in an unprofessional way so as to placate the public. “It was [relayed] to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn’t care if it got dismissed later,”? he said. “You don’t do that"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund"

Apparently a lot of people feel as you do (just not the police chief investigating the case).  And you are in the majority and got what you wished. 

[MediumTex]

Just because Zimmerman didn't beat the sh!t out of Martin before Martin proceeded to pummel him doesn't mean there's not a trial that should be had.

There was no evidence that Zimmerman even laid a hand on Martin prior to Martin attacking Zimmerman, and even after Martin attacked Zimmerman, apparently Zimmerman didn't hit Martin even one time prior to the gunshot.

Why are you talking about whether Zimmerman was beating the shit out of Martin when there is no evidence that Zimmerman even touched Martin prior to the attack?

HE confronted Martin

There was no evidence presented at the trial that even remotely suggested this is what happened.

... who knows what happened

If no one knows what happened, then it would be impossible for the state to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt and thus the charges should never have been brought.

If you invade someone's bubble aggressively

There was no evidence that Zimmerman invaded Martin's bubble or even got close to his bubble.

and then end up shooting him after he kicks your ass for a while

How long would he have to kick your ass before you would be justified in using deadly force in self-defense, especially if you didn't cast the first blow or any subsequent blow?

There is no question in my mind that an arrest should be made.

Why do you think that the Sanford police, who were obviously much closer to the case and the evidence, reached the opposite conclusion?

It would be one thing if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin without any kind of provocation

What evidence is there that this isn't exactly what happened?  In other words, what evidence is there that Zimmerman provoked Martin other than walking in his general direction at a distance?

This is basically an altercation that Zimmerman started

What evidence is there that Zimmerman started the altercation?  Martin didn't have a mark on his body, while Zimmerman had a smashed nose.

Martin escalated probably too far

Repeatedly banging a person's head on a concrete sidewalk is grounds for the victim to use deadly force in self-defense, regardless of what came before the head banging.

Zimmerman finished with by taking Martin's life.

Yes, and if Zimmerman had not taken Martin's life, Martin might have taken Zimmerman's life.  It only takes one well-placed blow from a concrete surface to the back of the head to put someone's lights out for good.

If there's anything that's sovereign to us, it's our life.  It comes before property or anything else.  Never should it be taken so lightly when one person has taken another's.

I don't think anyone has taken this situation lightly.  I'm just saying that legally Zimmerman simply didn't commit any crime, and that's why the local police and DA decided not to press charges.

His life is ruined... you're right.  I don't think he's a bad guy.  Probably just sick of the crime in his community and got a big head about it... could have happened to a lot of people I know.  But if YOU confront somebody else's privacy

There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin's privacy.  They were both out in public.

and THEY end up dead, and there are no witnesses that can give a clear account that you're not at fault, there better damn well be a tight investigation.

There was a tight investigation.  Zimmerman gave four separate statements to the police without having an attorney present.  It doesn't get a lot tighter than that.

These stand your ground laws seem a little ridiculous.

This is not a stand your ground case.  This is a simple self-defense case.  The defense has not invoked stand your ground at any point.

The idea that you can take someone's life and just walk away from it with a good story that nobody can back is a recipe for disasters like this.

There are many witnesses who have testified about what happened.  One witness testified that Martin used a racial slur in describing Zimmerman ("creepy ass cracker"), another witness testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating on him, and another witness testified that a man was screaming for help that was almost certainly Zimmerman.

I don't see a recipe for disaster if we say that if a person is pounding your head on a sidewalk and you haven't hit them at all you can defend yourself with deadly force.

[moda0306]

There's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman approached Martin.

I don't have time for this now... sorry... but there's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman tried to chase after Martin and Martin defended himself.  Martin's phone call with his girlfriend... Zimmerman's phone call with the police.  Zimmerman's past aggression.

Martin's bubble is his privacy... if someone charges me yelling at me and gets within a certain distance, I have the right to aggressively defend myself, and that maybe would have included Martin actually having SHOT Zimmerman.

He killed a kid that HE pursued aggressively.  It really shouldn't be that easy to simply claim self-defense and be released a few hours later.

And his life may be ruined, but so is Martin's and is family's to a much more severe degree.

[moda0306]

And stand your ground was why the police released Zimmerman and there was such a piss-poor investigation.

[MediumTex]

And stand your ground was why the police released Zimmerman and there was such a piss-poor investigation.

I'm sorry moda, but it's not.

It was the determination that Zimmerman had committed no crime based upon his use of self-defense against an attacker that caused the police to never arrest him in the first place.  When he was arrested over a month later, it was only after the police chief had been pushed aside, the media had latched onto the case, Obama had said Martin looked like his son and NBC had doctored the 911 tape.

There was nothing piss poor about the investigation.  You try gathering evidence from a crime scene at night when it's raining.  It's not as easy as it looks on TV.  What specifically did you find piss poor about the police investigation?  What did they not do that they should have done?

[Pointedstick]

Have you been watching the case, moda? The state has not made many of the arguments that you've brought up. Which suggests to me that either:

1) the prosecutor is an idiot
or
2) the evidence that Zimmerman started the confrontation is shaky to nonexistent

The clearest possibility I saw put forth was that Zimmerman got out of his car, started looking for Martin, lost him, and then Martin jumped out of the bushes and asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman replied, and then there was some unknown interaction which led to a fight in which Zimmerman was clearly getting the worse end of it.

The prosecution didn't really try to refute this argument, which is telling to me. The idea that Zimmerman chased Martin down, was aggressive toward him, and then either started a fight or was stupidly unprepared for Martin to start a semi-justified fight is complete nonsense. There's no evidence of this at all. It would have been on Martin's cell phone which, let us remember, was recording everything.

[Reub]

This case is and has been very important to liberals and racial arsonists from the very beginning. It is their best way of keeping their constituents on the plantation.

Facts be damned!