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

[Coffee]

The real elephant in the room that nobody's talking about is this:

Your kid gets expelled from school for 10 days for punching a bus driver.  Why is he out... at night... by himself, when it's raining... past 7 pm? 

If that was my kid, he'd be locked in his room, padlocked to his desk for 10 days. 

[MediumTex]

It seemed like a rather weak case.

It was a good day for justice and a bad day for the bullies in the state prosecutor's office and the cynics in the media.

[MediumTex]

The real elephant in the room that nobody's talking about is this:

Your kid gets expelled from school for 10 days for punching a bus driver.  Why is he out... at night... by himself, when it's raining... past 7 pm? 

If that was my kid, he'd be locked in his room, padlocked to his desk for 10 days.

Part of the reason that nobody is talking about it is that the State of Florida did its best to make sure that all of the relevant facts about this case were not made public.

While sunlight is the best disinfectant, the cockroaches hate it.

[RuralEngineer]

I'm truly surprised that the verdict is not guilty.  Florida seems to be the state that justice forgot these days.  That and juries seem to be getting dumber.  But then again, this is probably the case with the weakest evidence I've ever seen that was highly publicized.

George Zimmerman needs to change his name to Jorge Lopez and move to Texas or leave it alone and move to a state like Montana.  Either go try to disappear or go somewhere where nobody cares, but I'd get out of this prosecutor, DA, and ADA's jurisdiction as fast as I could.  The next parking ticket he gets will have a 30 year sentence attached.

[Ad Orientem]

I'm truly surprised that the verdict is not guilty.  Florida seems to be the state that justice forgot these days.  That and juries seem to be getting dumber.  But then again, this is probably the case with the weakest evidence I've ever seen that was highly publicized.

George Zimmerman needs to change his name to Jorge Lopez and move to Texas or leave it alone and move to a state like Montana.  Either go try to disappear or go somewhere where nobody cares, but I'd get out of this prosecutor, DA, and ADA's jurisdiction as fast as I could.  The next parking ticket he gets will have a 30 year sentence attached.

I think keeping a low profile and relocating are very good suggestions.

[Reub]

Get ready for the civil rights charges and the civil suits.

[Greg]

I am neither for or against this posting but I thought it'd be an interesting read for some of you.

http://thepoliticalfreakshow.us/post/54 ... io-of-what

[moda0306]

This guy seems to have some different facts than the people here.

I guess I am in a position where I don't really trust anyone's take on what happened.  The members here seem to be in agreement with the most conservative people in the media.  I don't mean that as an insult or that you are wrong... But I haven't read one analysis of this event that I felt was unbiased or not colored by a very biased source.

Is there a good fact check on this whole event somewhere? 

Maybe because I'm still young and knew plenty of pot heads in school not all that long ago, and am particularly aware of how many "suburban d-bag tough guys" there are, but I really don't feel like I've seen a balanced take on these events yet.

Where have most of you been getting your analysis of this whole event?

[moda0306]

The controversial law states that a person is justified in using force in self-defense if they have a reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. Though George Zimmerman’s defense did not stress the law during the trial, it was the Stand Your Ground law that led police to initially dismiss Zimmerman as a murder suspect.

An article points out that "stand your ground" was the basis for Zimmerman not being arrested or charged.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/848198/florida ... g9tP0XP.99

[Pointedstick]

Maybe because I'm still young and knew plenty of pot heads in school not all that long ago, and am particularly aware of how many "suburban d-bag tough guys" there are, but I really don't feel like I've seen a balanced take on these events yet.

Where have most of you been getting your analysis of this whole event?

Mostly from watching the actual trial live while at work, in a secondary window while wearing headphones (don't tell my boss!).

I don't read conservative media. If anything I read mostly liberal media.

The guy I think you're referring to doesn't have different facts, he just makes things up. For example:

[Martin is] standing up for himself, but the thought of violence, the thought of gunfire, doesn’t even enter his head. But when he confronts the big guy who had been following him, and asks why he has been following him, the big guy pulls a gun. It happens so suddenly, the teen probably barely has time to realize that something serious is now happening.

That's not what happened. George Zimmerman didn't pull out his gun until he was lying on the ground, being beaten to death. During the trial, the state never opposed this. They never introduced any evidence that something else happened. And it makes logical sense, too. If Zimmerman had pulled a gun on Martin, why would Martin have succeeded at rushing him without getting shot? If Zimmerman is the racist bastard some want to see him as, wouldn't that have been the perfect opportunity to shoot martin then and then claim, "oh, he ran at me and I was in fear for my life!"

Zimmerman shot Martin because Martin was beating him to death.

I see misunderstanding of this over and over again in liberal media sources. Endless permutations of:

1) Zimmerman followed Martin and pulled a gun on him
2) Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin after Martin confronted him
3) Zimmerman initiated the confrontation that led to him pulling a gun on Martin, so it wasn't self-defense since he was just losing the fight that he started

All three of these are incorrect because there is not one single shred of evidence to suggest that night went down that way. The state produced ZERO evidence to suggest any of these things. All three of those versions are wholly made up in the minds of people who have already made up their minds that Martin was the victim and Zimmerman was the aggressor.

[moda0306]

I question whether he was "beating him to death."  Apparently Zimmerman didn't go to the hospital until the next day, in spite of having claimed a broken nose.  Also it seems as if Zimmerman's story of events changed once it was shown to be very unlikely that Martin snuck up on him from behind his back.

[dualstow]

I guess I am in a position where I don't really trust anyone's take on what happened. 

Oh my goodness Moda, you're a Trayvon truther. ;-)

[Pointedstick]

That's because he saved his own life by using the firearm, moda. Having your head hit against concrete (not in dispute, the state never refuted this) is a lethal attack. If Zimmerman didn't go to the hospital until the next day, that's darn lucky for him, because the type of attack that nobody disputes he sustained is an attack that can kill you easily. He was being beaten to death.

Again, the only thing that matters is whether or not the shot was fired in self defense. Now, we know that Martin satisfied the Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy triangle:

Ability: Martin had the ability to kill Zimmerman. He was a young healthy football player using concrete as a weapon.
Opportunity: Martin had the opportunity to kill Zimmerman. He was sitting on top of him, in direct physical contact with him.
Jeopardy: Martin was putting Zimmerman's life in jeopardy by actively attacking him using his aforementioned ability and opportunity.

Legally, the only way to invalidate Zimmerman's self-defense claim is if he started the conflict. That means he would have had to have thrown the first blow or pulled out his gun and menaced him, or something like that. And there is no physical evidence or witness statements that support this version of events.

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. It doesn't matter if he followed him. It doesn't matter if he asked, "what are you doing here?" in a rude tone of voice or made mean faces at him. None of that is legally relevant if Martin began the attack because Martin would not have been defending himself against Zimmerman; he would be initiating an attack against which using lethal force in self-defense is rightly authorized.

Does any of this make sense to you?

[moda0306]

That makes sense if he was truly repeatedly having his head pounded into concrete.  Idoubt this.  Also this makes sense unless Zimmerman started the physical nature of the altercation. I'm not opposed to him being found not guilty. I'm more opposed to there not having been an arrest and more thorough investigation right away.  He took a kid's life without clear facts around what had happened.  His story also changed part way through.

Whether the media is making Martin out to be a saint and Zimmerman out to be a murderer is a different issue of media bias.  That's a different discussion than the one of whether more should have been done after a 17 year old unarmed kid is shot dead in his neighborhood.

[MediumTex]

This guy seems to have some different facts than the people here.

I guess I am in a position where I don't really trust anyone's take on what happened.  The members here seem to be in agreement with the most conservative people in the media.  I don't mean that as an insult or that you are wrong... But I haven't read one analysis of this event that I felt was unbiased or not colored by a very biased source.

FWIW, I didn't even know that Fox News was covering the story from a different angle until the last day of the trial.  I thought the entire world had gone crazy and I was the only one who didn't see anything but an attack that was finally ended through the use of deadly force, as permitted under state law.

It never even seemed like a close case to me.  I didn't see my position as political at all.  It just seemed like a super-easy law school exam question.

Is there a good fact check on this whole event somewhere?

As charged as my posts may sound, I think that you will find I have presented the facts and evidence pretty accurately.

Where have most of you been getting your analysis of this whole event?

Just listening to the trial mostly.  I have listened to many media reports, but they all seem to be utterly fantasy-based except Fox News, and I am just being honest in saying that.  It's not like I normally like Fox News more than any of the other news/entertainment sources.

[Pointedstick]

That makes sense if he was truly repeatedly having his head pounded into concrete.  Idoubt this.

But Zimmerman had multiple lacerations on the back of his head.

Also this makes sense unless Zimmerman started the physical nature of the altercation.

But there is no evidence to support this idea.

I'm not opposed to him being found not guilty. I'm more opposed to there not having been an arrest and more thorough investigation right away.  He took a kid's life without clear facts around what had happened.  His story also changed part way through.

Zimmerman was handcuffed, detained, taken to the police station, and interviewed for hours. And from what I can tell, there was an especially thorough investigation by the standards of your average local police department.

I get your skepticism, but to me this really looks like an open and shut case by the weight of all the evidence in favor of Zimmerman's version and the total lack of any evidence to invalidate or advance an alternative version. Evidently it looked that way to the police department as well, and as the results of the trial indicate, they were in fact correct in their initial determination that it was an easy case of self-defense.

[MediumTex]

That makes sense if he was truly repeatedly having his head pounded into concrete.  I doubt this.

No one ever disputed that his head was being beaten against the sidewalk, including the prosecution.

Also this makes sense unless Zimmerman started the physical nature of the altercation. I'm not opposed to him being found not guilty. I'm more opposed to there not having been an arrest and more thorough investigation right away.  He took a kid's life without clear facts around what had happened.

What about the police investigation was not thorough?  Please be specific.  From my perspective, it was very thorough.  Collecting evidence from a crime scene at night in the rain is always going to be a little sloppy; this can't be helped.

His story also changed part way through.

Are you sure?  Which part of his story changed?

Whether the media is making Martin out to be a saint and Zimmerman out to be a murderer is a different issue of media bias.  That's a different discussion than the one of whether more should have been done after a 17 year old unarmed kid is shot dead in his neighborhood.

It wasn't his neighborhood.  It was his dad's girlfriend's neighborhood, and the only reason Martin was there was because he had been kicked out of school for what is suspected to be an unprovoked attack on a bus driver, which, if true, would be remarkably similar to the unprovoked attack on Zimmerman that happened less than a week later.

Martin was armed with a fist and a piece of concrete that was attached to the ground.  These are at least two weapons that we know he used against Zimmerman, either of which could have inflicted serious bodily injury that would have justified the use of deadly force in self-defense.

[moda0306]

MT,

You made some well thought out assertions, but you paint a subjective picture of who trayvon was, implying he was so far lost that his life was essentially gone already cuz he was a "thug." 

I am trying to bounce your assertions off of some sort of Internet sourcing using google and am finding it to be a bit of a stretch that he was immersed in thug culture to a degree that he was some sort of lost soul.  Your claims about him seem exaggerated, however it's hard to find any reliable info online that seems to be properly organizing zimmermans claims (both before and after he changed his story) and martins past as well as witnesses and physical evidence.

It's just really hard to get much of substance and agreement.  However, based on the facts available at the time I think there should have been much more done.  A kid died and there weren't enough witnesses to confirm enough of the facts around zimmermans story.

[Pointedstick]

It's just really hard to get much of substance and agreement.  However, based on the facts available at the time I think there should have been much more done.  A kid died and there weren't enough witnesses to confirm enough of the facts around zimmermans story.

Let me turn this around a little bit:

A kid died, but the man who shot him was injured and claimed self-defense. Subsequent investigation revealed very few challenges to the man's version of the story, so he was let go because they could not prove that it wasn't self-defense.

Like it or not, in this country we have an "innocent until proven guilty" system. If you kill someone in claimed self-defense and it can't be proven otherwise, you're a free man. That's just how our system works. The only alternative to this would be the presumption of guilt which I am simply going to go out on a limb and assume you would find worse.

I get that a kid died in not 100% certain circumstances, and that's tragic. But if the shooter is a bloodied man who is a neighborhood watch coordinator, who cooperates fully with police, and whose story is corroborated by nearly all the available evidence, and the deceased is a kid clearly going down the wrong road, who was suspended from school for an unprovoked attack, who boasted on twitter of smoking pot every day and illegally buying a gun on the street, well, at a certain point I think you just have to say "case closed."

[moda0306]

That makes sense if he was truly repeatedly having his head pounded into concrete.  Idoubt this.

But Zimmerman had multiple lacerations on the back of his head.

Also this makes sense unless Zimmerman started the physical nature of the altercation.

But there is no evidence to support this idea.

I'm not opposed to him being found not guilty. I'm more opposed to there not having been an arrest and more thorough investigation right away.  He took a kid's life without clear facts around what had happened.  His story also changed part way through.

Zimmerman was handcuffed, detained, taken to the police station, and interviewed for hours. And from what I can tell, there was an especially thorough investigation by the standards of your average local police department.

I get your skepticism, but to me this really looks like an open and shut case by the weight of all the evidence in favor of Zimmerman's version and the total lack of any evidence to invalidate or advance an alternative version. Evidently it looked that way to the police department as well, and as the results of the trial indicate, they were in fact correct in their initial determination that it was an easy case of self-defense.

Here's what seemed to be a reasonable summary of his inconsistencies.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... her-police


I don't doubt he got beat up a bit, but the cuts on the back of his head don't look tha bad or swollen.  I am not saying it wasn't a very tense situation.  I have doubts whether his life was actually in danger or if he confronted Martin more aggressively than he claims.

It seems to me proving a lack of self defense in any case would be difficult.  I really don't know exactly what the standard should be.  But this isn't the case of not knowing who the killer is... We know who he is... It's a case of believing his take on things.

If you change some of the more subjective circumstances around this case, Zimmerman would have been investigated far more thoroughly.

[MediumTex]

MT,

You made some well thought out assertions, but you paint a subjective picture of who trayvon was, implying he was so far lost that his life was essentially gone already cuz he was a "thug."

He was by no means beyond redemption, but someone who smokes pot every day, fights at school, burglarizes houses, steals other people's property and gets kicked out of school three times in one year would probably meet most people's definition of a thug.  If you doubt my conclusion, go read Martin's tweets.  They are the writings of a thug.

I am trying to bounce your assertions off of some sort of Internet sourcing using google and am finding it to be a bit of a stretch that he was immersed in thug culture to a degree that he was some sort of lost soul.

I never said he was a lost soul.  I just said he was a thug.  Read his tweets and let me know if you disagree.

Your claims about him seem exaggerated, however it's hard to find any reliable info online that seems to be properly organizing zimmermans claims (both before and after he changed his story) and martins past as well as witnesses and physical evidence.

Which claims seem exaggerated? If I have exaggerated any of them I would honestly like to know.  The only claim that hasn't been substantiated is whether he attacked a bus driver a week before he attacked Zimmerman, but think about it this way: If I only knew that you had been kicked out of school for ten days and I knew that this was the most serious punishment the school provided short of complete expulsion, and I saw where your cousin tweeted you a few days after the suspension expressing surprise that you had taken a swing at a bus driver, would it be reasonable for me to conclude that your suspension may have been related to taking a swing at a bus driver?  Even if your suspension was NOT for swinging at a bud driver, though, surely it would be reasonable for me to conclude that you had swung at a bus driver if your cousin is tweeting you to express surprise that you had swung at a bus driver, right?

It's just really hard to get much of substance and agreement.  However, based on the facts available at the time I think there should have been much more done.  A kid died and there weren't enough witnesses to confirm enough of the facts around zimmermans story.

What more should have been done?  I want to understand what more you think could have or should have been done.

[Pointedstick]

moda, let's say someone starts a fight with you and is beating you up and you happen to be carrying a firearm. How hurt do you think you should have to be be before you're allowed to shoot?

[MediumTex]

I don't doubt he got beat up a bit, but the cuts on the back of his head don't look tha bad or swollen.  I am not saying it wasn't a very tense situation.  I have doubts whether his life was actually in danger or if he confronted Martin more aggressively than he claims.

Would you agree that one hard blow to the back of the head can be fatal and it might not actually break the skin at all?  You've heard of people being pushed hard to the ground and hitting their head on the sidewalk and dying, right?

Banging a human head on a sidewalk can clearly be deadly.  The question isn't whether Zimmerman's head had hit the sidewalk enough times to kill him, it was whether it was reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that the way in which he was being attacked could have led to his death or serious bodily injury.

It seems to me proving a lack of self defense in any case would be difficult.  I really don't know exactly what the standard should be.  But this isn't the case of not knowing who the killer is... We know who he is... It's a case of believing his take on things.

And we also know who the attacker was.  What is a person supposed to do when they are attacked by a stranger who is larger than them and they are pinned down and being subjected to blows that could potentially be fatal?

If you change some of the more subjective circumstances around this case, Zimmerman would have been investigated far more thoroughly.

If you change the facts of any case it could result in a more thorough investigation.  We're talking about what actually happened, though, not what might have happened or could have happened under different circumstances.

[MediumTex]

moda,

You are aware that there was no evidence that Zimmerman hit, pushed or even laid a hand on Martin prior to the shooting, right?

Based on the evidence, there was no "fight", it was simply an attack that was becoming increasingly brutal and violent as it progressed.

[moda0306]

MT,

The assertion that he was vandalizing houses is something I haven't seen. You may not like slang, but a lot of times it's just a cover and there's no real violence there

I have found no details of any validity that show he actually beat up on a bus driver.

He used drugs.  Something most of us would like to see legalized and a huge percentage of teenagers use.

You've said it yourself you hate the false authority of our school systems.  A lot of people we might think of as thugs feel the same way.

The "evidence" of him having stolen appears to be loose as well. They found a screwdriver and jewelry in his backpack.

Zimmerman also had a domestic assault charge brought against recently him that nobody's mentioning here.



PS,

I think as soon as I was physically assaulted I'd have reasonable fear for my life. I don't know how closely zimmerman's case matches such a simple lay out. 

This is a lot more complex than some kid jumping out of the bushes and beating some guy half to death that was walking his dog.  Zimmerman appears to have pursued Martin.  And something happened between that and Martin being on top of him swinging.  This doesn't give us much to work with without taking testimonies/recordings of the neighbors, 911 dispatcher, Martin's friend, etc and comparing them all together.