Will George Zimmerman be innocent or guilty for the death of Treyvon Martin?

He did indeed have every right to be there. He did not have a right to act in a manner that overtly threatens someone else and then kill them when they acted to defend themself

This is a crucial point. Did he leave the truck before or after he was told not to pursue. The evidence is unclear here. Regardless, I don't believe it clears Zimmerman. It was not reasonable or prudent for him to leave the vehicle after Martin had fled whether the dispatcher had told him to or not

Do you believe that strangers have the right to pursue you down the street for no reason?

To do what? To prove that the extenuating circumstances Zimmerman claims did not exist? INALB I do believe that the rules of courtroom evidence follow the general laws of logic and I further believe logic dictates (Captain) that you cannot prove a negative. Self preservation is the classic example of an affirmative defense and it is called that because it consists in the defendant affirming something. The onus is on Zimmerman to prove he was attacked.

Regardless of your other opinions it is a pleasure to meet someone who agrees with me on gun ownership.

 

Ohhh....only if Travon had kept his hands in his pockets.

 

What did TM have in his pockets? Skittles? A fruit drink? a cellphone?

At this point George knows what he did. He killed an innocent, unarmed person.. Someone's son.. brother, uncle, nephew.

 

Tat is a lot of "IF's"

This is why there will be a trial. . . To determine to the best of a jury and a judge's knowledge how many of those "IF's" are valid when compared to the forensic evidence and how much credibility,based on his statements when they are compared to the forensic evidence, GZ has when he claims that he needed to use DEADLY FORCE to defend himself against an unarmed youth!

 

Probably not.. Killing unarmed teens is frowned upon.. George would have to plead stupidity.

 

Not really so many ifs. The baseline is Zimmerman's testimony as to how it happened, since he is the only eye-witness. The only reason that there would need to be a trial is if the statements of any non-eyewitnesses or the forensic evidence bearing upon any material fact contradict his story. And that means that some item of evidence of a material fact (forensic or circumstantial testimony) cannot exist if his story is accurate. I offer no opinion on that issue.

On the other hand, people who believe that courts should do what they see as the right thing (rather than what the judge sees as the right thing) sometimes influence judges who haven't the intestinal fortitude to apply their own better judgment, which is what judges are elected/appointed to do; and we have trials that we should not have in order that the judge escape responsibility by pushing it off on a jury.

We also have juries who come to court with agendas (see O.J. Simpson trial), who are predisposed to a certain verdict, no matter what, and are rarely turned from that path. Not a pretty perspective on the criminal justice system, but accurate.

 

Yes I think it will all come down to that. Zimmerman was told to stay in the car and de did not. All we have is Zimmerman's story, some bad audio of cries for help that both sides claim is their guy and a report saying Treyvon was shot at intermediate range.

So crap audio tapes, a report that states what we already know and a story by someone who has a self interest in being innocent.

That is why the call from police telling Zimmerman to stay in the car is what is going to send him away.

 

Can you show us where the police told Zimm to stay in the car?

 

1) If you mean by 'act in a manner that threatens someone' follow at a distance and report in to the police then YES he did have that right.

2) Punching someone who has not attacked you is not 'defending yourself' it is battery. Martin had no right to attack Martin unless Martin had physically attacked him first or was clearly about to (ie had raised a baton or said 'im going to shoot you whilst pointing a gun) Zimmerman did neither,

Firstly I utterly reject the intimation that the despatcher had any authority to give orders. Secondly he had every right to leave his truck. Even if he did something that put himself at risk does not in any possible way exonerate Martin from attacking him.

Pursue implies running after. You have absolutely no cause whatsoever to suggest this. And Yes Strangers absolutely have a right to follow you. And there was not 'no reason'.

Yes you are not a lawyer which is why you have utterly failed to understand that the Onus of proof is on the Prosecution. You do yourself no favours by assuming you know how the law works.

The Onus is only on the defendant to prove an attack in a stand your ground hearing NOT during a trial. There will be no Stand your ground hearing so the defence returns to simple self defence. No amount of 'I reckon' gets over the fact that the Onus is on the prosecution NOT the defence.

You can do two things here. You can join the zimmer haters like sadannie and Margot. You can lie about the law and make (*)(*)(*)(*) up OR you can debate the facts NOT your assumptions . You are simply NOT correct with your claim about onus of proof.






Regardless of your other opinions it is a pleasure to meet someone who agrees with me on gun ownership.[/QUOTE]

 

a flawed poll . it should read guilty or not guilty.

 

[/QUOTE]

I can see no way in which the meaning of "affirmative defense" means that the burden of proof that he was not attacked by Martin and that Martin was not acting in a reasonable and prudent manner is not now on Zimmerman. Since you imply you are a lawyer, as I have readily admitted I am not, perhaps you can clarify this matter.

In an undisputed article on the definition Wiki says:

I prefer to think of myself as a lover of justice rather than a hater of anyone, though I have also made my opinion of armed drunks who go about blazing away at our children to prove the might of their artificial phalluses abundantly clear

 

I am an academic NOT a practising lawyer.
You are conflating the stand your ground provision which DOES imply an affirmative defence with simple self defence which DOES NOT . I believe this is specifically why Zimmerman has chosen NOT to apply for a SYG dismissal since the affirmative defence can't be proven.

I see little interest in Justice on your part. I see you copying Margot and her friends in a witch hunt against an individual engaged in legal activity of which you disapprove. It is apparent to me that you consider this a trial on gun use rather than the specific incidence of this case which is a very grave injustice indeed. As it happens I am very much against the easy ownership of guns -especially hand guns. Where hand guns are readily available deaths inevitably follow.

I don;t see why you used 'drunk'. IT doesn't help your position one iota to try and claim that Zimmerman was drunk.

 

when one does something to someone like stalk someone at night when they are all alone (in a car and then on foot when the person starts to flee), it's common sense to most that it may cause a flight or flight response in the one being followed

.

 

Its common sense to flee the situation. IT is not common sense to attack someone who is following you from a distance. The Law also agrees with this.

 

Martin started to flee and Z got out of his vehicle and started to peruse on foot, Martin had a right to stand his ground, though hindsight shows being right is not always being smart, both Martin and Zimmerman were not acting "smart" that night - Martin paid with his life, Z is paying as well

 

I totally agree.

However, it seems that I would excuse a 17year old for a deficit in judgement before I would excuse a full grown man!

So sad that a 28 year old can show such poor judgement that it cost the life of a 17 year old!

 

'Martin started to flee' if he was fleeing then why didn;t he flee straight to his house which was seconds away? Martin had every right NOT to flee. Martin payed with his life because he stupidly attacked Zimmerman instead of returning home OR just standing still and asking what the issue was without attacking.

I see the zimmerphobes are now trying to insist that you are allowed to 'stand your ground' and attack someone for looking at you from a Car

So sad that a 17 year old showed the poor judgement of chimping out and attacking someone instead of returning home

 

It was poor judgment on Zimmerman's part... and now he's killed an innocent person.

- - - Updated - - -

It was poor judgment on Zimmerman's part... and now he's killed an innocent person.

 

Understand, when you feel your life is in danger or great bodily harm is eminent you do not stop and think,,''How old is this person?'' You would not think about them, you would be thinking of your own safety, this is logical. Also, I am sure you realize not every seventeen year old acts seventeen, I'm sure you understand some act older, or mature faster.

This is a very common thing with young people today, we see this in both male and female behavior. Is it the norm for him to have three suspensions in such a short period of time? Do most seventeen year old boys have tattoos?, do drugs?, keep suspicious woman's jewelry in their room? and especially would many attack an adult?
You may take any one of these things and dismiss them,,all of them? To me I see a young man heading in the wrong direction, and a person beyond a normal seventeen year old's experiences.

Had this been my son I would have seen ''trouble'' not far away...

 

maybe cause he did not want the guy following him to know where he was staying as he could of harmed his family, we do not know, never will cause Z killed him

he did more then look at him from a car, he got out of the car and stated following him

as far as we know, z may have pulled his gun on Martin, and that is when Martin stood his ground, we don't really know for sure what happened, but fact is Martin is not on trial here Zimmerman is

.

 

Why do you compare a gun to a big ole ugly stinky thing? LOL

 

You're the one conflating SYG with simple self defense. My OP didn't even mention SYG. I believe he waived the hearing because using the SYG defense would, in fact, have contradicted his version of events, since he could not flee with Martin atop him.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

Again, the legal dictionary states categorically that the burden is on the defendant to prove that he was actually being attacked.

The presumption of innocence does not instantly exonerate all who are accused of anything on their own simple denial of guilt.

I do agree that this is a trial on IRRESPONSIBLE gun use and I think Alcohol use by Zimmerman was involved.

 

Wrong. In Florida when self defense is claimed there is a side hearing where the judge will decide if the judge will let the argument go forward. In this hearing the burden of proof is on the defense but it is a low standard of proof. All the defense has to prove is that some evidence exists which is the lowest standard of proof there is. If the judge finds that some evidence does exist then the argument can be made at trial and the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution with the standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/...burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/

 

And your evidence is?

'The legal dictionary? As if each jurisdiction has the same defintions? Laughable

 

Why does it always have to be either guilty or innocent? Why is there never an in-between option?

Zimmerman's punishment should be 5 years probation, and he should be forced to live in a Black neighborhood during that time. That should be punishment enough.

Edit: actually after thinking it through, that would probably be a death sentence