In Florida the case against George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Trayvon Martin in a case that garnered national attention, has gone to the jury.
What do you think the jury will decide?
I strongly suspect that they’ll convict him of manslaughter if only on the grounds that they feel they’ve got to convict him of something. I honestly don’t see how they can vote to convict on second degree murder but, then, I didn’t see that the prosecution had made its prima facie case.
If the published accounts of the trial are actually representative, there will be plenty of grounds for appeal.
It’s a sad case from practically every perspective, not the least for the scandalous behavior of government at all levels in the matter.
Ninety percent probability of acquittal; if found guilty ninety percent probability of retrial as a result of judge’s errors.
The law favors Zimmerman here, but the State has made a strong emotional appeal centered on Martin. Its a fallacy that Zimmerman’s acquittal necessarily means Martin was guilty of something (or that Martin’s innocence means Zimmerman is guilty), but one that people appear to agree with and the Defense appeared to keep in mind in selecting its testimony and instructions.
Agree completely Dave
Again, if published accounts are representative, I honestly don’t see how Judge Nelson gets out of this with a whole skin.
Alan Dershowitz has been questioning the reasons behind charging Zimmerman, in the first place. Now, after the trial is over, he has called the entire trial “a travesty,” and that the state’s prosecutor’s should be disbarred for defaming and accusing Zimmerman of behaviors (getting into his head without having questioned him), and assuming Zimmerman to have murder in his heart, during closing arguments devoid of facts and full of emotion.
It’s a tragic case, all the way around. Martin’s parents have been exploited by a teething media looking for a good racial story, as well as black racist leaders, such as Jackson and Sharpton, continuing to nurture their relevance, in lieu of a society trying to cultivate a color blind society. Trayvon Martin’s own life was cut short by some bizarre circumstances, which have been filled out more through sheer speculation, rather than adhering to the facts present. However, one aspect, strenuously kept under wraps, was Martin’s interest in fighting, guns, and, in his own words, considering himself a “gangsta.” If you are able to call Zimmerman a want-to-be-cop as part of your argument, why couldn’t Martin, then, have been described as a want-to-be-gangster?
Bottom line, is that Zimmerman may have survived the fight he had with Martin, but I don’t think he will survive the trial the zealous prosecutor, MSM, even the WH has put him through. Therefore, I think while the facts clearly indicate acquittal, the jury will entertain, and may yield to a manslaughter verdict, putting Zimmerman away for up to 30 years. Everyone loses in this case, including the public who has been played with by the powers that be.
We are in an age of polical show trials. Scooter Libby was convicted and sent to prison for Armitage’s crime, and everyone knew it. No one is safe from Leviathan. Now all the tools are in place for a totalitarian dictatorship, and will come sooner rather than later.
Yes, if you decide for no good reason whatsoever, to get out of your car carrying a gun, and decide to confront people on the street, tragedy can very definitely follow.
No way from what I’ve seen to convict. I agree the prosecution had no case. Once you’re pleading “common sense” you’ve stopped pleading evidence.
Which does not alter the fact that Jan, you are a race-baiting ignoramus.
Michael
You just like to bellow out claims and chastise those who voice opinions differing from yours. If I were to label you, as you do others, I would say that you are nothing more than an inflammatory, close-minded, racist cynic, who likes to think of himself in empathetic glowing terms.
But, it’ all a ruse, Michael, IMHO, even to yourself. People like you will never let go of the past, never allow people to move on and heal, and never engage in an analysis, involving different ethnicities, without first handicapping it with issues of color. That’s sad……
Well, the verdict is in. I suppose the prosecution has no choice but to try to put a happy face on it, but their actions were reprehensible. All driven, in my opinion, by placating the real race baiters, the Al Sharptons, Jessie Jacksons and a certain CEO of the world.
“If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.” Gawd.
A. This case should never have gone to trial. (see Derchowitz Harvard OJ)
B. Prosecutor and team might get disbarred.
C. Rev. Al Sharpton has been a preacher since a young kid. How come he never mentions Jesus?
D. Another loss for Obama
E. MSM malpractice. NBC doctored tape…..CNN
F. US in troubling downward trend
G. Why no outcry over ChiRaq (Southside of Chicago where death and anarchy rules called that by gangs)
Equally troubling are the virtual lynch mobs in social media and the blogging commentariat calling for vengeance and equating it with justice. It’s an Old Testament form of justice (“an eye for an eye”) unleavened by New Testament piety (“Vengeance is mine. I will repay”).
I watched MSNBC – and specifically MSNBC – for about an hour and a half last night. Race, race, race, race, race…………..and race. That pretty much sums up the entire coverage.
It appears that those sympathetic to Martin stop at “he (Zimmerman) was told not to pursue” and then speculate endlessly about motives. That may have been a bad – probably disastrous – choice by Zimmerman, but its not illegal and they don’t pose the question “how did Martin end up on top of Zimmerman beating the snot out of him,” per the only eyewitness testimony I’m aware of.
It was so bad on MSNBC that they had a woman panelist (lawyer or professor I think) who when asked if this proves that had the races been reversed the verdict would have been reversed cited a completely different, and irrelevant, case. Now there’s a logician for you.
Sharpton is a lying, race baiting and despicable man, but as Cannon’s points out, he could at least spend his despicable energies in Chicago where we kill by the handy dozen each weekend.
Let’s see. Noted Reverend and oh-so-caring Al Sharpton has spent how many hours on the Hispanic, er, white, er “self proclaimed Hispanic” George Zimmerman…………and how much on this: ?
And how about those illustrious guardians of the truth….the media? Never mind.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0708/Chicago-erupts-in-gun-violence-74-people-shot-12-killed-over-July-4-weekend
These types of cases expose the conflict btw/ people who see themselves primarily as civil rights advocates and those as civil liberties advocates. It also roughly cuts through the populist and elite strains of thought. I would go so far as to say a lot of the outrage is Jacksonian, an emotional cry for retributional justice for the victim. This is a fairly standard prosecution ply, focus on the victim, not on the elements of the crime.
PD
I’m not a lawyer. But I found some of the prosecutions words and tactics godawful. In your opinion, does this fall under doing best for your client, or basically malpractice? Much commentary falls towards the latter.
Drew, I think the prosecution did not have a case, it was bought to diffuse a public outcry, and that decision was not supported by the police department and other public officials, who accordingly gave equivocal testimony at best and at worse they testified on occasion in support of a self-defense finding. It was a dysfunctional, schizophrenic episode of Law & Order.
Prosecutors have duties beyond other attorneys not just to be zealous advocates for their side’s position, but also to see justice is done. They are not supposed to bring a case without probable cause, and under ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, the Prosecutors should not bring or continue a case “in the absence of sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction.”
They were provided cover by the judge, however, who arguably found the case could have resulted in a conviction when she refused to enter a verdict. That’s not unusual for judges, so there is a question about how much judges have abdicated responsibility.
So do judges. I’m concerned that the “zealous advocacy” issue has overwhelmed the practice of the law. I could see that hand writing on the wall and it’s one of the reasons I decided not to become a lawyer. With my LSATs I’d have had no problem.
The other reason was that I couldn’t see a path to a sustainable practice other than starting as an associate for a large firm, something I’d hate like poison. That was how my dad had started out but I could see that things were becoming progressively tougher for sole practitioners.
If my dad had lived, I’d have done a couple year stint as an associate for a big law firm and then gone to work with my dad.
This case should have been handled as an adult having a confrontation with a teen. The armed adult initiated the incident. No premeditation, so manslaughter or a lesser charge should have been pursued.
Steve