Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Zimmerman's acquittal did not require that the jurors believed his story, but simply that they had reasonable doubt about the state's version.

Bingo!  And why this should have never gone to trial in the first place.  Was Zimmerman probably at fault?   --- Yes.

Was there enough evidence to expect a conviction given that the standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt?    --- NO!

And that is why it should have never gone to trial. 

[pondwater]

You can't even say whether Martin had more drugs in his system than Zimmerman did, so that line of argument is silly.  And of the two of them, Martin is not the one with a history of being arrested for belligerent violence while under the influence.

Yes, I know all of Zimmerman's arguments are silly to you people. Regardless, he is NOT-GUILTY.

I am also interested in hearing the basis on which you claim that Martin committed felony assault; I recall no court or jury that rendered that verdict.  As you just pointed out, at least one of the jurors that acquitted him believes that Zimmerman did commit murder but that the state failed to prove it.  As has been pointed out repeatedly, Zimmerman's acquittal did not require that the jurors believed his story, but simply that they had reasonable doubt about the state's version.

They had to believe that it was self defense. We all know who had injuries consistent with being assaulted and who didn't. It is also safe to assume that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Trayvon was still alive, that he would have probably done more damage to Zimmerman and been arrested and charged with assault.

[Spider-Dan]

When did this exciting new standard of "if you didn't get a conviction, he should never have been charged" go into effect?  Should every single person who is found not guilty of a crime then get to turn around and sue law enforcement for false arrest?

You literally just said that you think he was probably at fault, yet you also believe that charging him was a waste of time?  This idea that charging someone with a crime after they admit to killing a person is some sort of outrageous violation of their liberty is an amazing concept.

[pondwater]

Bingo!  And why this should have never gone to trial in the first place.  Was Zimmerman probably at fault?   --- Yes.

Was there enough evidence to expect a conviction given that the standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt?    --- NO!

And that is why it should have never gone to trial. 

Double bingo!

None of it matters at this point anyhow. The trial is over, not-guilty, no telling how much taxpayers money wasted, and the protesters still protesting. Even though they say "we won't forget Trayvon". As soon as the "watchdogs of the oppressed" find the new next cause, you'll never hear his name again.

[Spider-Dan]

They had to believe that it was self defense.

As a point of fact, according to FL state law, they did not.  They simply had to have reasonable doubt about the state's case.

It is also safe to assume that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Trayvon was still alive, that he would have probably done more damage to Zimmerman and been arrested and charged with assault.

It is equally safe to presume that had Martin been the armed killer instead of Zimmerman (and presented the same defense), he would have instantly been arrested and charged with murder.

[pondwater]

When did this exciting new standard of "if you didn't get a conviction, he should never have been charged" go into effect?  Should every single person who is found not guilty of a crime then get to turn around and sue law enforcement for false arrest?

Spider, you do understand that if there is no evidence of any crime, then there should be no charges filed. The Sanford PD and DA knew this. It took a "special" prosecutor that complied with the threat of riots and civil unrest in order to shove it through the system. 

You literally just said that you think he was probably at fault, yet you also believe that charging him was a waste of time?  This idea that charging someone with a crime after they admit to killing a person is some sort of outrageous violation of their liberty is an amazing concept.

He admitted to killing someone in self defense, which is not a crime. Unless there is evidence showing that it wasn't self defense then there is no crime. You seem to not understand.

[pondwater]

As a point of fact, according to FL state law, they did not.  They simply had to have reasonable doubt about the state's case.

What other realistic real world scenario besides self defense could be possible for a not guilty verdict. I actually heard on of the jurors say that "Trayvon probably hit first". At that point it is self defense.

It is equally safe to presume that had Martin been the armed killer instead of Zimmerman (and presented the same defense), he would have instantly been arrested and charged with murder.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[Spider-Dan]

Spider, you do understand that if there is no evidence of any crime, then there should be no charges filed.

Man refers to kid as "asshole" and "fucking punk" on tape, man later shoots said kid dead.

He admitted to killing someone in self defense, which is not a crime. Unless there is evidence showing that it wasn't self defense then there is no crime.

Are you saying that no one is arrested and charged with a crime in FL if they claim self-defense?  Or that any not guilty verdict in a self-defense case means the defendant should never have been charged?

[Spider-Dan]

What other realistic real world scenario besides self defense could be possible for a not guilty verdict.

Offhand, I'd say at least one possibility is:

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

As the pro-Zimmerman side has said over and over, it doesn't matter if the jury BELIEVED Zimmerman murdered Martin, or if they BELIEVED Martin was innocent.  It matters if they thought the state PROVED those things beyond a reasonable doubt.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

As the pro-Zimmerman side has said over and over, it doesn't matter if the jury BELIEVED Zimmerman murdered Martin, or if they BELIEVED Martin was innocent.  It matters if they thought the state PROVED those things beyond a reasonable doubt.

BRD has been the standard in this country since at least 1787.

A core problem that you and the others seem to have is with that standard.  You want Zimmerman convicted because you think it is more likely than not that he was at fault.  Not because there isn't a reasonable doubt he might not have been.

So being the problem is the standard are you suggesting that we change the standard for a conviction to something else.  Say "preponderance of evidence" like we have in civil trials.  I know some DAs and cops would love that.  Most civil libertarians would  consider that worse than the Patriot Act or a various civil spying systems.

And most importantly are you suggesting we change the standard for all criminal defendants or ONLY in those case were the victim is black and the criminal defendant is non-black? 

Because it is really starting to sound like that is what you want. 

[Spider-Dan]

BRD has been the standard in this country since at least 1787.

Under common law (and in many states), an affirmative defense changes that.  In the state of Florida, it does not.  We've already went down this road several times.  If Zimmerman wanted to claim that he didn't shoot Martin, then he would deserve every bit of BRD.

I see no danger of eroding civil rights or creeping Patriot Act shenanigans by the common law standard.  If you admit to killing a person, you should be required to prove it was justified.  If you find that standard onerous, then either don't kill other people or, failing that, don't admit to killing other people.  You have instantly placed all burden of proof back on the prosecution.

[pondwater]

And most importantly are you suggesting we change the standard ONLY in those case were the victim is black and the criminal defendant is non-black? 

Because it is really starting to sound like that is what you want. 

BINGO TRIFECTA 

This horse has been beaten to death. Race baiters lose for once and can't handle it. Zimmerman is not guilty, end of story. End thread, someone shut this mother down!

[phinphan]

Everybody thought he would go to Disney after winning his court case but nooooo
He went back to work saving a family or is it familia being white I dont know how to talk and act now?Si? midi mida si 

[Phishfan]

So by this logic, if a policeman says "We are specifically instructed not to use excessive force when arresting someone" then that means they didn't do so?

Immediately after the operator said "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman said "OK" and (according to Zimmerman) immediately stopped doing that.  But I guess he was coincidentally not following the non-instructions?
And yet for some reason, you are arguing that that Zimmerman did not verbally agree to cease pursing Martin, when Zimmerman himself says otherwise.

Spin it however you want. What I am saying is you midrepresented the facts, once again. I can only assume you are saying a prosecution witness perjured himself (to help Zimmerman of all poeple) based on your cop testimony hypothetical?

Now to your second portion, your takeaway is nowhere near what I said and isn't even addressed by me at all. I said nothing about a Zimmerman response. What I said is there were no "instructions" as you said to stop and that there was no authority to make any such "instruction". You simply inferred what you want to hear which does not help a fact based discussion.

Spin away and tell me what else I "said".

[el diablo]

Everybody thought he would go to Disney after winning his court case but nooooo
He went back to work saving a family or is it familia being white I dont know how to talk and act now?Si? midi mida si 

Yet, he couldn't push a 158 pound off of him.