You guys really want it? I actually share Desaix's opinion about being afraid to post. I have a contrary opinion, but I'll go ahead and stick my neck out.
You won't like it. I think the case was a pile of horsesh*t and that the original prosecutor was right to decline it. Alan Dershowitz thinks the prosecutors should be disbarred. I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think much of Corey and her team for this.
A few thing must be kept in mind.
The first is what "Not Guilty" means. It does not mean he is innocent. In criminal cases,the burden of proof rests with the State and it never shifts to the defendant. The State must also prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it's preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Then there is clear and convincing (child custody case in my state). Beyond a reasonable doubt is higher. So, if a jury gets a case and at the end cannot figure out who did what, it's a not guilty. If they think it probably happen, but still have some doubt, it's not guilty. Not Guilty, means the state failed to prove it's case.
In the process of laying waste to his own argument, Derock hits on the basic problem with case. "Some sort of fight." By your own admission, Derock, you don't know how the fight began. Unfortunately for the prosecution, this makes it exceptionally difficult to overcome a self-defense claim, if not impossible. In my State, all that is necessary to raise a self-defense claim is a "scintilla" of evidence, which is a really really low standard. You can do it using state witnesses, other fact witnesses, or the defendant. There is no set method. Once the issue is raise, it's the state's duty to overcome it. The same was true of the prosecution.
Zimmerman could have been following him because he where a hoodie like Derock said. He could have been doing it because he hated blacks. He could have been standing their flipping the kid the bird. Zimmerman said it was because there had been a rash if Burglaries, which were committed by black people, and here was a black guy who he didn't recogize wandering around the community. Zimmerman stated in the 911 he thought the guy was high. The toxicology report bore that out (which is one of the places the weed came from). Even if you don't believe him, there is no evidence he was guilty of a crime or that he did anything to invalidate his self-defense claim, like starting the fight. All the 911 DISPATCHER said was they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him. Whether he as a practical matter should or should not is irrelevant, unless you can use it to show he started the fight, but it's not even close to being able to do that. He had no legal duty to do so. So unless, Zimmerman started the fight...the prosecution was totally screwed.
How could the jury have known who started the fight? I don't see how anyone knows based on the evidence present. The only evidence of the actual confrontation is that Martin was on top of him, beating him MMA style, a fact supported the injuries to Zimmerman's head. People have been trying to make hay of Zimmerman's injuries being minor, but it misses the point. Self-defense-Deadly Force only requires that there be a reasonable belief you are about to suffer Serious Bodily Injury or Death. You don't have to wait until SBI has been inflicted on you and it should be clear why that is.
The other piece of evidence: who was asking for help. I don't see how the jury could decide either way. All they got where invested witnesses on both sides. Prosecutors tend to lose swearing matches because it leaves jurors in a position who not being able to tell who they should believe which = a big fact NG in criminal cases. A jury saying "I don't know" is NG.
Finally, the state's star witness: No matter what she heard over the phone, she didn't know who started the fight anymore than anyone else and she sunk her own credibility she said she couldn't read a letter she claimed to have written. Her testimony was a total disaster.
Remember the charge: Murder 2 and what it requires. The mental state is a "depraved mind" which has a specific definition in Florida. The state has to prove this regardless of whether Zimmerman invokes self-defense or not. And the prosecution had nothing to work with here. The fact that he continued to follow just doesn't get you there, especially when you consider Zimmerman's role as a neighborhood watchman and the fact that it happened at the end of a fight of totally unknown origins. I didn't see any credible evidence that would refute the reason Zimmerman claimed he was following him and Martin was still on top of him beating the crap out of him.
The prosecution's own witnesses spent as much time helping the defense as they did the state, and it wasn't just the cops.
I am not here sing Zimmerman's praises. The jury had to decide whether the State proved its case. It didn't come close to doing so. The prosecution knew it, too.
This was a horse-kitten case and the verdict given was the correct one.
Derock, do you mean the Stand your Ground law? Because it's hard to believe you don't understand why self-defense is a defense. If you do, just so you know...this wasn't a stand your ground case. It's not the same thing.
EDIT: You could argue the dispatch was wrong to instruct them to do that. When law enforcement shows up to find the guy, how are they to know they found the one Zimmerman was talking about? When people call in Drunk Driver's from the road, I generally prefer the driver continue to follow the guy until cops show up to make sure it's the same car the citizen called in about. It helps when developing your probablyecause for the stop, especially if you can;' make out the plate.
don't know how to express how frustrated I am about it. I was up late last night and this morning waiting for a good verdict.
". One of my pet peeves about this trial and the media coverage of it was how they were calling Trayvon a kid, he was a 17 years old, at 17 years old you may not be an adult legally and mentally, but physically at 17 your are an adult.
