This morning, I had basically given up on the idea that George Zimmerman would be convicted of anything. I just didn’t feel like the prosecution had removed all reasonable doubt about self-defense. After watching the prosecution’s closing argument, however, my hopes are revived a bit. They really did a much better job of shredding Zimmerman’s credibility than they did during the evidentiary part of the trial. In part, this was because the Sanford police witnesses were defensive about not initially charging Zimmerman, and were therefore less than helpful to the prosecution. I also have to give the defense team credit. They have done a masterful job.
I still think a hung jury or a blanket acquittal are the most likely outcomes of the trial, but I base that on what I know will be a strong closing argument by the defense. I think it will come down to who the jurors think was crying out for help, and if they can all agree about that. There’s a possibility that the jury might reach a compromise. They could convict Zimmerman of manslaughter on the theory that he must be held accountable, but reject 2nd degree murder because of the doubts they have about what actually happened. This is definitely more likely than a conviction for murder.
I fear you are right and I welcome riots in the wake of this tragic miscarriage of justice. I won’t blame the jury, who will only be following their oaths to consider the case as it is presented to them.
I think the prosecution deliberately blew the case. Their case looked like a defense of Zimmerman. Maybe we will get “reverse jury nullification” but I don’t know if that is good or bad.
And I hope Zimmerman gets in a fight where someone else finds the need for deadly “self-defense”.
Riots ain’t gonna be pretty VithW. Police forces are better armed now than a lot of the military was not that long ago.
And riots are not going to help the reputation of the “first black President” at all. And you can bet the political expectations will be for him and him alone to deal with this cracker-created CF.
Something needs to happen to wake up this country. Sheep-like acceptance of miscarriage of justice won’t do it.
Did you watch the prosecution’s closing argument? I thought it was very strong. I expect a conviction or possibly a hung jury, but not acquittal.
No, I have to admit that I didn’t see it. However, juries in general are more swayed by testimony and how they felt about it than opening and closing arguments.
i guess you don’t visit many wingnut sites. they will tell you with equal certainty that the entire trial’s a farce set up by the msm to hang zimmerman as a gift to obama. that was obvious when he was charged, dontchaknow …
people often see what they want to see, which is too often their favorite conspiracies. but don’t forget that the jury has seen a very different trial that we have. for one, they haven’t been kept updated on what to think by nancy grace or sean hannity or the five or judge pirro or al sharpton or chris matthews. even if you only stuck to the live stream, the jury’s still getting a different picture without the cuts to different cameras for better angles and a lot of “reaction shots” that broadcasters like to use to try to dramatize the proceedings.
how the jury rules is still up in the air but they won’t be basing their decision on any of the coverage we’ve been watching.
and sadly, no matter what the verdict, women will get the blame.
No, my news of the trial came 99% from Booman.
lol.
Shame on you. Go hide in a corner.
<Sigh>
There is a Sicilian proverb that goes like this in translation:
“The law is for the Rich.
The gallows is for the Poor.
And justice is for Fools.”
And the judge threw out the evidence of that at the beginning.
Reluctant police witnesses. How often in criminal trials that don’t involve police malfeasance do you see reluctant police witnesses?
The state wants to cover up for its embarrassing failure to move quickly and wants to ensure that the “Open Season” law continues to stand.
It’s now the jury that can bring justice to this case–or not.
Could a technical analysis of the phone recording not have established who was crying out for help?
Not according to the FBI expert.
There was another test done that was not allowed into evidence because the judge was convinced that it didn’t meet the standard for scientific evidence.
So only testimony from close relatives from both sides was allowed. How scientific was that with each side saying it was their relative for sure. Personally, I discount all of that, including from Trayvon’s side. I don’t think it really matters who was crying for help.
I think it matters. I think it is really the only fact that matters in the case.
The only part of the calls for help that are important, I think, are the fact that 1) the calls are continuous, and 2) they stop when the gun is fired.
I think it’s impossible to discern who’s voice is who’s, despite Jose Mazza’s supernatural ability to discern his nephew’s voice from another room without any pre-knowledge or forewarning. However you can make two very logical conclusions:
However, the most important and relevant part continues to be Rachel Jeantel’s testimony that the last words she heard from Trayvon was him getting “bumped” and the words “Get off, get off!”.
If you believe her testimony, then you have to believe George Zimmerman’s guilty.
I think if it is Zimmerman’s voice then the self-defense defense is proven and if it is not his voice then he executed Trayvon. End of story.
If they are not sure, then other facts matter.
I disagree. The entire premise of the Defense is “We’re telling the truth, therefore we’re right”.
As soon as you start to poke holes in that truth, then everything else goes out the window.
At that point you may as well call Trayvon Martin to the stand and act surprised that he cannot testify on his own behalf because he was murdered.
It’s bizarre, but the Prosecution is not trying to disprove without reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman killed in self-defense; instead the Prosecution is trying to prove reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman killed in self-defense.
And the Prosecution did it effectively.
If you cannot trust/believe the testimony of the Defense (who incidentally didn’t not even take the stand) then you cannot trust/believe his account of what happened that night. At the same time, you cannot trust/believe anyone that testified on behalf of a liar.
I thought the prosecution made a compelling case. Rather masterful. It will be hard for the jury to just dismiss the questions he raised, and the defense will have to counter with basically bullshit, which may or may work.
If I bet on grimness of this kind, I’d go with conviction, probably on manslaughter.The jury is unlikely to go so far as murder2 for this pathetic boy-man, even though it doesn’t require intent.They’ll incline to buy the “was trying to protect his neighbors” crap even though the prosecution thoroughly shredded it.
I just wish the FL governor and legislature were on trial for abetting murder. But that would be too much real justice, wouldn’t it?
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law was not invoked by the defense. Zimmerman’s plain refusal to accept the police dispatcher’s demand that he NOT follow Martin blew away the defense’s option to use that rotten SYG law.
I’m happy to find fault with the supercriminal who occupies the Florida Governor’s office and his wrecking crew in the Legislature, but this case doesn’t provide the best opportunity to do so.
Whether the defense used it directly or not, it seems clear that it gave comic-book vigilantes like Zimmerman a far stronger sense that they had a moral and legal right to “defend” themselves and their community by any means necessary. Sometimes laws are far more powerful in their cultural messages than in their enforcement. SYG is meth for sadsack hero-wannabes like Zimmerman.
I’ve been advocating for manslaughter since the trial began; if only as a way to “split the baby”. GZ is held accountable for his actions, but people don’t feel as though their rights are being infringed upon.
First of all, I strongly dislike the concept that the Prosecution has to disprove the Defense’s claims of self-defense. In my opinion, it should be the Defense who bears the burden of proof that they were acting in self-defense, not the other way around.
However, the key to this trial is the testimony of Rachel Jenteal. If her accounts of the evening are true (and they are certainly as credible, if not more so than Zimmerman’s account) then the last words she heard from Travyon Martin was “Get off, get off!”
That is all the proof that you need to know that George Zimmerman attacked TM first.
I believe he was doing so in an attempt to apprehend TM, which he likely did. However, he had a big problem: the cops were expecting to meet him over at the mailboxes, not between 2 houses. He doesn’t have any handcuffs (although if he had cuffed him it would have been unlawful imprisonment), but he cannot let TM free because “these assholes always get away”.
So, he tries to make TM march toward the mailboxes.
TM, feeling his life is in danger, exercises his right to self defense; punches GZ and maybe does start smashing his head into the concrete repeatedly, at which time GZ pulls out his gun (which TM likely didn’t even know was there) and shoots TM in the chest.
GZ’s actions are indefensible; even under the auspices of self-defense.
Also, GZ’s actions that night profiling/following TM (and ultimately executing him) were an infringement on his constitutional rights to due process. Trayvon was not charged with any crimes, and despite being innocent of any wrong doing up until their interaction, TM was presumed guilty by GZ. Furthermore, by not getting a chance to tell his side of the story; GZ infringed upon TM’s right to a trail of his peers.
Not only should GZ be put in jail for manslaughter, the SCOTUS should take up these self-defense and stand your ground laws as being against the 6th Amendment.
Agree with your theory of the case and hope that the prosecution was able to make the jury believe that something like this is what happened, because I’m pretty sure that is about right.
Definitely gotta disagree with your constitutional theories though! GZ is a private citizen, so doesn’t have the ability to interfere with anyone’ due process rights. And definitely a dead man does not have a right to a trial of peers, since he can’t be charged with a crime in the first place (notwithstanding that it sure felt like the defense was putting Trayvon on trial)
It is the Napoleonic code (actually goes back to Roman times) followed in Southern Europe that presumes guilt and requires the defense to prove innocence. We follow the Nordic/British tradition of a presumption of innocence and require the state to prove guilt.
I like our system better. It depends on which you think is worse, the guilty going free or the innocent going to jail.
I think what’s worse is one person decided that someone else is guilty, executing them, and then making the state prove that they didn’t do it in self-defense.
If TM was guilty of a crime, then it should be treated in a court of law. Not based on 1 guy’s judgment.
I understand that in cases where someone clearly enters into your home or property and accosts you; then you should have a right to protect your property and under certain circumstances you may use lethal force.
However, in this case we are allowing ordinary citizens to bypass law enforcement in public spaces and then shield themselves with self-defense laws when they commit homicide.
I would argue that acts of vigilantism should negate one’s claim to self-defense. First, you are voluntarily interjecting yourself into a dangerous situation, and secondly if you kill the criminal in the process then you are infringing upon their right to a fair trial.
I agree completely.
that’s not how it works. the prosecution has to prove that the facts in question fit the specific charges filed. that’s why it’s critical for the prosecution to get the charges right. the defense need only show that the facts don’t fit the charges. disproving the defense’s claims of self-defense, just like the defense’s decision to claim self-defense, is an issue of strategy, not legal burden.
i’m not quite ready to upend centuries of legal tradition over issues of strategy.
Also, judging by the comments left by readers of various blogs/news pages like Huffington Post, there is a near identical parallel from the 2012 Election.
Consider this: in October 2012, many Republicans were assured they were going to win the election,and win big up-and-down the ticket. Likewise, many Democrats were starting to really worry about what a Romney presidency would look like.
All of those talk of “unskewed polls” and the arrogance from the right, combined with the echo chamber of the right-wing media, honestly led everyone to start to believe that the right wing’s tales were true.
Fortunately, we don’t live in a republican bubble (although many people wish that they could) and instead we live in reality.
The Prosecution pointed out that Zimmerman’s statement said that Martin had his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth. That was a game changer for the sway all the friends of Zimmerman made that it was his voice, not Martin’s.
Having been a juror on two minor criminal cases, I learned first hand that predicting the outcome is a fool’s errand. In both cases the defense attorneys were good. The prosecutor in one was evenly matched with the defense attorney. In the other, the prosecutor appeared disorganized and his closing argument was barely competent. There were three holdouts in one case and two in the other. A decision was reached in only one of the two cases.
I’ve only been a juror in a civil case. With the burden of “a preponderance of evidence”, which the judge translated as “more likely than not” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt” it was easier to negotiate with the holdouts.
The prosecution presents closing arguments last.
they get a rebuttal, but their main argument was done today.
Have to agree with this at TalkLeft.
Held accountable for what? Shooting somebody in self-defense? If he was in the wrong it should be second degree. If not then he should walk.
Prosecution? Schmosecution!
Defense? Nonsense!
This is now a political case and it has been so since the variously allied organs of the PermaGov media made it that way more than a year ago. The politics? Sure. Elections in the U.S. are fairly close. A couple of percentage points in one direction or another and the entire balance of power shifts from one party to the other. One party has based its national electoral tactics over the past decade or more on a multi-racial/younger generational strategy and the other one has done so on a whites-only/older generational strategy. Both parties control trillions of dollars of wealth, and the owners of those parties…whose “strategies” are entirely based on economic profit…most definitely do not want to see either of the two so-called “parties” take a decisive lead. Who knows what might happen if that came about!!! Hell…the criminal enterprise that we laughingly call “big business” might find that its pet attack dog has suddenly turned around and bit it right in the ass.
I wrote here recently in my piece Justice? For Zimmerman OR Martin? Please:
Yesterday’s news that the judge has finally “instructed” the jury that they can consider a manslaughter charge fits right in with what I am saying, Booman. It’s a parsing maneuver. When I read about it I started laughing. It is so obvious what’s going on and it is equally obvious that almost no one in any segment of this society actually gets it.
WTFU.
If this particular fix attempt is not successful then the interested powers will try something else. They cannot let Zimmerman get off scot free nor can they let him be sentenced to a serious jail term.
Parsing.
It’s what’s for dinner in political trials like this.
It’s what’s for dinner in the U.S. on every politically important level.
Bet on it.
Lose the parse and you lose the ability to fix.
Lose the ability to fix and the whole scam falls apart.
Watch.
Manslaughter and a relatively short stay in jail…but long enough for the outrage to be media-replaced by another outrage. Say a year or two or three in a “gentle” jail and then parole no matter what the original senetence.
Definitely not 2nd degree murder or acquittal. Not if the PermaGov has anything to say about it. If acquitted? Punished some other way, and quickly. Convicted of murder? OH…!!! The appeal process will be interminable.
Watch.
“Justice?”
Please
AG