Why George Zimmerman May Be Hard To Convict (Any legal people here to dissect this?)

Politicus usa - Real Liberal Politics - No Corporate Money. No Masters ^ | April 14, 2012 | Tim from LA

[moehoward]

"The dispatcher even suggested he keep an eye on TM. It was after that suggestion that he got out of the vehicle."

The dispatcher did that TWICE. And if "we don't need you to do that" is an "order", then "Just let me know if this guy does anything else." is a Commandment.

[octex]

Now this case, if I were prosecuting, I would argue the following for each charge:
********************
Since you were a prosecutor, I understand why you would put forth your three arguments; because prosecutors lose their jobs if they can’t lie or significantly stretch the truth to get convictions. ........Before you get upset with me, I understand that you were probably just saying those three arguments are indicative of what a prosecutor might put forth before the court. All three should fail in this case if any on the jury can think rationally.

1. Zim didn’t talk to police and they did not order him to do or not do anything. He was only talking to a 911 operator who suggested “we don’t need you to do that” when Zim said he was going to follow the guy. He did not “chase down” the guy and, infact, told the operator that the guy ran away and he lost him.

2. Zim’s voice on the audio tapes seemed to be very calm and just was telling what was happening. He was not “angry to the point of passion”, as you would argue.

3. Zim did not ignore any “police instructions” because he had not received any. After saying he had lost the guy who seemed to be running toward the other entrance, he was walking back to his vehicle.

Also, the Stand Your Ground law isn’t in play here. Zim’s former attys. stated a couple of weeks ago that it didn’t apply because this was a simple matter of self-defense.

[lgwdnbdgr]

OK, I’m not a lawyer so maybe I’m missing something. Zimmerman claims Martin was on top of him bashing his head against the ground. That would indicate that retreat was not possible, making “Stand Your Ground” irrelevant. If that is true and the jury thinks a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s position would feel his life was in danger, then it’s self defense and GZ should be acquitted on all counts.

If the jury thinks a reasonable person would NOT think Zimmerman was at risk of death or serious injury, then it’s not self defense and murder 2 seems reasonable.

If Zimmerman is lying about Martin being on top of him, then the jury isn’t going to believe anything he says and he’s toast.

Does anything else really matter from a legal standpoint?

[moehoward]

Looks like your involuntary is your strongest argument, yet still weak on known facts, Zimmerman’s lack of “police training”, for instance, O’Mara could let a first year associate handle the light lifting.

I don’t doubt your possible attack plans, it’s just the known evidence is on Zimmerman’s side.

[Ken H]

I don’t doubt your possible attack plans, it’s just the known evidence is on Zimmerman’s side.

Our Esteemed Prosecutor has a different view of the evidence. He maintains that police told Zimmerman 'not to follow but he did' and that there was 'no evident significant injury to Zimmerman'. See link in post #79 above.

[moehoward]

I could be way off, it looks like he’s giving us his version of a little peek at the prosecution’s way of thinking.

The thing is, the prosecution is not interested in the facts of the case at all, because it appears the facts favor the defense. They are only interested in how few they can get away with being introduced.

[Ken H]

It looks to me like he's claiming them as facts, rather than explaining what Little Miss Nifong is thinking. From the link in post #79:

Remember ... probable cause is a pretty low threshold. Also,I am going off facts I see and read which is absolutely NO substitute for Prosecutorial investigation. In no particular order...

He refuses to explain himself despite multiple challenges, so he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, IMO.

[hoosiermama]

Yelp....Makes me wonder if Corey even listened to the tape.

[hoosiermama]

Good synopsis of the case as it now stands. There is a poll at the site. Currently 59% do NOT believe Zimmerman should have been charged with 2nd degree.

[RIghtwardHo]

You could very well be correct when it comes to a conviction. If I were the Defense Atty I would really hammer away at the fact that Zimmerman had broken off the pursuit and was jumped from behind. Indeed, that is the only defense he has ... but it could be a good defense if I could find the facts to support that theory.

Again .... probable cause is light years different from “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

[cynwoody]

Wasn’t it another line he called? Not 911. ?

He called the regular number, not 911. I read that's what Neighborhood Watch volunteers are instructed to do, at least in cases where there's merely a suspicious person, not an actual emergency.

It's apparently the same group of operators, however. The guy who took the call lists his occupation as "911 operator" on his Myspace page.

[moehoward]

"If I were the Defense Atty I would really hammer away at the fact that Zimmerman had broken off the pursuit..."

The recording certainly indicates that. Wind noise from George's mouthpiece stops almost immediately after this exchange, DISPATCHER: "we don't need you to do that", GZ:"OK".

I believe any attempt made by the prosecution to make hay with the whole "pursuit" angle, is easily dispatched with an earlier portion of the tape. DISPATCHER:"Just let me know if this guy does anything else." GZ:"OK". More importantly it shows that George followed instruction. First to 'keep an eye on' then to stop pursuit when the 'suggestion' was made.