Posted on 07/03/2013 11:00:28 PM PDT by Red Steel
Edited on 07/04/2013 3:10:35 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
George Zimmerman's team plans to put on "a lot of witnesses," defense attorney Mark O'Mara told WKMG-Channel 6 Tuesday night.
Those witnesses will include family members, friends, neighbors and an expert on a timeline for the night Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, O'Mara told Tony Pipitone.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
They will bring ME on last, with lots of gory pictures, to show that.
“Judging by the looks of this Sanford PD officer, I’d say in her 40’s. That would mean her parents were most likely little kids during WWII, if they were even thought of back then. I know, those are her grandfather’s medals he earned in the war and it’s her way of honoring him. Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket. I’m surprised the LSM didn’t spin it that way.”
Be careful going after this police officer. She was quite sympathetic to George Zimmerman. She’s the one who had the discussion with George over the cross she was wearing (you can tell she’s a Christian) and gave George a sympatheic answer by saying if George was telling the truth about what happened, he shouldn’t worry about having had to kill someone, if for self protection, in God’s eyes. Speaking for myself, I could smell she is on George’s side.
I know EXACTLY what he is talking about and every sane American who is not naïve better meditate on it too.
I don’t think he will bring that up any further other than the 6 motions that he has already filed of how the state was either not allowing evidence in or not disclosing evidence to the defense unless blatancy continues of the state. The system is okay; it comes back to the people who are in the lead charge of power.
We see it too often using the judicial wing to impose their personal beliefs of how they see policy and behaviors they deem appropriate; versus using the standard that we already have (from the beginning of the country).
If he is found not guilty, it would be a short of a miracle because we do not know if any of these jurors are afraid to vote for not guilty or if those women do not think guns are for society.
The media is not for him because they do not want to see the stand-your-ground law to succeed and to be validated (so, they use the race issue by Obama strong-arming the feds to get involved for racial justice even though the local police have investigated and found it to be primarily self defense).
They'd first have to get permission from Chuck Schumer.
Good.
I think this is exactly what the defense should do.
Put on so many positive witnesses for the defense, that by the time they're done, the jury can hardly even remember the prosecution's witnesses, except that they were weak.
There's also a much broader impact to this case. Literally millions of people across the country are watching the trial live.
By the time the defense is done, the entire country ought to be wondering why the hell this case was ever brought, and ought to clearly be able to identify that those who wailed for "justice for Trayvon" did so not for the sake of actually seeking JUSTICE, but solely because he was black and Zimmerman was "white."
This officer seems very practical.
From what I read, Zimmerman did not know that Martin had died from the gun shot until this officer told him. If any of us were in his shoes, most of us would be thinking all sorts of things. For one, that my life has been saved though, I have taken a life of another person, to the idea, I have to go through hell on earth to those who are out to punish. In this case, my view he was protecting himself. My hubby carries everywhere he goes (legally), so, I can relate to gun ownership. Zimmerman was touched for awhile before he decided that’s enough, I can’t get the guy off before he ended up being dead. To those who say, he’s was a high school teen, don’t tell me, that a young 17 year old cannot be strong. I have 7 brothers that I grew up with.
That's not true. See this post and follow links as you see fit.
No DNA on GZ gun? Of course not. Zimmerman did not say there was a struggle for the gun, he said he could feel TM going down his right side FOR the gun. It’s pretty obvious who got the gun first.
Surely not. MMAO
Not true. Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of second degree murder in Florida. That means it is automatically included when 2nd degree murder is the charge. The jury will be advised about this.
Interestingly, if the finding is guilty for manslaughter, the sentence may still be the same as Murder 2, because the victim was under 18. The max penalty is 30 years for manslaughter of a minor. They won't tell the jury this though, and if they think they are compromising by finding for manslaughter, they may be regretful in the end.
Zimmerman definitely is not getting a fair trial so, anything they can use for the state’s behalf, they will continue in a pattern to railroad the man. The judge is clearly for the state so, she will make certain, George is punished, at every avenue, in my view. I can see why George’s defense team is worried. Manslaughter with a firearm, what is it 30 years/the max. I just can’t see this judge allowing him not to be punished. I feel bad for Zimmerman. He was protecting himself, like many of us out here would do.
No,No, No, you are not listening, reading, or thinking. GZ said that he felt Trayvon’s hand going down his side toward the gun when Trayvon said, “you’re going to die tonight
*$%#@)$%^.” GZ never said that Trayvon “touched the gun.” Just like the prosecution, this is a twisting of the stated facts, which of course the prosecution relishes.
GZ has never made such a statement to my knowledge. He indicated he felt TM’s hand going down his side toward the gun when TM said, “you’re going to die @#$%^&*(,” but he never indicated that TM actually ever touched the gun.
This could possibly be where the “stand your ground” law could come in play, which exempts Zimmerman if deemed applicable?
The part of the so-called stand-your-ground law that allows a person to use deadly force in certain circumstances will come into play in the criminal trial. Zimmerman is claiming his use of deadly force was justified.
A formal legal finding of immunity (from trial) involves a higher standard of proof that the use of deadly force was justified than is applied by a jury in an acquittal in a criminal case.
The part of the so-called stand-you-ground law that literally involves a right to stand your ground (no duty to retreat) is completely irrelevant in this case.
How is “stand your ground” going to come into play in this trial if it “completely irrelevant?” If MOM were going to pursure “stand your ground,” that would have been pursued before the trial, because it exempts prosecution when recognized and upheld. It’s my understanding that MOM decided not to seek “stand your ground,” but rather to go with the “self-defense” angle, which seems like a reasonable decision. I’m speaking of a possible Civil Trial, and saying, if Zimmerman is aquitted in the current trial, the exemption from a civil trial MAY POSSIBLY come forth from an eventual “stand your ground” claim. I don’t know if that claim will still be feasable after the state trial? Zimmerman felt his life was threatened, and did not retreat, (even though he could not retreat).
STAND YOUR GROUND LAW
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
I can tell from your post that the press confusion about "stand-your-ground" has spread.
You can define "stand your ground" however you like, the press does. I was trying to be very careful in my phrasing so as to distinguish between immunity, the justified use of deadly force, and the absence of a duty to retreat. Those are three different notions that can play amongst themselves.
Zimmerman will not get immunity via a criminal acquittal. He can get immunity in a separate hearing before a judge. In order to get immunity, the finding has to be that it is more likely than not that the use of deadly force was justified. When a jury acquits, the standard of proof is that the state did not disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the use of deadly force was justified. A smidgen of justification is enough to get an acquittal, but it takes "more likely than not" to get immunity.
I'm not sure if you understand my answer, but I have answered your question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.