Posted on 07/05/2013 8:05:46 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman second degree murder trial have pushed hard on two points as they seek to make their case against him: that the injuries to Zimmerman on the night Trayvon Martin died were “insignificant” and that he had studied Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law in a college class in 2010.
To win conviction on second-degree murder, the prosecution has to show that the death was caused by a criminal act “demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.”
That’s why the prosecutor keeps pushing the claim that Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black. Meanwhile, the lesser charge of manslaughter generally is a crime that's been committed in the heat of passion, where there is no premeditation. The jury would have to believe Zimmerman lost his temper in shooting Martin.
People can use force to protect themselves when they reasonably believe it is “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves.” On this score, the testimony of the Jacksonville medical examiner, Valerie Rao, that Zimmerman injuries were “insignificant” is largely irrelevant.
A broken nose, a head being slammed into cement, and punches to the face may not have left Zimmerman incapacitated. The important question is whether such an attack with a man on top of him would leave Zimmerman to “reasonably believe” that there was a threat of “imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.”
Much was also made of the class Zimmerman took class at Seminole State College taught by Professor Alexis Carter. The key supposedly was that Zimmerman really did understand Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Prosecutor Richard Mantei told the court that Zimmerman's legal studies would help jurors understand his "state of mind" and "ambitions and frustrations" before the shooting.....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Don’t forget manslaughter, a lesser included offense..so called experts claiming any trial is over before the jury speaks may get bit in the ass..
What does the law have to do with this trial?
He is going to be convicted and the excuse "He shouldn't have followed him" given even though there is not one single solitary shred of proof GZ ever followed Traydemark™.
Remember, he WATCHED Traydemark™ then drove past him, parked his car and called 911. That is when Traydemark™ started walking towards him "with his hand in his waist". He then circled GZs car (to see if he was alone) then disappeared. That's when GZ said "These guys always get away"..GZ then ran to see if he could catch up and find Traydemark™...You cannot follow someone if you do not know where they are!
The 911 operator then said "we don't need you to do that" in which you hear GZ stop. He then walks to see the name of the street he is on when Traydemark™ came out of hiding and attacked GZ.
“Many conservative commentators claimed early on that Zimmerman had acted improperly (Mona Charen, Rich Lowry, Heather Mac Donald, Robert VerBruggen, and Gregory Kane). “
Not a commentator of course, but Alan West also jumped on GZ early on and AFAIK has never apologized for it.
I am no coward. I have a high pain threshold. However, when faced with bodily injury when I was doing no wrong, I have no pause in using my weapon. (At least in a vacuum.) Now, with this case, I will analytically assess the pounding I will take. The hood has won in this case. I am willing to go through a lot of pain to not go though what Zimmerman has.
Now if I had my head being punched in the pavement, then my post is completely irrelevant. The next time I get punched I may be dead. I will kill to stay alive. This case has given me pause in standing my ground, literally. I will run away instead of facing the crap that Zimmerman is going through, even though I may be in my right to stand my ground.
There is no freedom and liberty in out nation as long as we have thug underclass that is dealt with in a PC manner.
No more evidence exists for manslaughter than for murder2. Zimmerman’s account holds up when you only look at evidence, not everything including the kitchen sink they are trying to throw at the jury, hoping something sticks. For murder2 or manslaughter there is a no evidence and especially not “beyond reasonable doubt”.
I also understand or have seen repeated that a manslaughter conviction carries a very long prison term as does murder2. Thirty years??
If the state of FL was following the law they never would have charged GZ with a crime much less 2nd degree murder. There is not a shred of evidence.
If someone was on top of me pounding my head and fisting my nose, i sure as hell would shoot.
If the jury uses its common sense re the evidence it will be Not Guilty by a landslide and that is being said before the defense even puts on its case.
Manslaughter would suck too.
Show trial, like the Dreyfuss affair. A member of a protected class gets his head smashed by a member of presumed oppressive class.
A key point that will arise in the defense is only hinted at as of yet.
It’s not only a question of GZ getting his head bashed on the concrete. (And IMHO that’s enough.)
It’s the fact that the kel-tec 9mm with the double-action trigger and no safety would be an immediate deadly weapon in TM’s hand if he got to it first.
Whoever grabs that pistol, can shoot it. No safety, no nothing. Grab that gun, BANG, it’s in a shootable condition. By anybody, right away.
GZ had to use it first, or it would be used against him, if he lost the “MMA wrestling match.” And he was losing the fight, clearly.
It had to be in his mind that if TM got to the gun first, he was dead.
This will be a key point for the defense. It’s why GZ’s lawyer spent so much time discussing the trigger action etc of the kel-tec with the FDLE gun gal. He was setting this up.
If common sense, or for that matter, the law mattered, Zimmerman would have never been brought to trial. This is to b a Soviet show trial with a verdict of guilty at the finish. it has been ordained from the highest levels. This is a kangaroo court pure and simple.
” even though I may be in my right to stand my ground.”
The “stand your ground” law has never been invoked in this case. The defense argument is pure self defense.
I admit I am guilty of profiling every time I am out and about.
Let’s hope the jury recognizes that and decides accordingly
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.