Thoughts on Trayvon and Zimmerman...

[Long John]

and this is posted after, for the second time, I noted how demonstrably inaccurate this narrative is about "getting out of his car after being told not to."

This is not a disputed point by anyone who spent 10 minutes paying attention. It's a wrong claim, and the world becomes a dumber place every time someone keeps posting AFTER it has been thoroughly debunked. Again. The rest of the sentence is also preposterous. The person who wrote it is an idiot.

There's so much that can be debated about this case - why not stick to those points?

and do you still wish you had written it?

10 minutes?! I can barely pay attention to my wife for more than 30 seconds! How on earth would I pay attention to 10 minutes?!

[bryanbutler]

to those defending zimmerman, all i have to say is that there is a difference between an action being legal and it being moral. as i said in my first post, the jury has decided, so the "legality" of zimmerman's actions has been upheld.

but i would offer that it is immoral for him to have escalated the position of neighborhood watchman to arming himself and shooting martin. is martin completely innocent? probably not, but he shouldn't have paid for it with his life. it took two to tango here, and zimmerman was *more* than ready to tango, and brought the bigger weapon (gun > fist), and used it (legally, by the warped laws under which the action took place).

i didn't buy into the media hype on this. i read the reports though (as much as i could stomach to get what i thought was enough of the unbiased story). i don't see it as a race issue, or at least not primarily. regardless of race, someone like zimmerman should not be allowed to ride around in their vehicle with a weapon (loaded or not) just because they are assigned to be the neighborhood watchperson for the evening. down that road lies chaos.

[bryanbutler]

10 minutes?! I can barely pay attention to my wife for more than 30 seconds! How on earth would I pay attention to 10 minutes?!

[In the Corn]

there is a difference between an action being legal and it being moral.

And there is the rub in our society and was the point I was trying to make earlier.

Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not? It's a slippery slope, and we all need to understand that we are never going to agree with every law that this land has.

I'm not a Zimmerman defender, but he was acquitted by his peers. We need to accept that and move on in a direction that makes sense.

America, the land where no one is completely happy.

[Lucky]

In 17 months, armed with the knowledge of all the witness statements and evidence, an entire team of educated and experienced prosecution lawyers couldn't come up with a clear, complete, concise theory/story of what went on that night. Yet all by himself, George Zimmerman provided a story only hours later that still makes sense and holds up in the face of all the witness statements and evidence, despite the fact he had no idea whatsoever who saw what, who knew what, or who would say what in the wake of that night. He did so 4-6 times without a lawyer and when confronted with the possibility of a video of the incident, he was relieved. What more proof could anyone ever need in order to believe he was not lying?

I watched or listened to almost every minute of the trial. I did not get my information from the media. Roto Rooter, I agree with everything you say regarding the case. Shame on the rest of you for contributing to the inflammation of the masses either because you don't know the facts of the case, or because you do and still want to propagate an agenda.

Fresno Bob, there are so many misstatements of fact/evidence in your last post, it's sad and disgusting.

Sworn testimony followed by cross-examination by the prosecution. That's what.

[In the Corn]

Sworn testimony followed by cross-examination by the prosecution. That's what.

Zimmerman played within the rules of the judicial arm of our government. Why put yourself into jeopardy when the government says you do not have to?

[Lucky]

Zimmerman played within the rules of the judicial arm of our government. Why put yourself into jeopardy when the government says you do not have to?

Agreed. As I said above, it was a smart move. The question, however, was what more proof could anyone need. That's what proof I would need.

[In the Corn]

Lucky, I don't want to hijack the thread, but as a judge, I'm interested in your take in this hypothetical:

John Smith comes into your courtroom and is accused of a crime, doesn't take the stand and is acquitted by a jury. A couple of years later, he's back on in court for something else. Are you as the judge thinking. I hope I get the chance to right the previous wrong, or does he come in with a clean slate?

[Mithrandir]

Lucky, I don't want to hijack the thread, but as a judge, I'm interested in your take in this hypothetical:

John Smith comes into your courtroom and is accused of a crime, doesn't take the stand and is acquitted by a jury. A couple of years later, he's back on in court for something else. Are you as the judge thinking. I hope I get the chance to right the previous wrong, or does he come in with a clean slate?

Why would the previous decision be wrong? If he was acquitted maybe he was innocent. You are presuming him to be guilty which is very wrong.

[Lucky]

Lucky, I don't want to hijack the thread, but as a judge, I'm interested in your take in this hypothetical:

John Smith comes into your courtroom and is accused of a crime, doesn't take the stand and is acquitted by a jury. A couple of years later, he's back on in court for something else. Are you as the judge thinking. I hope I get the chance to right the previous wrong, or does he come in with a clean slate?

They always come in with a clean slate, even if they have been convicted of the same crime before. The issue is whether the State, using evidence which is legally admissible, has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge's personal feelings cannot enter into the equation.

And the fact is that I tried not to have any personal feelings, except feeling the importance of doing my job right and not making any mistakes.

One thing my clerk never really understood was the different approaches between the finding of guilty/not guilty and the sentencing in cases where there was a finding a guilt. In the first stage, you're doing only what I said above...determining whether the State has met its burden. Sentencing is a different animal. There, I could consider the defendant's past history or lack of history, the impact on the defendant and the victim, questions of fairness, justice, common sense, mercy and compassion.

[Lucky]

Why would the previous decision be wrong? If he was acquitted maybe he was innocent. You are presuming him to be guilty which is very wrong.

Cases wind up in acquittals or dismissals for lots of different reasons. Some are what people call technicalities, but they are important nonetheless. Speedy trial, invalid search, officer not properly certified, crime lab results not properly admitted, chain of custody...I've dismissed cases for all of these reasons. But, you don't hold it against the State in the next case, and you don't hold it against that defendant should he wind up in your court again.

And I have had the same defendants show up in my court many times before. One guy was there nine times in eight years. But it has to be a clean slate every time.

As a prosecutor for a dozen years or so, I knew exactly what the State had to prove in every case. Sometimes it is almost like a checklist.

The hardest cases are ones in which you have to weigh the credibility of different witnesses. But you develop in that regard over time. I tried well over a thousand cases as a judge. You get to where you are more comfortable making that call.

[In the Corn]

They always come in with a clean slate, even if they have been convicted of the same crime before. The issue is whether the State, using evidence which is legally admissible, has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge's personal feelings cannot enter into the equation.

So shouldn't we, as private citizen, act the same way?

[TopChuckie]

Sworn testimony followed by cross-examination by the prosecution. That's what.

So he should take the risk that some presumably far more intelligent and experienced trial lawyer might trick him or trip him up in such a way as to make it APPEAR that he is inconsistent or deceptive to 6 layperson jurors that hold the fate of his life in their hands? Six people that could presumably be as idiotic and gullible as the others who have so missed the reality of this case. He should have testified despite the fact there was nothing more he could add than the totally forthcoming statements he freely and willingly provided to the police on numerous occasions without his rightful legal protection of counsel because he knew he did nothing wrong and trusted the legal system to which he aspired and held dear?

Do you believe it was right for the prosecution to give up on trying to prove their case with facts and evidence and instead resort to simply winning the case at all costs by using emotion to try to convict one of our citizens? It is fine for a defense attorney to grasp at any straw and throw anything and everything against the wall in the hope it sticks and causes reasonable doubt, but it just feels patently and morally wrong for the state to take a win at all costs attitude to imprisoning our citizens. You think, despite his right to decline, he should have subjected himself to prosecutors that unethical? Not to mention the discovery violations.

Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on bringing the entire Martin family in to hear 911 tapes TOGETHER and give their tainted opinions on whose voice was screaming, while also excluding law enforcement from the process. Similar to the method used to obtain Rachel Jeantel's statements. As a judge, you're good with all that too?

This was a political witch hunt, plain and simple. That is scary for all of us, no matter what color you are or what your opinion is on guns.

Judge(s), how many cases have you sat on where the chief investigating officer sided with the defense?

[Fresno Bob]

So shouldn't we, as private citizen, act the same way?

If Zimmerman had, maybe he wouldn't have killed Martin...

[Lucky]

So shouldn't we, as private citizen, act the same way?

No. As a private citizen, I can have opinions. For example, O.J. was guilty as hell, and that one case has done more to hurt our justice system than any other single case. Idiot prosecutors. Wussy judge. Unethical defense lawyers. Ignorant jurors. And all on television 24/7.

But back to the point. When I am making decisions in my day-to-day life, I don't have to follow the Rules of Evidence. That would be stupid. In my day-to-day life, I take all the information available to me, my own common sense and judgement, and any advice I can get from trusted friends, and then I make decisions.

A courtroom isn't real life. It bears almost no resemblance to real life. Anyone who tells you that a courtroom is a crucible in which we burn away impurities to get at the truth...has never been in a courtroom, or is just full of sh*t.