Thoughts on Trayvon and Zimmerman...

[Lucky]

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?

A number of them. You'd be surprised how often that happens.

But, back to the issue...read your post again, and read my answer(s). He had a right to plead the Fifth. It was the smart thing to do. It worked. Your question, though, was what more proof would I need to be convinced his version of events was true. That's what it would take for me, not as a Judge, but as a private individual (which I am now). If he had told that story in court and held up under cross, I don't think there would be nearly as much controversy. But his attorneys were right to keep him as far away from the stand as possible.

[TopChuckie]

A number of them. You'd be surprised how often that happens.

But, back to the issue...read your post again, and read my answer(s). He had a right to plead the Fifth. It was the smart thing to do. It worked. Your question, though, was what more proof would I need to be convinced his version of events was true. That's what it would take for me, not as a Judge, but as a private individual (which I am now). If he had told that story in court and held up under cross, I don't think there would be nearly as much controversy. But his attorneys were right to keep him as far away from the stand as possible.

On the stand now, he's also far more likely to be able to have his story memorized, and assuming for the moment he didn't tell the truth, his lies structured and put together to match the evidence he now knows inside and out. The moment the first officer was on the scene and while giving all his statements and re-enactments to the police, he had no idea who saw and heard what and who said what to the police. There were residences and windows surrounding the location of the incident. He had no idea if someone saw him lurking and stalking Trayvon with his gun drawn. He had no idea if someone saw him chasing after a fleeing Trayvon with his gun drawn. He had no idea if someone saw him throw the first punch, the first punch that left no mark or bruise on Trayvon whatsoever. He had no idea if the detective really had the video he was threatening to have, yet he feared nothing. Instead, he was encouraged by the fact there might have been video confirmation of his innocence.

All that is far more persuasive to me than someone telling a story on the stand to save their skin 17 months later. I saw a lot of people lie on the stand the last few weeks.

ETA: He also had no idea how to tell a lie that would add up perfectly with a 911 call recording screaming and the gun shot that he had no idea existed. His behavior with the police every step of the way was consistent with his story and that of an innocent man.

[In the Corn]

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

...in self-defense according to the law.

I'm not saying what Zimmerman did was morally right, but who gets to make that decision?

[Fresno Bob]

...in self-defense according to the law.

I'm not saying what Zimmerman did was morally right, but who gets to make that decision?

I just find it so strange that I can 100% instigate a conflict with an unarmed person outside of my home, shoot them, and declare "self-defense".

[Lucky]

On the stand now, he's also far more likely to be able to have his story memorized, and assuming for the moment he didn't tell the truth, his lies structured and put together to match the evidence he now knows inside and out. The moment the first officer was on the scene and while giving all his statements and re-enactments to the police, he had no idea who saw and heard what and who said what to the police. There were residences and windows surrounding the location of the incident. He had no idea if someone saw him lurking and stalking Trayvon with his gun drawn. He had no idea if someone saw him chasing after a fleeing Trayvon with his gun drawn. He had no idea if someone saw him throw the first punch, the first punch that left no mark or bruise on Trayvon whatsoever. He had no idea if the detective really had the video he was threatening to have, yet he feared nothing. Instead, he was encouraged by the fact there might have been video confirmation of his innocence.

All that is far more persuasive to me than someone telling a story on the stand to save their skin 17 months later. I saw a lot of people lie on the stand the last few weeks.

You are obviously heavily invested in the Zimmerman defense, which is okay, but you come off sounding foolish by minimizing the significance of having a defendant on the stand being cross-examined by a trained prosecutor. It doesn't matter how much they "know" the evidence or how much they have been prepared and coached by their lawyers. Once they are up there on the stand, they have to speak for themselves.

The statistics for convictions/acquittals are amazing when the defendant takes the stand. I haven't seen the numbers in a while, but I remember that, as a prosecutor, all I wanted was for that defendant to testify. It doesn't matter how smart they are (and Zimmerman didn't seem smart). When the prosecutor gets to ask the questions, things go to sh*t quickly for the defense.

I'm sure you've noticed a lot of high-profile cases where the lawyers say "our client can't wait to get on the stand and clear his name", but they never do. I'm sure you noticed what happened to O.J. in his civil trial when he had no choice but to take the stand and be questioned by good attorneys.

It's a good thing that most prosecutors are very ethical, because a really good one can convict almost anyone in the courtroom if he can get them on the stand, including the defense lawyer.

[TopChuckie]

It's a good thing that most prosecutors are very ethical, because a really good one can convict almost anyone in the courtroom if he can get them on the stand, including the defense lawyer.

Exactly. A good lawyer can make any regular old citizen look guilty. You feel good about that?

ETA: You never did respond to my questions about the tactics used by the prosecution in this case. I don't think these prosecutors were ethical. I am only invested in the Zimmerman defense because I watched the trial and I believe it is the right side. The side that conducted itself honestly and ethically. I don't own a gun and would lean more towards the less guns, the less shootings there would be, but Zimmerman was allowed to have that gun and I don't believe he broke ANY laws that night. I believe the entire prosecution was politically motivated and politics and prosecution should not mix. I would think a judge should agree with that.

ETAA: I also believe it's quite possible if Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night he would be the one that is dead or severely injured. He was clearly injured and the evidence suggests he made no other headway in defending himself by returning some physical force on Martin or being able to get away, so had the gun not been present, when would Martin have stopped the beating?

[Fresno Bob]

ETAA: I also believe it's quite possible if Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night he would be the one that is dead or severely injured. He was clearly injured and the evidence suggests he made no other headway in defending himself by returning some physical force on Martin or being able to get away, so had the gun not been present, when would Martin have stopped the beating?

I believe that it is quite possible that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, no one would be dead, because he would have never gotten out of his car to confront someone walking on the street.

[Mithrandir]

I believe that it is quite possible that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, no one would be dead, because he would have never gotten out of his car to confront someone walking on the street.

Exactly.

[TopChuckie]

I believe that it is quite possible that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, no one would be dead, because he would have never gotten out of his car to confront someone walking on the street.

Or he didn't get out to confront him, he got out to keep tabs on his whereabouts until the police showed up, the police he called and knew were on the way, which is just about the worst thing to do before you intend to commit a murder.

[Roto Rooter]

I'm pretty sure when you get charged with a crime it's tried in a court of law not a court of morals.

[Roto Rooter]

I believe that it is quite possible that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, no one would be dead, because he would have never gotten out of his car to confront someone walking on the street.

Fresno how much of this case did you actually watch and/or research? At least Long John admitted he was full of shit and had no place commenting on it.

[Fresno Bob]

Fresno how much of this case did you actually watch and/or research? At least Long John admitted he was full of shit and had no place commenting on it.

I watched none and researched very little, so I'm full of shit....but again, I still don't get how I can 100% instigate a conflict with an unarmed person when I have a gun, shoot them, and claim self-defense....the very fact that I'm instigating a conflict should show some premeditation/bump to manslaughter/take self defense off the table

people still think the US is a racist society, I disagree, the US is a "class society" in the marxist sense.....if that was my son dead, Zimmerman doesn't get off thanks to the "special legal assistance" my funds would have provided to the prosecution

[Lucky]

Exactly. A good lawyer can make any regular old citizen look guilty. You feel good about that?

ETA: You never did respond to my questions about the tactics used by the prosecution in this case. I don't think these prosecutors were ethical. I am only invested in the Zimmerman defense because I watched the trial and I believe it is the right side. The side that conducted itself honestly and ethically. I don't own a gun and would lean more towards the less guns, the less shootings there would be, but Zimmerman was allowed to have that gun and I don't believe he broke ANY laws that night. I believe the entire prosecution was politically motivated and politics and prosecution should not mix. I would think a judge should agree with that.

ETAA: I also believe it's quite possible if Zimmerman didn't have a gun that night he would be the one that is dead or severely injured. He was clearly injured and the evidence suggests he made no other headway in defending himself by returning some physical force on Martin or being able to get away, so had the gun not been present, when would Martin have stopped the beating?

Yeah, that's one of the things wrong with the system. It is too easy to make things look different from the way they are. I don't think anyone should feel good about that, but I have seen it over and over.

The prosecutor's job is much different than the defense lawyer. The prosecutor's job is not simply to convict the defendant...the prosecutor's job is to make certain justice is done. I don't have a problem with prosecutors being emotionally invested in their cases (although I think it can dull your judgement), but I believe strongly that a prosecutor's case should be based upon facts and evidence, rather than an appeal to the emotions of the jury. In fact, that is one of the grounds to have a verdict set aside...that the prosecution played unduly to the emotions of the jury.

Different prosecutors take different approaches. My approach was to be as logical as possible...show that there could be no other logical possibility but that the defendant did it. Of course, that meant I had to dismiss a lot of cases before trial, when it was clear that no amount of trying would establish that logical proof.

The Zimmerman case pretty much had to be tried, IMO. When you have a killing, no eye-witnesses other than the survivor, and physical evidence open to numerous interpretations, that's something a jury needs to decide rather than a prosecutor. So I don't blame the prosecutors for bringing the case. I would have done things a lot differently, but we're not privy to every single ruling or nuance of the case, just what is broadcast or reported in the media. And the media almost always is screwed up when reporting legal cases. I especially cringe at the late night legal talking heads they get. They seem to mostly be promoting themselves.

Bottom line: the jury has spoken. We should see if there is anything to learn from this case from a policy/procedure standpoint. No winners here.

[bryanbutler]

I'm pretty sure when you get charged with a crime it's tried in a court of law not a court of morals.

i didn't claim he was a criminal, i claimed he was immoral.

to answer ITCs question about who decides what is moral, well, that has several levels. it's certainly socio-cultural. but it varies all the way from national to regional to down to neighborhoods in that sense. what i'm talking about is my own moral compass. to me, what zimmerman did is immoral. to RR it's not, apparently because it's "legal." again, i claim a disconnect between legal and moral, at least in some cases. is it legal to go over the speed limit? no. is it immoral? no. is it legal to murder someone? no. is it immoral? yes. is it legal to do what zimmerman did? apparently, at least in some places in the U.S. is it immoral? yes. according to my own moral compass.

when you're teaching children what's right and wrong, it's inconceivable to me that you could include a description of this event and say there is anything remotely "right" about the actions of zimmerman. there is no place for vigilantism in civilized society.

[TranaGreg]

...
when you're teaching children what's right and wrong, it's inconceivable to me that you could include a description of this event and say there is anything remotely "right" about the actions of zimmerman. there is no place for vigilantism in civilized society.

Well said.