Probably cause hearing. Chief Investigator was on the stand. Zimmerman's attorney asked him one single question: "You don't really know how the altercation started, do you?"
Chief Investigator's answer: "NO."
Isn't that interesting. All the people who have already found him guilty or innocent and it's quite possible this won't even go to trial.
Just so folks know, there is only ONE witness as to how the altercation started....Zimmerman. And under Florida law, if the defense can show based on a preponderance of the evidence (not even beyond reasonable doubt....this is the lowest burden possible) that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of losing his life or having great bodily harm caused, this thing is pretty much OVER.
I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic convinced they had it figured out. I'm not even saying he's not guilty. I'm saying the legal system is complicated and you have to let things play out (said that from the beginning).
This isn't a slam dunk, but it's looking like it might be an alley oop.
Probably cause hearing. Chief Investigator was on the stand. Zimmerman's attorney asked him one single question: "You don't really know how the altercation started, do you?"
Chief Investigator's answer: "NO."
Isn't that interesting. All the people who have already found him guilty or innocent and it's quite possible this won't even go to trial.
Just so folks know, there is only ONE witness as to how the altercation started....Zimmerman. And under Florida law, if the defense can show based on a preponderance of the evidence (not even beyond reasonable doubt....this is the lowest burden possible) that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of losing his life or having great bodily harm caused, this thing is pretty much OVER.
I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic convinced they had it figured out. I'm not even saying he's not guilty. I'm saying the legal system is complicated and you have to let things play out (said that from the beginning).
This isn't a slam dunk, but it's looking like it might be an alley oop.
Is there one person who participated in the Zimmerman debate so far that mentioned there would be a probable cause hearing...and what the ramifications from that might be?
I certainly wasn't one. If anyone did, please post a link to the thread where you did. The rest of us might learn something.
Is there one person who participated in the Zimmerman debate so far that mentioned there would be a probable cause hearing...and what the ramifications from that might be?
I certainly wasn't one. If anyone did, please post a link to the thread where you did. The rest of us might learn something.
Probably cause hearing. Chief Investigator was on the stand. Zimmerman's attorney asked him one single question: "You don't really know how the altercation started, do you?"
Chief Investigator's answer: "NO."
Isn't that interesting. All the people who have already found him guilty or innocent and it's quite possible this won't even go to trial.
Just so folks know, there is only ONE witness as to how the altercation started....Zimmerman. And under Florida law, if the defense can show based on a preponderance of the evidence (not even beyond reasonable doubt....this is the lowest burden possible) that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of losing his life or having great bodily harm caused, this thing is pretty much OVER.
I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic convinced they had it figured out. I'm not even saying he's not guilty. I'm saying the legal system is complicated and you have to let things play out (said that from the beginning).
This isn't a slam dunk, but it's looking like it might be an alley oop.
Can't wait for Scal to weigh in on this one.
It is funny how people (some on this site) were not even there and yet seem so sure and opinionated on what happened...
You see them here... the real wackos that are obsessed with this case that are posting compulsively on every little possible tidbit of info that might confirm their preconceived assumptions...
I am not black so it is hard for me to join in the african american outrage... but I am also not racist so it is hard for me to jump on the zimmerman bandwagon in the manner which the real wacko-nutjobs seem to have on this site...
I have always thought of this as simply a case that the judicial/court process will decide... I think that alot of posters on this site in their strong emotional stances on the issue have exposed themselves
Probably cause hearing. Chief Investigator was on the stand. Zimmerman's attorney asked him one single question: "You don't really know how the altercation started, do you?"
Chief Investigator's answer: "NO."
Isn't that interesting. All the people who have already found him guilty or innocent and it's quite possible this won't even go to trial.
Just so folks know, there is only ONE witness as to how the altercation started....Zimmerman. And under Florida law, if the defense can show based on a preponderance of the evidence (not even beyond reasonable doubt....this is the lowest burden possible) that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of losing his life or having great bodily harm caused, this thing is pretty much OVER.
I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic convinced they had it figured out. I'm not even saying he's not guilty. I'm saying the legal system is complicated and you have to let things play out (said that from the beginning).
This isn't a slam dunk, but it's looking like it might be an alley oop.
Can't wait for Scal to weigh in on this one.
It is funny how people (some on this site) were not even there and yet seem so sure and opinionated on what happened...
You see them here... the real wackos that are obsessed with this case that are posting compulsively on every little possible tidbit of info that might confirm their preconceived assumptions...
I am not black so it is hard for me to join in the african american outrage... but I am also not racist so it is hard for me to jump on the zimmerman bandwagon in the manner which the real wacko-nutjobs seem to have on this site...
I have always thought of this as simply a case that the judicial/court process will decide... I think that alot of posters on this site in their strong emotional stances on the issue have exposed themselves
No, but you are el stupido, suggesting that anyone that pointed out that TM wasn't the angelic looking kid in the early photos and that Zimmerman today hardly resembles the media posted picture, must be a racist. The mainstream media clearly rushed to judgement and tried its best to paint Zimmerman as a murderer.
No, but you are el stupido, suggesting that anyone that pointed out that TM wasn't the angelic looking kid in the early photos and that Zimmerman today hardly resembles the media posted picture, must be a racist. The mainstream media clearly rushed to judgement and tried its best to paint Zimmerman as a murderer.
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
First she has to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" the shooting was necessary.
"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree..."
Then she has to prove "depraved mind."
Without a suprise eyewitness, I don't see how she possibly gets a conviction.
Note, there will be multiple hearings over the next month. Zimmerman is charged with a non-bondable offense. So there will be an Arthur Hearing.
At the Arthur Hearing, the State must prove the case to the judge by a standard known as "proof evident, presumption great." The hearing, which is like a mini-trial, the State must present its evidence to show that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is great.
This will be our first chance to get insight into the evidence the state collected. Should be in the 2nd week of May...
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
First she has to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" the shooting was necessary.
"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree..."
Then she has to prove "depraved mind."
Without a suprise eyewitness, I don't see how she possibly gets a conviction.
Note, there will be multiple hearings over the next month. Zimmerman is charged with a non-bondable offense. So there will be an Arthur Hearing.
At the Arthur Hearing, the State must prove the case to the judge by a standard known as "proof evident, presumption great." The hearing, which is like a mini-trial, the State must present its evidence to show that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is great.
This will be our first chance to get insight into the evidence the state collected. Should be in the 2nd week of May...
Not at all. The way the law reads, Z's lawyer only has to show beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he thought his life was in danger or he risked great bodily harm. You don't have to like it, but it's the way the law reads. And since Z is the only one who can testify, don't you think it's pretty likely he's going to come up with a story (true or not) which will give the impression his life was in danger.
"He reached into his pocket and yelled out, 'I'm going to kill you,' so I rushed him and we fell to the ground," yada, yada, yada.
IF the prosecution can't get past this, the case is dead. Nothing that happened after the altercation matters any longer because under the law, Z would have the right to use deadly force.
All these so called experts here re. this case and it might get tossed out because no one except Z can testify as to how the altercation started.
And this doesn't mean I think he's innocent at all. But if just goes to show, you can't do a half hour of research and think you understand criminal law in Florida.
Not at all. The way the law reads, Z's lawyer only has to show beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he thought his life was in danger or he risked great bodily harm. You don't have to like it, but it's the way the law reads. And since Z is the only one who can testify, don't you think it's pretty likely he's going to come up with a story (true or not) which will give the impression his life was in danger.
"He reached into his pocket and yelled out, 'I'm going to kill you,' so I rushed him and we fell to the ground," yada, yada, yada.
IF the prosecution can't get past this, the case is dead. Nothing that happened after the altercation matters any longer because under the law, Z would have the right to use deadly force.
All these so called experts here re. this case and it might get tossed out because no one except Z can testify as to how the altercation started.
And this doesn't mean I think he's innocent at all. But if just goes to show, you can't do a half hour of research and think you understand criminal law in Florida.
Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.
Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.
Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.
That is exactly right.
Any self-defense claim is measured based on the subjective belief (taking into account the characteristics of the one claiming defense i.e. a 78 grandmother will have a different subjective belief of fear than a 30 year-old bodybuilder) measured against a reasonableness under the circumstances standard.
Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.
That is exactly right.
Any self-defense claim is measured based on the subjective belief (taking into account the characteristics of the one claiming defense i.e. a 78 grandmother will have a different subjective belief of fear than a 30 year-old bodybuilder) measured against a reasonableness under the circumstances standard.
Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.
I don't think that is the case, but I am not positive. An example of what you are saying might be Martin having a gun or a knife in his hand....correct? I honestly think a story like I outlined above (ie. Z says that Martin told him he was going to kill him and reached into his pocket....Z rushed him....they fell to the ground....Martin got on top of Z and banged his head on the ground......Z pulls gun and shoots Martin) might be enough.
But think about it. If Z says Martin told him he was going to kill him.....and there is proof that Martin was on top of Z and that he hit his head on the pavement (maybe multiple times)....don't you think that would pass the "preponderance of evidence" test? I really think it would.
Like I said, I don't know for sure, but I think it passes the test the way the law is laid out (based on my limited knowledge of the law, of course ).
If this thing never gets to trial because of this, one can only wonder what the reaction would be.
Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.
I don't think that is the case, but I am not positive. An example of what you are saying might be Martin having a gun or a knife in his hand....correct? I honestly think a story like I outlined above (ie. Z says that Martin told him he was going to kill him and reached into his pocket....Z rushed him....they fell to the ground....Martin got on top of Z and banged his head on the ground......Z pulls gun and shoots Martin) might be enough.
But think about it. If Z says Martin told him he was going to kill him.....and there is proof that Martin was on top of Z and that he hit his head on the pavement (maybe multiple times)....don't you think that would pass the "preponderance of evidence" test? I really think it would.
Like I said, I don't know for sure, but I think it passes the test the way the law is laid out (based on my limited knowledge of the law, of course ).
If this thing never gets to trial because of this, one can only wonder what the reaction would be.
Any self-defense claim is measured based on the subjective belief (taking into account the characteristics of the one claiming defense i.e. a 78 grandmother will have a different subjective belief of fear than a 30 year-old bodybuilder) measured against a reasonableness under the circumstances standard.
Specifically: Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense.
Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
Any self-defense claim is measured based on the subjective belief (taking into account the characteristics of the one claiming defense i.e. a 78 grandmother will have a different subjective belief of fear than a 30 year-old bodybuilder) measured against a reasonableness under the circumstances standard.
Specifically: Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense.
Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
Specifically: Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense.
Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
He can't be convicted of manslaughter even if it goes to trial because the charge is murder. And none of this means boo if it never even goes to trial.
Specifically: Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense.
Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
He can't be convicted of manslaughter even if it goes to trial because the charge is murder. And none of this means boo if it never even goes to trial.
He can't be convicted of manslaughter even if it goes to trial because the charge is murder. And none of this means boo if it never even goes to trial.
He can indeed be convicted of manslaughter. That will be part of the instructions to the jury.
He can't be convicted of manslaughter even if it goes to trial because the charge is murder. And none of this means boo if it never even goes to trial.
He can indeed be convicted of manslaughter. That will be part of the instructions to the jury.
He can indeed be convicted of manslaughter. That will be part of the instructions to the jury.
Yep.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you think that George Zimmerman did not intend to cause the death of T. Martin, but acted in a rekless manner where he exhibited a conscious disregard for T. Martin's life, you must find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter."
He can indeed be convicted of manslaughter. That will be part of the instructions to the jury.
Yep.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you think that George Zimmerman did not intend to cause the death of T. Martin, but acted in a rekless manner where he exhibited a conscious disregard for T. Martin's life, you must find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter."
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.