GEORGE ZIMMERMAN

[Choir Loft]

The question before us today is whether we as a nation shall be ruled by the law or by the lynch mob.

At what point is Mr. Zimmerman assumed to be guilty? Is evidence sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt (that is the method of law)? Did the unanimous vote of the jury provide ample justice of innocence?

Does a man have the right to defend his own life with lethal force?

At what point does race and ignorance decide an issue instead of law, evidence and formal trial?

Does the Federal government have real jurisdiction in this case according to law or can it insinuate itself into the debate simply because it has the military power to do so?

At what point did forgiveness become an obsolete term?

[scourge99]

Zimmerman fails to find him and while walking back to his car is confronted by Trayvon.

To me, this seems the heart of it, who confronted who?

Was this question a focus of the trial, does anyone know?

Without an eyewitness or really strong evidence that can dispute Zimmerman's story, its difficult to find him guilty. And that's exactly how the trial turned out.

Remember, jurors don't vote "innocent" or "guilty". Its guilty or not guilty. They don't address the question of innocence. Kind of like how atheists "vote" god as not guilty of existing.

[keithprosser3]

Without an eyewitness or really strong evidence that can dispute Zimmerman's story, its difficult to find him guilty.

To us in the UK the issue is 'who speaks for the victim?'. Zimmerman could - and did - give us his side. Martin could not. We cannot presume Z's innocence and not grant that same privilege to M.

Martin was dead, so it was up to the system of justice itself to speak on his behalf and it let him down, not by finding Z not guilty but by denying M any defence his own innocence. Had not there been an huge outcry over that injustice, there would have been no trial to respect.

I note that there have been no serious riots at the verdict contrary to many predictions on this board. I think that is because justice has been seen to be done, which was not the case at the beginning.

[scourge99]

Without an eyewitness or really strong evidence that can dispute Zimmerman's story, its difficult to find him guilty.

To us in the UK the issue is 'who speaks for the victim?'.

The "victim" is dead. The only thing that can "speak for them" is the evidence and eyewitnesses.

The only eyewitness was Zimmerman. And the evidence available did not contradict his story. That doesn't mean he is innocent but it makes it very difficult to find him guilty.

Zimmerman could - and did - give us his side. Martin could not.

Yea, that's a limitation of being dead. You can't give your side of the story.

We cannot presume Z's innocence and not grant that same privilege to M.

In criminal cases in the USA, defendents are presumed innocent by the courts. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. So, yes, our legal system presumes Z is innocent until guilt is established "beyond reasonable doubt."

Martin was not on trial for any crimes. Martin's criminal innocence/guilt was not officially determined at the trial. Though it definitely was a subject of debate.

Martin was dead, so it was up to the system of justice itself to speak on his behalf and it let him down,not by finding Z not guilty but by denying M any defence his own innocence.

How exactly was the prosecution supposed to establish M's innocence? They did the best they could by presenting an alternative story to the one Zimmerman presented. But that's all they can do. They had no eyewitnesses or evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's story and there was no glaring contradictions or lies in Zimmerman's story.

Had not there been an huge outcry over that injustice, there would have been no trial to respect.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Trials are performed to determine the guilt of a living defendent. Not to establish the guilt/innocence of a dead person. I don't know how criminal cases are tried in the UK, but I've never heard of a dead person being tried in a criminal court to establish guilt or innocence.

I note that there have been no serious riots at the verdict contrary to many predictions on this board. I think that is because justice has been seen to be done, which was not the case at the beginning.

The prosecution did not have a strong case, regardless of whether Zimmerman is actually guilty or innocent.

[keithprosser3]

Martin was dead, so it was up to the system of justice itself to speak on his behalf and it let him down,not by finding Z not guilty but by denying M any defence his own innocence.

How exactly was the prosecution supposed to establish M's innocence?

It is my fault you misunderstand me. I do not mean that Martin might have been guilty or not guilty of anything. What I meant was that Martin had a right to 'life, liberty and the persuit of happiness'. As Martin was dead that right must be defended by the state or it does not exist.

[scourge99]

Martin was dead, so it was up to the system of justice itself to speak on his behalf and it let him down,not by finding Z not guilty but by denying M any defence his own innocence.

How exactly was the prosecution supposed to establish M's innocence?

It is my fault you misunderstand me. I do not mean that Martin might have been guilty or not guilty of anything. What I meant was that Martin had a right to 'life, liberty and the persuit of happiness'. As Martin was dead that right must be defended by the state or it does not exist.

Can you explain exactly what the state didn't do or failed to do or what you would have done if you were in the prosecutors shoes to "defend martin's life liberty and pursuit of happiness."

I want specifics. Not some vague hand waving about how they could have done better or didn't protect his rights.

[keithprosser3]

I think that 'the system' accepted Z's claim of self-defence too readily. The fact is Z got out of his car and trailed M, against police instructions. A confrontation occurred. Unfortunately for M, Z had prepared for such a confrontation by carrying a concealed weapon. This may have emboldened Z into deliberately precipitating the confrontation. In effect, Z tricked Martin into his own death and into giving Z the grounds of self-defence he needed.

Self-defence should be reserved for genuine cases, not to provide an excuse in a deliberately engineered killing. Z may not have been definitely intent on killing M, but he did nothing to avoid it and several things towards making it happen. The acceptance of his claim of self-defence was precipitate.

[scourge99]

I think that 'the system' accepted Z's claim of self-defence too readily. The fact is Z got out of his car and trailed M, against police instructions. A confrontation occurred. Unfortunately for M, Z had prepared for such a confrontation by carrying a concealed weapon. This may have emboldened Z into deliberately precipitating the confrontation. In effect, Z tricked Martin into his own death and into giving Z the grounds of self-defence he needed.

Self-defence should be reserved for genuine cases, not to provide an excuse in a deliberately engineered killing. Z may not have been definitely intent on killing M, but he did nothing to avoid it and several things towards making it happen. The acceptance of his claim of self-defence was precipitate.

Ok. You have an alternative story to the one Zimmerman told which is exactly what the prosecution did too. If you are the prosecution, what evidence do you have to back it up? Because if you don't have any hard evidence or eyewitnesses to back it up or show that Zimmerman's story is a lie, then the jury is going to acquit.

For example, you claim Zimmerman was intent on tricking Martin into a confrontation. Whereas Zimmerman claims he was attacked on the way back to his vehicle. You haven't shown any evidence to support your claim that Zimmerman intended to get in a violent confrontation besides pure speculation. In fact, considering that Zimmerman dialed the police for assistance would be contrary to your claim.

[bluethread]

It is my fault you misunderstand me. I do not mean that Martin might have been guilty or not guilty of anything. What I meant was that Martin had a right to 'life, liberty and the persuit of happiness'. As Martin was dead that right must be defended by the state or it does not exist.

Martin is dead. He can no longer be deprived of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If Zimmerman got away with murder, Martin is no worse off. If Zimmerman were wrongly sentenced, he would be unjustly deprived of life, liberty and/or the pursuit of happiness. That is why our form of justice gives the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

[keithprosser3]

Are you saying the state has no duty to the victim of a killing? I am sure you are not.

The question is whether the state (in the form of the Sanford police particularly) undertook that duty in a fair and unprejudiced manner.

It also brings up the issue of whether the rules constitute a killers charter. I can imagine deliberately goading bluethread until he threatens or performs some violent act against me, at which point I draw my concealed weapon and shoot him dead 'in self defence'.

The only living witnesses would be myself. As BT is not in a position to give his side of the story I would hope he would like the state to take strenuous efforts to discover the truth and not to take my word for it.

[Dantalion]

As I brought up in another topic,

according to the physician's testimony, the nature of zimmerman's wounds contradict his claim of his head being slammed against the pavement repeatedly.