Skip to main content

View Diary: Zimmerman not guilty, but ALEC sure as hell is (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They aren't when the shoe's on the other foot (10+ / 0-)

    Lots of Florida juries have convicted black men of murdering white people on virtually no evidence.  It keeps old Sparky busy.  But GZ killed a black person, who is apparently fair game under Florida law.

    •  GZ had a very good lawyer (3+ / 0-)

      people raised money for him.

      If GZ had a seminole county public defender, the case would have been a disaster.

      look at the Simpson case.  Best attorneys in the world,
      picking at every little hair,  raising doubt.

      OJ Simpson showed that a black man with the best lawyers
      gets the best defense,  and GZ showed that a hispanic man
      with good lawyers gets a great defense.

      However, the state did a lousy job from the start.

      •  Lame Prosecution (0+ / 0-)

        Zimmerman got one of the best defense lawyers.  The public got a local prosecutor who used to kicking ass on a public defenders who come to court without adequate resources.   Plus they had the benefit of an all white jury.  

        I was pretty sure Zimmerman would get off when the prosecutor made a knock knock joke during vioir dire.   He lost a vote or two right then.  

        •  the state sent a special prosecutor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KateCrashes

          from Tallahassee.

          The case was prosecuted by the staties, not
          the local-yokels.

          Case was a tough case to prove as we saw.

          •  It would have been much easier if they had (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Naniboujou, leema

            repeatedly stated that stalking is indicative of premeditation. The prosecution did a half-hearted job. If they had put some passion into their presentation, they would likely have won.

            •  passion won't win a case. (0+ / 0-)

              facts and the law will.

              Defense lawyers use passion.

              The state apparently didn't have their witnesses
              well briefed.  When a state witness testifies that
              they thought TM was on top of Zimmerman,
              that's a problem

              when the state's witness can't identify the scream on
              the tape as TM, that's a problem.

              when the state's witness can't determine the body posture
              of the shot.  that's a problem

              They say, if the facts are against you argue the law.

              If the law is against you, argue the facts.

              If the law and facts are against you, shout and wave your hands.

            •  stalking may be premeditation (0+ / 0-)

              but GZ didn't meet the stalking statutes.

              A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
              (3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
              Didn't meet the test for stalking...
              •  That should not have stopped the prosecution from (0+ / 0-)

                slipping it in. Clearly, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. Perhaps the prosecution should have spend more time deciding what charges would be brought against him.

                •  that would be grounds for appeal. (0+ / 0-)

                  the judge was running a tight ship
                  kept a lot of evidence out and shut down
                  a lot of lines of argument.

                  the prosecution could have argued GZ wanted to
                  rob TM and that would be grounds for felony murder.

                  the state had no evidence for that, so, they weren't allowed
                  the argument.

                  last thing any judge wanted would be to lose this
                  on appeal and have to run the trial again.

                  especially on prosecutorial misconduct

                •  No he didn't. (0+ / 0-)

                  George Martin called the police when he saw a suspicious person (a black man that wasn't a known neighborhood resident, wandering around the rain) and then briefly pursued (as in 25-40 yds. total) said suspicious person when THEY took off running.

              •  Is the phrase "repeatedly follows" throwing your (0+ / 0-)

                understanding off? I can see how that would happen. But think of a tiger stalking some prey. Would the tiger have to continue that stalking behavior on multiple occasions before it would be deemed stalking?
                Remember what Dickens had a character say? "...the law is a ass." If laws were easily interpreted and could be clearly understood by the average person, there would be no need for lawyers, as there would be no wiggle room which is a saving grace sometimes.

                •  saving grace (0+ / 0-)

                  is what people want.

                  you appear to have some problem with the law, and
                  if you wish you can modify the law, but it is what it is
                  today.

                  the stalking statute requires "Repeatedly follows"
                  and appears to be of the same person.

                  so for GZ to follow TM one time, isn't legally stalking.

          •  Prosecution (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ahianne

            Once one witness said he thought Martin was on top beating down ZM, it was a hard case to win in a criminal court.    One witness is enough for even a half competent defense lawyer to create some doubt.

            That being said, I've tried cases myself, what I saw of the prosecutors in this case impressed me not, and as a general comment, prosecutors usually have things pretty easy and get squashed when they meet up with a fully financed defense team.   That was part of what happened in the OJ trial for sure.  

            I dont understand why the prosecutors did not use the SYG statutes to argue that even if TM confronted GZ, such actions were fully legal.   I go more by logic--my own anyway-- and I just dont think the prosecutors made a good presentation.  Reasonable minds can differ and its easy to 2nd guess someone who lost.

        •  the knock-knock joke (4+ / 0-)

          was made by Zimmerman's attorney.

        •  Lame comment (0+ / 0-)

          It was a defense attorney, Don West, who made that lame knock-knock joke. Please, do share your other keen insights into the trial with us.

      •  Alan Gershowitz was on Friday (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        patbahn, PsychoSavannah

        saying that the trial was a travesty, it should never have happened, and that at the very least the judge should have directed a not guilty verdict and canceled the rest of the proceedings.

        (He said this on Michael Smerconish's radio program, who repeated it while guest hosting for Tweety).

        Oh, wait, he's one of the guys that got O.J. off.

        So at least we know where he's coming from.

        Marry the one you love, not the one a bigot says you're allowed to love.

        by lotac on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:58:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dershowitz has a point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne

          i thought the state didn't do a good job.

          now to meet a summary judgement or
          MJOA(Modified Judgement of Acquittal),
          the judge needs to look at the evidence in
          the light most favorable to the state.

          The state had

          GZ with a gun, that fired the shot.

          GZ was not law enforcement,

          evidence of a fight between the two of them.

          evidence GZ was following TM.

          that's probably enough to sustain the states case but barely.

          the defense took that apart.

      •  He practically had the whole Klan raising money (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashy

        for his defense.  He was a pet cause of the extreme right and racists.  So he could afford dumb-ass animations, forensic scientists spewing confusion, and all the legal help money could buy.

        The prosecutor was used to putting black people in front of a white jury for automatic conviction, or offering a plea bargain to a very long term.  If they insisted on their innocence, then it was like "trial by water", where floating proved that someone was a witch, and only drowning indicated innocence.

        With a basically-white defendant (Peruvians are not a significant ethnic group in Florida, and GZ clearly identified as white), the burden of proof shifted about 175 degrees.

        •  you judge the man not his supporters (0+ / 0-)

          you would have thought there were pictures of GZ
          wearing a white robe, or dancing in his storm trooper outfit
          or raising money for david duke.

          The state never had that, so they were stuck to
          "Fucking Assholes" and "Punks" and
          "He looks black".

          That's not a pattern of racist behaviour.

          the Seminole county prosecutor didn't like the case,
          so people protested and the state sent down a special
          prosecutor.

          now people don't like that.  

      •  OJ got off b'cuz (0+ / 0-)

        law enforcement tried to frame a guilty man

        quite the opposite in the trial of george-stalker-zimmerman

        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

        by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:46:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site