- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,203
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?
I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible. But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.
Prosecutors are at a distinct legal disadvantage.
Trayvon Martin's Mother Offers Emotional Testimony in Murder TrialWatch Video
George Zimmerman Trial Day 9: Prosecution Rests Its Case Watch Video
Trayvon Martin's Mother, Brother Testify Watch Video
They have the burden to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" that the gunshot was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself. That is no easy feat based on the evidence presented in their case. Almost every prosecution witness was called to discredit the only eyewitness who unquestionably saw everything that occurred that night, George Zimmerman.
The essence of Zimmerman's account is basically as follows:
He spotted Martin, became suspicious, called police, was told he didn't need to follow him, was only out of his car to give the authorities an address, was jumped and then pummeled by Martin and as he was being punched and having his head knocked into the ground, Martin went for Zimmerman's firearm and Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.
The prosecution, on the other hand, called 38 witnesses to try to show: Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who regularly reported black strangers in his neighborhood; initiated and was at least at one point, on top during the encounter; that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and that many aspects of his accounts to the police and media were inconsistent and/or lies.
For a moment, lets put aside the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another.
As a legal matter, even if jurors find parts of Zimmerman's story fishy, that is not enough to convict. Even if they believe that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, and that his injuries were relatively minor, that too would be insufficient evidence to convict.
George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why - ABC News
So here we have Dan Abrams, a "journalist" whom from the start was like many other MSM reporters, on TM's side and partly responsible for stirring up the hornets nest surrounding this case...Now even he, is saying that Z will walk....Question is, when will the rest of the TM supporters start to wake up and at least familiarize themselves with the legal standards they have to jump here?