• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another Judge blows it big time

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.

Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction

Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.

here is a small portion

Because jury deliberations are secret, and no jurors (as of this writing) have spoken publicly about deliberations, it is impossible to know the basis for the jury's acquittal. But let me explain why the verdict might have boiled down to jury instructions. The state asked the court to instruct the jury not only about the justification of self-defense, which favored Zimmerman in the ways described above, but also about its initial aggressor limitation. (View the state's argument here, beginning at 3:00.) According to the state, the jury might have concluded that Zimmerman provoked any physical response from Martin by following him. If a jury could reasonably find an instruction applicable, the instruction should be given.
The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. (See the defense argument here.) As a factual matter, the defense argued that no evidence indicated that Zimmerman physically initiated the confrontation. As a legal matter, the defense relied on Gibbs v. State, a 2001 decision from the Fourth Division of the Florida Court of Appeals, which held that a defendant loses the right to self-defense as an initial aggressor only if he provokes the victim's use of force through either force or "threat of force."
After Judge Nelson indicated that she understood the arguments on both sides, defense attorney Don West interjected, "Well, let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law.... That cannot be considered provocation under the law... Force means physical force or the threat of physical force...." In conclusion, he emphasized, "It would be ERROR, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice, if the state were allowed to argue that to the jury." (See 3:37 here.)
The state attempted to rebut the defense's argument by noting the defense's request for a separate instruction regarding the legality of following a person. Judge Nelson responded, "We're not there yet," then quickly ruled without elaboration: "The defense does not want to give [the initial aggressor exception]; the state does. The court is not going to give it."
The court is not going to give it.
That may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted. The end result was that jurors were told only about the parts of Florida self-defense law that benefited the defendant, without knowing anything about the most relevant potential limitation.
I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
These cases are not at all similar. First degree murder is considered the worst of all crimes. At most, I thought Zimmerman might have been convicted of negligent manslaughter.

Anyway, NV took care of OJ later. Zimmerman will be a freak for his whole life, no small punishment.




Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.

Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction

Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.

here is a small portion



I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.

Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction

Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.

here is a small portion



I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
This is bogus. The trial wouldn't even have happened if the Media, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and all of the other race baiting idiots hadn't gotten involved.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Puh-leese.... the judge gave the prosecution plenty of slack, they just didn't have a case.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,309
Reaction score
4,772
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.

Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction

Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.

here is a small portion



I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
I read what you quoted of the article, but not the entire article. It would have been error for the judge to include it. There was zero evidence that George initiated the physical encounter, and following is not enough to be considered "initial aggression" under the law. Additionally, as I recall, the instruction regarding the legality of following - as mentioned in what you quoted - was also excluded.

Unfortunately, for the author, the court can not give instructions in which there is zero evidence and unfortunately, for the prosecution, there was no evidence that George was the initial aggressor. Had they had evidence of that, it would have been included in the instructions.
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I read what you quoted of the article, but not the entire article. It would have been error for the judge to include it.
And why is that?
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,932
Reaction score
21,529
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SInce the prosecution did not present ANY evidence of "force or threat of force" the judge was correct. It was a ruling of law. Following someone does not justify violence nor constitution a "threat of force." Judges DO decide matters of law. Juries only decide questions of fact.

IF the judge found as a matter of law that following someone "constitutes threat of force?" That's justify killing about 100,000 people a day, virtually every private detective, most undercover cops, and about any jealous or suspicious husband or wife... for starters.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,309
Reaction score
4,772
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And why is that?
Because I am fairly sure you copied the most relevant portion. If I didn't read something in the article that would have changed my answer, quote it. But, the law is what the law is. Regardless of what the author of your article believes, the judge made the right decision. Any other decision would have resulted in reversal if he had been found guilty.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.

Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction

Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.

here is a small portion

I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
One very important thing you are forgetting: The state could have done a great job of arguing that during its closing. They chose not to.

I wonder why.
 

Woodman909

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2013
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
565
Location
Southwest AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What was 'blown' in this case was bringing it to trial in the first place. It was politically, and racially motivated. They had no case.. it was all for the media.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because I am fairly sure you copied the most relevant portion. If I didn't read something in the article that would have changed my answer, quote it. But, the law is what the law is. Regardless of what the author of your article believes, the judge made the right decision. Any other decision would have resulted in reversal if he had been found guilty.
And why is that?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One very important thing you are forgetting: The state could have done a great job of arguing that during its closing. They chose not to.

I wonder why.
The jury instructions were what the jury went by. And those jury instructions were flawed because we had a timid judge who was intimidated by a defense attorney..... yet again.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
28,165
Reaction score
9,777
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The jury instructions were what the jury went by. And those jury instructions were flawed because we had a timid judge who was intimidated by a defense attorney..... yet again.
You are talking about the Zimmerman trial, Correct? It sounds like you watched a different trial.
I do not think this Judge was intimidated by the defense, to me she seemed to lean towards the
prosecution.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
this stuff bugs me...

we have folks saying Zimm was not justified in shooting TM while TM was beating him up.... but they argue TM was justified in assaulting Zimm because he was simply following him.

i'm wondering what sort of "principles" these are.. what kind of retarded mind does it take to make sense of that sort of bull****?


" hey!, you can't shoot him, he's only beating you up.. take your beatings like a man!... fell free to beat someone to a pulp that is just following you , though.. that's cool"
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The whole article is well worth reading.

Thank you haymarket.

A commenter added my thoughts, which the author could have provided to add even more weight :


In addition to Zimmerman following Martin both in his car and on foot as unacknowledged potential evidence for "threat of force" under law, the fact that Zimmerman, by his own admission (see his walk through video Raw Video: George Zimmerman reenacts incident for Sanford Police - YouTube ),

reached into his clothes without warning or clarification in response to Martin asking him "if he had a problem" could easily have been used as evidence for "threat of force" in court.

Martin by this point would easily have felt threatened by Zimmerman reaching perhaps for a weapon. At 10:20 in the video Zimmerman says he "went to go grab my cell phone but I ...left it in a different pocket and I looked down at my pants pocket and he said 'You got a problem now'..."

Also Zimmerman, who has described himself as "neighborhood watch" before, did not attempt to identify himself as such to Martin during their interaction. He easily could have done so in a way that would have diffused the potential for physical violence. Zimmerman's own words reveal that he was more than ready to use his gun. - j201
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Followed in the dark by car, then on foot, and on confrontation, he reached into his pocket for his
.
 

ChrisL

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
47,571
Reaction score
16,958
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trayvon Martin led Zimmerman into a dark area so that he could physically attack him because he thought he was a "creepy ass cracker." Zimmerman had every right to defend himself using deadly force against a surprise attack. From what I gather, George had just gotten off the phone with the dispatcher and was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked.
 

ChrisL

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
47,571
Reaction score
16,958
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
From everything that I read and know about the trial, the only one who displayed a sense of racism was Trayvon.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
28,165
Reaction score
9,777
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Zimmerman is innocent in the death of Martin!
The known facts of the case have been adjudicated within
the courts designated to handle this type of case, and Zimmerman has been
found "not guilty".
In Our legal system, a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The state has been unable to prove it's case, therefore Zimmerman's being innocent,
remains intact.
Double jeopardy laws should prevent GZ from ever having his life or his livelihood
put into jeopardy over this incident.
I understand people are angry, but the anger is misplaced.
There are still examples of real racism and real racial injustice out there,
Raise the flags and sounds the horns over the real issues,
the GZ TM case is a poor standard bearer for racial injustice!
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The jury instructions were what the jury went by. And those jury instructions were flawed because we had a timid judge who was intimidated by a defense attorney..... yet again.
OMG. A timid judge. A judge who didn't want to commit reversible error. You think that woman was intimidated? On what basis do you make that assumption, Haymarket? How did she act timid? And what's with "yet again"? Judges intimidate attorneys . . . it is most certainly not the other way around.

YourStar's thread pointed out to me that we're polarized on this issue according to our lean. I honestly hadn't noticed. But I do now. I see it as Conservatives want to see justice. Liberals want the law broken and bent to fit their meme. And when it isn't broken and bent? In this case? Liberals throw everything but the damned kitchen sink at the wall to see if anything sticks. Just exactly as the prosecutor's witch hunt after some poor sap who was only trying to help his neighborhood and ****ed up.

The prosecution could have hammered your point home during the entire trial...front to back. Instead, they chose to call George Zimmerman a profiling racist...something they failed miserably to do.

TPD advances her meme that blacks are picked on and abused. Shows us some stupid article where a black man, incensed that a security guard took aside the white woman he was with and asked, "Are you okay? Are you safe?" He jumps out of the car and yells, Why the HELL did you ask her that?????" Then goes on to say, "I wanted to hit him in his ****ing face with a flashlight...." Yeah, that's normal behavior. Well, to TPD, I guess it was. And that was supposed to show all of us how blacks are devastated by "the system".

Well shut my mouth if that doesn't show us how ****ed up black men are. Not by me. Not by security guards. But by their own social construct that blames everyone but them for their so-called lot in life.

I never knew it was so bad. The race baiters have won.
 

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,309
Reaction score
4,772
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Followed in the dark by car, then on foot, and on confrontation, he reached into his pocket for his
.
The prosecution has to have evidence of such. That is how reasonable doubt is removed. This case had very little facts, which is why the prosecution had to resort to "you decide" and "look in your heart". The jury had no facts to decide anything differently then they did.
 
Last edited:

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,309
Reaction score
4,772
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trayvon Martin led Zimmerman into a dark area so that he could physically attack him because he thought he was a "creepy ass cracker." Zimmerman had every right to defend himself using deadly force against a surprise attack. From what I gather, George had just gotten off the phone with the dispatcher and was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked.
I am not certain if he was returning to his truck at the time or not (reasonable doubt), but even if George did follow trayvon, that is not provocation under the law. But, even if someone thought it was, once Trayvon escalated the situation, George had the right to act in SD. That is the law in FL.
 

Jack Fabulous

Friend Zone
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
15,277
Reaction score
5,543
Location
midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.

Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction

Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.

here is a small portion



I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
Another shameless example of the race baiting industry at work. That's my take away from this.

Zimmerman was not guilty of the crime he was charged with and prosecuted for. It really is that simple.
Cry me a freaking river with this nonsense!
 
Top Bottom