The critical factor in the Zimmerman case?

[jetski]

I am not American.

What are the critical factors in the zimmerman case in the official verdict of not guilty?

Not the conspiracy theory, or the extraneous circumstance.

What under US law was needed to establish guilt, and what prevented this?

 

[jetski]

anyone?

 

[Naptyme]

anyone?

Basically they had to prove Z didn't act in self defense and had a legitimate fear or serious injury or death. The evidence backed up Z's story so they ruled not guilty.

 

[sharon]

I am not American.

What are the critical factors in the zimmerman case in the official verdict of not guilty?

Not the conspiracy theory, or the extraneous circumstance.

What under US law was needed to establish guilt, and what prevented this?

Reasonable doubt.............

 

[jetski]

Reasonable doubt.............

based on what?

i dont understand american law, but what did they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that they didnt prove.

 

[niff]

I am not American.

What are the critical factors in the zimmerman case in the official verdict of not guilty?

Not the conspiracy theory, or the extraneous circumstance.

What under US law was needed to establish guilt, and what prevented this?

Quilt without reasonable doubt. Can't get any clearer than that. The jury found there was enough reasonable doubt not to convict.

 

[jetski]

Quilt without reasonable doubt. Can't get any clearer than that. The jury found there was enough reasonable doubt not to convict.

based on what was there reasonable doubt, and what was the definition of murder under state law, that needed to be proven?

 

[Oceandan]

In a nutshell.

There was a one sided fight. TM was beating GZ. GZ was on the bottom. TM was on top. GZ shot TM. The jury did not find enough evidence GZ committed a crime. We still don't know precisely what grounds they used. The law says one in that situation has the right to use lethal force if they "reasonably" fear great bodily harm or death. Thus it was a self defense case. The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ could NOT have used self defense.

Not guilty.

 

[jetski]

In a nutshell.

There was a one sided fight. TM was beating GZ. GZ was on the bottom. TM was on top. GZ shot TM. The jury did not find enough evidence GZ committed a crime. We still don't know precisely what grounds they used. The law says one in that situation has the right to use lethal force if they "reasonably" fear great bodily harm or death. Thus it was a self defense case. The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ could NOT have used self defense.

Not guilty.

isnt this predicated by the fact he stalked the boy with a gun first though and then approached him with hostility. surely trayvon could have pled that he was in fear for his life, if he had indeed killed zimmerman.

 

[Oceandan]

isnt this predicated by the fact he stalked the boy with a gun first though and then approached him with hostility. surely trayvon could have pled that he was in fear for his life, if he had indeed killed zimmerman.

None of those falsely reported claims are facts in the case.

 

[Naptyme]

isnt this predicated by the fact he stalked the boy with a gun first though and then approached him with hostility. surely trayvon could have pled that he was in fear for his life, if he had indeed killed zimmerman.

If you go by Z's story and the 911 transcript he was doing as the dispatcher told him. He reported the TM as a suspicious person and the dispatcher asked him to let him know what he was doing until an officer arrived. The dispatcher later told Z he did not need to follow him which Z said "ok" and while returning to his vehicle he was jumped by TM. The evidence seemed to back up this story.

 

[jetski]

If you go by Z's story and the 911 transcript he was doing as the dispatcher told him. He reported the TM as a suspicious person and the dispatcher asked him to let him know what he was doing until an officer arrived. The dispatcher later told Z he did not need to follow him which Z said "ok" and while returning to his vehicle he was jumped by TM. The evidence seemed to back up this story.

he needs to sue the media then.

to be honest, im in a completely different culture, but he would be doing 10 years just for having a firearm here.

 

[Naptyme]

he needs to sue the media then.

to be honest, im in a completely different culture, but he would be doing 10 years just for having a firearm here.

It is like that in a few places in the US.

 

[Bob N]

In a nutshell.

There was a one sided fight. TM was beating GZ. GZ was on the bottom. TM was on top. GZ shot TM. The jury did not find enough evidence GZ committed a crime. We still don't know precisely what grounds they used. The law says one in that situation has the right to use lethal force if they "reasonably" fear great bodily harm or death. Thus it was a self defense case. The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ could NOT have used self defense.

Not guilty.

Not to bring water back over the dam, but there were witnesses that stated that Trayvon was on top while the other one said George was on top; that alone leads me to believe that sometime there was an exchange of positions. If George, who was knowingly armed with a gun, did not wish to engage with a seventeen year old, who was unarmed, my question that burns me is why not get off of him and back away and show him your gun to bring the altercation to an end.

Both defense and prosecution did well with their presentations; there was enough from defense that would persuade me to leave out 2and degree murder, but prosecution most definitely showed numerous lies and facts that did not add up with the way George told his story that made me think that manslaughter would be the verdict.

You let me be 29 years old and have a seventeen year old be able to do that to me, I would hope to hear later on that he is at the top of his class in martial arts.

However, the verdict is in and that's just the way this thing ended. :shrug:

 

[Lutherf]

isnt this predicated by the fact he stalked the boy with a gun first though and then approached him with hostility. surely trayvon could have pled that he was in fear for his life, if he had indeed killed zimmerman.

Those factors were never proved.

Zimmerman says he was looking for an address when he got out of his car. There was also testimonial evidence that it was Trayvon that approached Zimmerman and NOWHERE was it proved that Zimmerman harbored any hostility for Trayvon until after he was on his back getting the snot beat out of him.

I suggest that you wait a week or two on this. I'm guessing that someone will put together a complete scenario based on the evidence and you'll see how this all wroked out.

 

[WCH]

he needs to sue the media then.

to be honest, im in a completely different culture, but he would be doing 10 years just for having a firearm here.

He can't sue the media...freedom of the press. He could sue the state though.

 

[Lutherf]

he needs to sue the media then.

to be honest, im in a completely different culture, but he would be doing 10 years just for having a firearm here.

Exactly.

 

[Lutherf]

He can't sue the media...freedom of the press. He could sue the state though.

And Sharpton, and Jackson and.....Obama. It's pretty damned sad when the words of our campaigner in chief serve as incentive to drag someone into criminal court without probable cause.

If there is one damned thing that this farce has proved it's that the city of Sanford got it right a year and a half ago. Zimmerman was dragged through all this crap for political reasons, not criminal ones and that's yet one more sign of an abusive government.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not to bring water back over the dam, but there were witnesses that stated that Trayvon was on top while the other one said George was on top; that alone leads me to believe that sometime there was an exchange of positions. If George, who was knowingly armed with a gun, did not wish to engage with a seventeen year old, who was unarmed, my question that burns me is why not get off of him and back away and show him your gun to bring the altercation to an end.

Both defense and prosecution did well with their presentations; there was enough from defense that would persuade me to leave out 2and degree murder, but prosecution most definitely showed numerous lies and facts that did not add up with the way George told his story that made me think that manslaughter would be the verdict.

You let me be 29 years old and have a seventeen year old be able to do that to me, I would hope to hear later on that he is at the top of his class in martial arts.

However, the verdict is in and that's just the way this thing ended. :shrug:

Can you provide links to the evidence for that assertion? You indicate that all but one witness stated that GZ was on top but I think that you will find that to be backwards - only one witness, Selma Mora, stated that TM was on top BEFORE the gunshot.

 

[WCH]

And Sharpton, and Jackson and.....Obama. It's pretty damned sad when the words of our campaigner in chief serve as incentive to drag someone into criminal court without probable cause.

If there is one damned thing that this farce has proved it's that the city of Sanford got it right a year and a half ago. Zimmerman was dragged through all this crap for political reasons, not criminal ones and that's yet one more sign of an abusive government.

Since it seems I can't edit my post, I have a correction:

Zimmerman can and will sue NBC for their 'manipulation' of the 911 call.

 

[Grim17]

I am not American.

What are the critical factors in the zimmerman case in the official verdict of not guilty?

Not the conspiracy theory, or the extraneous circumstance.

What under US law was needed to establish guilt, and what prevented this?

Reasonable doubt because the state had no case to begin with. There was no evidence or witness testimony that disproved Zimmerman's story about what happened.

 

[Oceandan]

Not to bring water back over the dam, but there were witnesses that stated that Trayvon was on top while the other one said George was on top; that alone leads me to believe that sometime there was an exchange of positions. If George, who was knowingly armed with a gun, did not wish to engage with a seventeen year old, who was unarmed, my question that burns me is why not get off of him and back away and show him your gun to bring the altercation to an end.

Both defense and prosecution did well with their presentations; there was enough from defense that would persuade me to leave out 2and degree murder, but prosecution most definitely showed numerous lies and facts that did not add up with the way George told his story that made me think that manslaughter would be the verdict.

You let me be 29 years old and have a seventeen year old be able to do that to me, I would hope to hear later on that he is at the top of his class in martial arts.

However, the verdict is in and that's just the way this thing ended. :shrug:

I'm not going to review the testimony again. Going straight from memory. I'm open to being shown I'm wrong. The one witness who you are referring to didn't say TM was on top. What she did say was the "bigger" person was on top. TM was easily taller than GZ. She also provided no other means of identifying. I believe she's also the witness who testified she saw the shooting, in which GZ was standing over TM while TM was face down on the ground when the shot rang out.

John Goode, on the other hand, actually went outside, identified the two combatants by clothing worn that night. Close enough GZ saw him come outside as GZ reported in an interview.

If, as you proffer, George "who was knowingly armed with a gun, did not wish to engage with a seventeen year old, who was unarmed" why not have your GUN out and just shoot him?

One can choose to believe whatever they wish, the facts of the case support GZ was surprised by TM, had his nose broken, had his head contact the cement at the very least three times (via the state's expert, other's say more), yelled for help, no one came, was being administered an "mma style ground and pound" (again John Goode's testimony), and was laying on his back with TM on top of him, when the shot was fired.

I believe the facts of the case support self defense.

You can choose a different belief.

 

[Bob N]

Can you provide links to the evidence for that assertion? You indicate that all but one witness stated that GZ was on top but I think that you will find that to be backwards - only one witness, Selma Mora, stated that TM was on top BEFORE the gunshot.

I heard in the trial that there was one witness that said Travon was on top just like I heard another say that George was on top. :shrug:

 

[ttwtt78640]

I heard in the trial that there was one witness that said Travon was on top just like I heard another say that George was on top. :shrug:

Care to share which just which witness stated that GZ was on top BEFORE the shot was fired?

The State did call her roommate, a blonde Colombian named Selma Mora. As Mora admitted, she and Cutcher did not see anything until after the shot was fired. When Mora did look out, she saw Zimmerman on top of Martin.

The witness Zimmerman prosecutors didn’t call

 

[Grim17]

I heard in the trial that there was one witness that said Travon was on top just like I heard another say that George was on top. :shrug:

That lady made that determination a few days later by comparing a picture of Zimmerman when he was 40 pounds heavier and pictures of Martin when his was 12 years old. She was 35 feet away from the incident, while John Good was within 15 feet of the incident, and he said Zimmerman was absolutely on the bottom, getting beat and screaming for help. She sounded unsure and confused about what she saw, while Good was absolutely certain.