The critical factor in the Zimmerman case?

[Bob N]

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.

Your opinion, just like mine, is duly noted.

 

[Grim17]

Your opinion, just like mine, is duly noted.

Go back and watch the testimony for yourself... Every bit of it is on youtube.

 

[apdst]

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?

He didn't break the law.

 

[Paratrooper]

In my mind and many who were looking at this from a legal (not emotional) standpoint it was simply the fact that there was a lot of gray area that could not be cleared up.

Who initiated the confrontation? Who was screaming for help? Did Zimmerman racially profile Martin or was he just a concerned citizen.

People had strong opinions on one side or the other on what they thought happened. There was no video footage of the incident that could "prove" what actually happened.

Our legal system gives the benefit of doubt to the defendant "innocent until "proven" guilty".

They had to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and I think the Defense created plenty of doubt that the incident did not go down the way the prosecution claimed.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

If you read all the other threads here about the case I think most of your questions will be answered.

 

[Jerry]

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?

Since the verdict is in, I'm not taking the time to compose a well sourced post which both explains our legal syston and recaps the Zimmerman trial, which is extencive.

 

[Grim17]

Here you go... Here's is a minute and nine second example of why George Zimmerman was found not guilty. There are plenty of other examples out there, but this one really speaks volumes... Just listen to what the lead detective, who interviewed Zimmerman 3 different times and did the walk around with him, said on the stand about Mr. Zimmerman:

 

[274ina]

2nd murder charges have a very high standard to prove.

"depraved indifference" is one of them and was IMPOSIBLE to prove in this case.

Self defence on the other hand was easly proved.

Smashed head of Zimmerman says it all.

and the law
"776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

 

[jetski]

Here you go... Here's is a minute and nine second example of why George Zimmerman was found not guilty. There are plenty of other examples out there, but this one really speaks volumes... Just listen to what the lead detective, who interviewed Zimmerman 3 different times and did the walk around with him, said on the stand about Mr. Zimmerman:

thats very useful. thank you.

 

[Zyphlin]

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?

The Prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman did one of two things depending on the two main charges...

Murder 2: They needed to show that he acted in an imminently dangerous way to Trayvon while eivincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.

Manslaughter: They needed to show that Trayvon's death was through culpable negligence on Zimmerman's part AND that the death was not legally justified.

The Defense posited that George Zimmerman acted in self defense; that Trayvon Martin at some point became the aggressor and posed a threat to Zimmerman's life or of severe bodily harm at which point Zimmerman's shooting of him was justified under the law.

The Prosecution needed to prove their case for Murder 2 or Manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, so they had to counter the Defenses assertion of self defense to the point where the Jury did not have a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense.

Even if the Jury felt that it was plausible, but less likely than not, that Zimmerman was acting in self defense, then they have a "reasonable doubt" and it would still be an aquittal.

 

[ARealConservative]

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 should sue, but that doesn't excuse your ignorance in this situation. it was very easy to see through the media manipulation

 

[ric27]

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?

What starts wrong ends wrong

Staring with, the affidavit *the critical factor*. The warrant for Z's arrest did nothing more than establish that Z killed M, which Z accepted from the get go. It did not come close to making the case a crime was committed (second degree murder, or even manslaughter) that Z killing M wasn't *legally* justified.

The state's argument tried to make Z as the aggressor *somehow* because Z followed M and *somehow* that put M in fear of imminent physical harm giving M, the right *somehow* to respond to the perceived threat with force.

The state had a lot of ifs, somehows, assumptions but no evidence to refute Z's account

The prosecution had to prove Z's guilt at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt and disprove self-defense.

The jury had doubt because, the state created the doubt thus, the defendant was acquitted.

 

[jetski]

The Prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman did one of two things depending on the two main charges...

Murder 2: They needed to show that he acted in an imminently dangerous way to Trayvon while eivincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.

Manslaughter: They needed to show that Trayvon's death was through culpable negligence on Zimmerman's part AND that the death was not legally justified.

The Defense posited that George Zimmerman acted in self defense; that Trayvon Martin at some point became the aggressor and posed a threat to Zimmerman's life or of severe bodily harm at which point Zimmerman's shooting of him was justified under the law.

The Prosecution needed to prove their case for Murder 2 or Manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, so they had to counter the Defenses assertion of self defense to the point where the Jury did not have a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense.

Even if the Jury felt that it was plausible, but less likely than not, that Zimmerman was acting in self defense, then they have a "reasonable doubt" and it would still be an aquittal.

Great answer. Thank you.

I dont like kissing mod arse, but there you go.

What starts wrong ends wrong

Staring with, the affidavit *the critical factor*. The warrant for Z's arrest did nothing more than establish that Z killed M, which Z accepted from the get go. It did not come close to making the case a crime was committed (second degree murder, or even manslaughter) that Z killing M wasn't *legally* justified.

The state's argument tried to make Z as the aggressor *somehow* because Z followed M and *somehow* that put M in fear of imminent physical harm giving M, the right *somehow* to respond to the perceived threat with force.

The state had a lot of ifs, somehows, assumptions but no evidence to refute Z's account

The prosecution had to prove Z's guilt at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt and disprove self-defense.

The jury had doubt because, the state created the doubt thus, the defendant was acquitted.

How much of it was due to the fact the key prosecution witness was dead though?

 

[CRUE CAB]

anyone?

The critical factor is simple, Zimmerman was not prepared to face anyone that he followed or called the police about.
As concealed carry people, your first course of responsiblity is to not fire at will or use your permit as a badge and realize you are NOT police officer.
That said, Zimmermans actions were not illegal. Ill advised, not illegal.
It starts with the responsibility of the consealed carry individual.

 

[ric27]

The critical factor is simple, Zimmerman was not prepared to face anyone that he followed or called the police about.
As concealed carry people, your first course of responsiblity is to not fire at will or use your permit as a badge and realize you are NOT police officer.
That said, Zimmermans actions were not illegal. Ill advised, not illegal.
It starts with the responsibility of the consealed carry individual.

Wrong....everything Z did was within the law and reasonable

The only fault was Z not seeking counsel immediately

Great answer. Thank you.

I dont like kissing mod arse, but there you go.





How much of it was due to the fact the key prosecution witness was dead though?

The prosecution plus forensic evidence spoke for the departed but the evidence was overwhelming in Z's favor

The evidence clearly showed M assaulted Z without adequate provocation

 

[CRUE CAB]

Wrong....everything Z did was within the law and reasonable

The only fault was Z not seeking counsel immediately

Zimmerman pushed an issue he had no business pushing.
Iam 50 and have called 911 about 5 times in my life. And at least 3 of them were for bad accidents.
Zimmerman called 911 50 times in the last few years.
Is it reasonable to be that out of shape and yet wish to persue "criminals" or suspisious persons in your neighborhood.
Its it reasonale to be taken to the ground by a 17 year old or allow him within arms reach or turn your back when said 17 year old is engaging you running his mouth?

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Zimmerman pushed an issue he had no business pushing.
Iam 50 and have called 911 about 5 times in my life. And at least 3 of them were for bad accidents.
Zimmerman called 911 50 times in the last few years.
Is it reasonable to be that out of shape and yet wish to persue "criminals" or suspisious persons in your neighborhood.
Its it reasonale to be taken to the ground by a 17 year old or allow him within arms reach or turn your back when said 17 year old is engaging you running his mouth?

Non-emergency police numbers are not "911" and it is reasonable to call the non-emergency number to report suspicious activity when your neighbors give you that responsibility.
It is reasonable for a person, while going to the store, to make sure a suspicious person they see in their neighborhood isn't about to break into a neighbors house. It is especially reasonable when you are given the responsibility by your neighbors to be on the lookout for suspicious people.
Are you really asking if it is reasonable for a person to be attacked?

How about is it reasonable to beat the living **** out of someone for watching you at a distance.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Non-emergency police numbers are not "911" and it is reasonable to call the non-emergency number to report suspicious activity when your neighbors give you that responsibility.
It is reasonable for a person, while going to the store, to make sure a suspicious person they see in their neighborhood isn't about to break into a neighbors house. It is especially reasonable when you are given the responsibility by your neighbors to be on the lookout for suspicious people.
Are you really asking if it is reasonable for a person to be attacked?

How about is it reasonable to beat the living **** out of someone for watching you at a distance.

Not reasonable to be attacked, but you need to be prepared for it beyond just having a gun.

 

[ric27]

Zimmerman pushed an issue he had no business pushing.
Iam 50 and have called 911 about 5 times in my life. And at least 3 of them were for bad accidents.
Zimmerman called 911 50 times in the last few years.
Is it reasonable to be that out of shape and yet wish to persue "criminals" or suspisious persons in your neighborhood.
Its it reasonale to be taken to the ground by a 17 year old or allow him within arms reach or turn your back when said 17 year old is engaging you running his mouth?

You seem confused between your personal view *your morals* and the law

Something immoral, but not illegal....where you can be arrested for doing *bad* things and not others?

 

[CRUE CAB]

You seem confused between your personal view *your morals* and the law

Something immoral, but not illegal....where you can be arrested for doing *bad* things and not others?

I have brought no personal morals in to it at all.
But I have brought in personal responsibility. Zim lacked that. So did Trayvon, but that was a given based on his past.

 

[Grim17]

Zimmerman pushed an issue he had no business pushing.

Sorry, but I don't follow...

Iam 50 and have called 911 about 5 times in my life. And at least 3 of them were for bad accidents.

Is someone conducting a survey?

Zimmerman called 911 50 times in the last few years.

Really... That many times huh? Are you sure he didn't call the non-emergency number?

Is it reasonable to be that out of shape and yet wish to persue "criminals" or suspisious persons in your neighborhood.

I wasn't aware he persued anyone... Where did you get that info from?

Its it reasonale to be taken to the ground by a 17 year old or allow him within arms reach or turn your back when said 17 year old is engaging you running his mouth?

I see what you mean... He should have been convicted of murder because Martin took him down. Your wisdom is simply dazzling

<sarcasm off>

 

[ARealConservative]

Zimmerman pushed an issue he had no business pushing.
Iam 50 and have called 911 about 5 times in my life. And at least 3 of them were for bad accidents.
Zimmerman called 911 50 times in the last few years.
Is it reasonable to be that out of shape and yet wish to persue "criminals" or suspisious persons in your neighborhood.
Its it reasonale to be taken to the ground by a 17 year old or allow him within arms reach or turn your back when said 17 year old is engaging you running his mouth?

he had every right to follow a punk in public spheres.

maybe you wouldn't do that, and you have the right to not do so,. but you don't have the right to stop Z from doing it. and you can't come here and lie about the laws.

 

[CRUE CAB]

he had every right to follow a punk in public spheres.

maybe you wouldn't do that, and you have the right to not do so,. but you don't have the right to stop Z from doing it. and you can't come here and lie about the laws.

What law did I lie about?
I never said Zimmerman broke the law.

 

[ARealConservative]

What law did I lie about?
I never said Zimmerman broke the law.

Zimmerman pushed an issue he had no business pushing.

that is bull****. he pushed an issue he as every business pushing

 

[CRUE CAB]

Sorry, but I don't follow...




Is someone conducting a survey?




Really... That many times huh? Are you sure he didn't call the non-emergency number?



I wasn't aware he persued anyone... Where did you get that info from?




I see what you mean... He should have been convicted of murder because Martin took him down. Your wisdom is simply dazzling

<sarcasm off>

Calling the police at all, I see you like to split hairs.
Zimmerman pushed an issue with someone that he had no way to control or fend off except with a gun.
Persue, follow, stalk,hunt whatever you want to call it. He, again, had no way of fighting Trayvon off other than to shoot him.
He was and is an out of shape fat ass.
And never once did I say he should have been convicted, you seem to like to read things into posts that are not there.