Zimmerman Trial: Tired of media bias? See gun-friendly legal coverage

[Nick Burkhardt]

@LawSelfDefense

Thank you for keeping us updated.

How far away from Mr Zimmerman's vehicle did the confrontation take place? Did the fight begin and end in the same area?

 

[dobeman]

I always love the inadmissable evidence thing, especially when it's othewise factual information. Why hide the truth, I ask myself. For example, in interviewing for a job, company recruiters count on the fact that past performance is a good predictor of a candidate's future performance and definitely plays a role in hiring. So why hide factual aspects of a person's behavior that likely played into the situation under consideration.

 

[JGRuby]

I would think for a felony that all previous felony's that the person has been found guilty of should be admissable creating a history for the individual - for instance if a person has been found guilty of armed robbery with three counts previously and the person is on trial for robbing the local 7-11 at gun point. Why would his past not be an indication of his character and the willingness to commit robbery in the future?

James Ruby

 

[CJ1089]

I think the admission of any and all questionable behavior, to include convictions, would simply bias a jury, "once a crook always a crook". I for one would not want every mistake I had made in my twenties to be thrown in my face in a courtroom to prove my guilt if I had been in a courtroom in my thirties!!! Holy S***!! I would have convicted myself.

A question for JGR, why do you believe you have all the "facts" needed to proclaim Zimmerman's guilt? As an example, I was reading mainstream media reports of a shooting in Santa Monica the other day, for 2 days the number of people shot and the number of dead CHANGED! If this is the source of our information, and it is mine as I know nobody in Florida, then why would I trust it to solidify an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence in a capital case?

I am not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, but critical thinking is everybody's job.

 

[RB87]

I always love the inadmissable evidence thing, especially when it's othewise factual information. Why hide the truth, I ask myself. For example, in interviewing for a job, company recruiters count on the fact that past performance is a good predictor of a candidate's future performance and definitely plays a role in hiring. So why hide factual aspects of a person's behavior that likely played into the situation under consideration.

Prejudicial your honor!

Goes to intent!

Rape shield law, facts denied!

Feelings, nothing more than, feelings...

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Hey folks,


I just posted up the wrap-up for day four of jury selection in the Zimmerman case.


There were two notable events of the day.


The first was Judge Nelson's decision to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial. This decision clearly caught some of the prospective jurors off guard, creating considerable hardship for more than a few. On the other hand, several jurors had expressed concerns about their safety if their anonymity was not preserved, one that she would feel like she had a bulls-eye on her back.


On a practical note, it's unclear to me how they truly expect to remain anonymous. From the national public, sure. But nobody can realistically disappear from family and work for a two to four weeks without explaining what's up. It would seem the fact that they were a juror would inevitably get out--but maybe not until after the burning was over.


The second notable event was the questioning of E81. She looked de la Rionda straight in the eye and said she believed that Zimmerman should just go home, and that he had acted in defense of himself. When asked if he was going to have to perform "magic" to get her to change her mind she essentially told him he'd just have to do his job--work hard to convince her otherwise. (He acknowledged that the burden of proof was, indeed, on the State.)


She knew a great deal about the case. She recalled seeing the picture from Trayvon's phone of the mairjuana, and that he had gotten into trouble a few times. She had seen video of him refereeing a street fight, for sport, and believed that he was training to be a street fighter. She thought he might have been looking for a reason to fight that evening, that Trayvon became aware that he was under observation by Martin and that Trayvon had been the aggressor in the conflict.


A firm believer in gun rights and CCW, E81 said that the more guns there were out there in the hands of law abiding people, the safer it was. SHe believed that everyone who was not a felon or mentally unsound should be allowed to carry a gun.


There's more on this wonderful young woman, but you'll have to click over to the full wrap-up report, right here at Legal Insurrection, to read the rest.


Tomorrow we do another full day of live stream, all-day coverage of day two of jury selection. Be sure to join us.


Best,


Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[JGRuby]

I think the admission of any and all questionable behavior, to include convictions, would simply bias a jury, "once a crook always a crook". I for one would not want every mistake I had made in my twenties to be thrown in my face in a courtroom to prove my guilt if I had been in a courtroom in my thirties!!! Holy S***!! I would have convicted myself.

A question for JGR, why do you believe you have all the "facts" needed to proclaim Zimmerman's guilt? As an example, I was reading mainstream media reports of a shooting in Santa Monica the other day, for 2 days the number of people shot and the number of dead CHANGED! If this is the source of our information, and it is mine as I know nobody in Florida, then why would I trust it to solidify an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence in a capital case?

I am not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, but critical thinking is everybody's job.

I thought in my previous posts I had covered that pretty well. It is my opinion based on what I have read in various places. There are those that proclaim his innocents as well. That is what our court systems purpose is for.

James Ruby

 

[theficklefinger]

I hope Zimmerman has a good attorney. His case is easy is pie. The cops on the scene thought it was straight up self defence, the homicide detectives thought it was self defence....so what did they learn 6 weeks later about the altercation that all of a sudden, with a flown in prosecutor, after all the media blitz did they learn, what new evidence did they gather where Zimmerman was in the wrong.

This is a mob trial, trial by media and it really sucks to have to watch this sham.

If this had happened in Mexico, I think bang for the buck, Zimmerman could have bought off all the cops and judges for a tenth what he will have to spend defending himself in Florida for an uncertain future.

 

[fallingblock]

I hope Zimmerman has a good attorney. His case is easy is pie. The cops on the scene thought it was straight up self defence, the homicide detectives thought it was self defence....so what did they learn 6 weeks later about the altercation that all of a sudden, with a flown in prosecutor, after all the media blitz did they learn, what new evidence did they gather where Zimmerman was in the wrong.

What did they learn in 6 weeks? Travon could have been Obama's son. We had a State representative get up in the senate and pull his hoody up and we had all the Rev's beating the "IT"S A RACIAL THING" drum on every station that would listen to them...

Not to mention the cut and pasted 911 call that the media threw out there right away--LIES !!!!

There's nobody outside of the attorneys and prosecuters who know the truth at this point. There won't be one juror who isn't tainted with the lies and misinformation that has gone viral because of the likes of Obama and his statement.

I will wait and see... I have my opionion, but it's based on feelings, not facts.

Thanks for the running information LoSD

 

[michaels]

Even if Zimmerman HAD followed and "confronted" Martin, how would that constitute legal justification for Martin's deadly force attack on Zimmerman?

Umm, Stand your ground maybe?

What if Martin was scared and fearful for his life?
Wouldn't SYG apply?

The cops didn't just "let z go", there was at least one that wanted to charge him with manslaughter.

I personally feel that he killed Martin unjustified.

I can say that as a private citizen. I will not be on the jury, I'm not part of either legal team, and hell, I don't even really like florida.

I think zimmerman has some kind of domestic violence conviction and an assaulting a police officer conviction.
Will this be brought up at the courts?
Not to mention that he misled the courts about the amount of money he had at trial.

Yes, yes, I'm sure there is a legal justification for that, but there's legal and then there's common sense.

My biggest problem with laws that expand use of force beyond strict self defense, is that they favor and reinforce a social hierarchy.

Look, arguing the legality of George Zimmerman killing a kid (yes, a bad, bad, street fighting kid. Christ, where were you when you were a kid? Nevermind....)

Is like arguing that the banks did nothing illegal when they pillaged the American economy in 2008.

You are very correct, in asserting that nothing was illegal. But maybe it should've been

 

[Kable]

I really hope he gets a fair trial. People get hung up on him following Trevon after being told not to but a 911 operator is not a cop with the authority to command you to stop following someone and on the 911 call you can hear that he is moving at a fast pace then when told to stop following he replies "ok" then you can hear him slow down and his breathing change. I think he was simply frustrated with the crime happening in his neighborhood and wanted to make sure he didn't lose him before the cops got there. Trevons father initially said the screaming wasn't his son then Al Shapton gets involved and suddenly it is his son screaming. zimmermans injuries are consistent with his story. Based on Floridas stand your ground law they need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not acting in self defense before even being arrested and I don't think they have that. Of course all my info is coming from multiple news stories so I could be way of. I really appreciate your write ups losd it's nice to see info presented from a lawyers point of view

 

[sheepdip]

it is all B.S. the kid was up to no good and Zimmerman shot him. one down, one to go.

 

[deen_ad]

I always love the inadmissable evidence thing, especially when it's othewise factual information. Why hide the truth, I ask myself. For example, in interviewing for a job, company recruiters count on the fact that past performance is a good predictor of a candidate's future performance and definitely plays a role in hiring. So why hide factual aspects of a person's behavior that likely played into the situation under consideration.

The problem with some of that is that Zimmerman had no knowledge of that when the confrontation occurred. So they have to go by what was known to Zimmerman at the time. Yes, I know what happened elsewhere would be helpful but it wasn't known at the time.

 

[deen_ad]

I hope Zimmerman has a good attorney. His case is easy is pie. The cops on the scene thought it was straight up self defence, the homicide detectives thought it was self defence....so what did they learn 6 weeks later about the altercation that all of a sudden, with a flown in prosecutor, after all the media blitz did they learn, what new evidence did they gather where Zimmerman was in the wrong.

This is a mob trial, trial by media and it really sucks to have to watch this sham.

If this had happened in Mexico, I think bang for the buck, Zimmerman could have bought off all the cops and judges for a tenth what he will have to spend defending himself in Florida for an uncertain future.

What happened was that Oblammer and Holder and co. stepped in and twisted some "arms"!

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Umm, Stand your ground maybe?

What if Martin was scared and fearful for his life?
Wouldn't SYG apply?

You need to learn what Stand Your Ground means before a discussion on topic would be productive--and, once you did, a discussion of the topic wouldn't be necessary. I haven't the time nor patience to teach you right now.

I think zimmerman has some kind of domestic violence conviction and an assaulting a police officer conviction.
Will this be brought up at the courts?

Both lies of the disinformation campaign, and not very clever ones.. Either such "conviction" would have automatically resulted in revocation of his CCW, which he's held for years, or rejection of his application had these alleged events occurred prior.

Not to mention that he misled the courts about the amount of money he had at trial.

THIS he will have to explain--but even if this allegation is true, in the worst-case scenario he's guilty of perjury to the Court, not of murder 2 of Trayvon Martin, which is what he happens to be on trial for.

My biggest problem with laws that expand use of force beyond strict self defense, is that they favor and reinforce a social hierarchy.

You'll have to identify what law--any single one--relevant to this case expands the "use of force beyond strict self defense". If you say Stand Your Ground you go to the back of the class.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Father of four]

You need to learn what Stand Your Ground means before a discussion on topic would be productive--and, once you did, a discussion of the topic wouldn't be necessary. I haven't the time nor patience to teach you right now.

Wow! What a smart azz statement. Here I'll try and help NWFA people...........Florida Stand Your Ground


"Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

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

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) 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.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. "

 

[Father of four]

I am not a lawyer but I think that Zimmerman had the right to follow the boy. If the boy turned around and actually started throwing punches at Zimmerman and it led to Zimmerman fearing for his life then Zimmerman should be able to use lethal force if needed to save his life. Following someone, while it can be considered rude is not starting a fight.

My opinion, I am not a lawyer.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

@LawSelfDefense

How far away from Mr Zimmerman's vehicle did the confrontation take place?

Did the fight begin and end in the same area?

 

[Law of Self Defense]

I haven't the time nor patience to teach you right now.

Wow! What a smart azz statement. Here I'll try and help NWFA people...........Florida Stand Your Ground

Sorry if you took offense, but I meant it as a literal statement. I'm gearing up for the trail right now, and haven't the time nor interest to give a lengthy explanation of Florida's Stand Your Ground law. I'm just too busy at the moment. It happens.

And, as I was suggesting, it's not that difficult, with a little bit of effort and help from this forum, for him to find what he needs to learn in order to have an informed discussion on the subject.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

And speaking of limited time, if he wants to read JUST the Stand Your Ground portion of the Florida law, and not the entirety of Chapter 776, the paragraph below is the relevant section:

(3) 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.

(emphasis added)