That's because none of the prosecutors or the D.A. (who was FORCED to file these charges) believe that Zimmerman is guilty. That's why the prosecutions witnesses helped the defense every time.

As I said before...the D.A. was FORCED to bring charges from pressure from the media and black leaders screaming "racism". I'm not sure that any of those leaders and/or media realized at first that Zimmerman is not a white guy.

That is part of the thing I don't get about what you're saying.

All these attorneys appearing on CNN keep saying that the state has no case, and hasn't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
From what I see on t.v. when watching the trial, I thought the same thing as a layman.
The actual prosecutors themselves never felt they had a case.
The cops working the scene never believed there was a case.

I'm not sure why you think that the state has proved it beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't see how there could NOT be reasonable doubt.

I also pointed out to you that all the attorneys on CNN and HLN (headline news) have without exception said do NOT put your client on the stand.

The average person does not have the skills to tangle with a prosecuting attorney who is a professional at cross examination.

With all of what I'm pointing out, I'm kinda befuddled that you keep saying the state DID prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. :(

I don't believe it and neither do any attorneys I've seen comment on it.

I think that there is still a good chance he will be put in jail because of the jury worrying about being responsible for riots and deaths that may result from that violence. You can SAY that they won't...but they aren't robots. They're just people.

I don't know about you...but I just want this to be over. It's like the Anna Nicole Smith trial that filled the news.
Meanwhile...actual important things that really are newsworthy are not even being noticed. :(

no. i never commented on the strength of the case. I never asserted what i think will happen. Only that in my opinion, Zims refusal to testify is "my" smoking gun, whereby i think he committed manslaughter.

I think your take on political pressure from the media & black leaders is one angle. another viewpoint is that the cops didnt do their diligence via zimmermans inconsistent accounts, & the fact martin was not armed & did not have a record. when a person is killed, its not like a petty crime. every effort must be made to provide justice to the deceased. & Zim has not been credible from the get go.

how would you feel if that was one of your kids who was dead. & then cops shrug their shoulders. i wonder if you would be AOK with the cops decision.

The judge in the George Zimmerman murder trial will decide Thursday if she will grant a prosecution request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges, including aggravated assault

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ation/2504917/

What, exactly, has been discreditable in GZ's defense? His police interviews/statements?

Lets see you, or anyone else for that matter, go through something like killing someone and get the story exactly the same every time. People are not robots, and we are all subject to human error.

In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the detectives stated, on the record, that if GZ's story had been the same every time, they would have thought he was lying. If his recollection of the incident had been exactly the same every time, then it would look -- and rightfully so -- that he rehearsed what he would tell the police.

The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty, it's really that simple.

But, as Robbie said, the jury could convict him just because of all the media attention and distortion of this case, the outcries from the black community, and the very real threat of violence that could ensue if he is found not guilty.

I don't know about you, but as someone looking at this from the outside in, it makes me fucking sick. Convict someone, not because of the evidence, but because there is a fear of violence from the black community. What does that say about our country? And that is what disturbs me more than anything else.

Who are the real racists? GZ, or the media/community/politicians who have made this case into a national circus and threatening to riot if he's not convicted?

Whatever you say Fatdog , I think you've already been proven wrong on that. To much cop cum in your eyes/face?

No lesser charges to be included . . . well GZ said he doesn't want them

they just approved "manslaughter".... I might have misheard?

Yeah, I jumped the gun; really did not think th judge was going to rule that way. Pretty fucked up



wow, they are really trying to stack on the lessers

GZ is fucked

yup he is fuckeddddddddddddddddddd

Now they might approve the "child abuse" one...... wtfff

BTW did the attorneys take this case for "free" knowing of the publicity or are they milking GZ and his whatevers dry?

Zimmerman is pooched with these stacked lesser charges. Too many outs for a jury to give.

The attorney is getting paid, and it appears he has a staff of volunteers for this case.

wonder what the cost is for a trial like this :helpme

$500k +/- I would guess

I'm not surprised at all that they stacked lesser charges on - wouldn't that be standard? Just like asking the judge to dismiss all charges, it's a standard thing.

I wonder about this too. This kind of defense must cost at least hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. I am guessing that Zimmerman doesn't have this kind of money. I know he raised money, but I'm sure that the money raised doesn't come close to the costs involved.

Because of all of this, his earning potential must be limited too. Assuming he doesn't go to prison, who would want to hire Zimmerman in the near future?

Child abuse? And no, it is not standard, that is why they are debating the jury instructions now.

I don't like that someone can be found guilty of a lesser charge. That gives the jury an out which defeats the guilty/non-guilty purpose of a trial. The district attorney should pick a charge then ask the jury to decide guilty or not.

A compromise verdict is a crutch for an indecisive jury to say he was sorta guilty. It allows them to walk away without really making a decision.

It allows a prosecutor to shoot for a big charge while hoping for a lesser conviction he might not have gotten if the lesser charge was what the defendant was actually being charged with.

The jury decision should be black/white not in the big gray area and adding charges once the trial is underway is ridiculous.

.

vdbacks. if martin was able to get zims gun, kill zim. do you then fight for martins self defense the way you blindly fight for zims?

did martin have a right to defend himself? did he have a right to live since he did nothing wrong & was packing skittles? do you even think about his rights at all?

i believe you need to justify your view that an innocent man who is dead did not have any crime committed against him, had no right to defend himself, had no right to live. thats exactly your position.

:Oh crap

The problem is, you are not basing your question on the facts of the case. There is no argument that Martin approached Zimmerman.

both i think... they're already through the donated 300k

disregard

so you discredit all testimony of rachel jeantel. is that your position?

Well, if you kill a child... Isn't that child abuse?

Zimmerman followed Martin for seventeen minutes, getting out of his car to continue to follow Martin.

On top of that, we have yet to have a witness come forward saying that Martin confronted Zimmerman. The only witness is Zimmerman himself.

this is simple case up until I saw this...

zimmerman was winning all day long.. until

https://youtube.com/watch?v=UgDuu6i8MtE

I think that chick wasn't the most credible witness... This was her friend, and yet she was caught up in a lot of lies and bullshit and just seemed like this was a "huge inconvenience" to her.

I think the defense doesn't seem to know what it's doing... Just now on TV it seemed that Don West wasn't aware that "assault (with firearm charges) were included in the 10-20-life laws that Florida has. He argued with the judge over it, the judge corrected him, and he seemed dumbfounded.

Shouldn't he have known this from day one? The very first thing he should have done in preparing the defense if figuring out what charges his client might face, and their resulting sentences, right?

She was borderline retarded. She testified under oath that she not only coudn't read cursive at 19, but that she couldn't read her own statement to police. She was 19 years old I believe and a junior in high school. She was caught lying. She argued that "creepy ass cracker" wasn't in any way negative or racial. and so on... and so on. There was nothing credible about her and that was the single reason I even started paying attention.

Prosecutors first witness was a nightmare for the prosecution and there seemed to be no real point to putting her on the stand other than to corroborate the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin which is not disputed anywhere and is an established and agreed fact.

I'm not fighting for zimmerman. If you bothered to read the thread then you would know where I stand. And I never once said I thought GZ is innocent, never even close to saying that.

And if Martin would have grabbed GZ's gun and killed him with it, it would be murder, given the rest of the facts of the case. Not to mention, it wouldn't be this media circus that it is now. The black community wouldn't be threatening violence and such nonsense because no one outside of that town would even know about the case. The entire thing is a huge media and political circle jerk. But that is a moot point because "what if" doesn't mean shit.

I am defending what is supposed to be the law, what we call "due process". Politics and outside groups like the media and black community shouldn't be having such a major impact on a murder trial, and yet they are. This entire incident has been spun as a racism fueled hate crime from the very start. And it makes me sick.

you didnt answer my question. what were trayvon martins rights that night? did he have a right to self defense, a right to life? what was his crime?

He had the right to keep walking home. Just as any other person would have.

If he felt threatened.. he had the right to call the police instead of talking to his girlfriend.

He had the right not to confront Zimmerman and punch him, break his nose etc.

No I would kill the guy that killed my kid. I wouldn't care what my kid did...I would just want to murder the son-of-a-bitch that killed him.

That's why we theoretically have laws. To stop that kind of thing.

His crime was hitting Zimmerman.

And that crime is not punishable by death. It's just assault. Happens every day and night between people.

BUT...if the other guy has a gun (the great equalizer), you will get shot. And maybe killed.

My best guess is that young Trayvon (like all young men) liked to think of himself as a badass. And kicking Zimmerman's ass was gonna be "fun". Hell, I might have gotten annoyed at some busybody following me around too and decided to confront him.

Problem is Trayvon didn't know TWO things:
1. There had been numerous burglaries in that neighborhood.

2. Zimmerman was packing a gun.

Lesson here is: Probably best to NOT jump on somebody and start kicking their ass. 99.9 of the time you will get away with it. And then you'll fuck up and jump on the wrong guy at the wrong time.

QFT

Seems to me as if the judge is almost telling the jury "find him guilty of SOMETHING or you know what will happen!"

Murder 3 with child abuse - dropped

Judge denied 3rd degree felony murder with child abuse charge. So now its back to standard 2nd degree murder, with the manslaughter lesser.

maybe your watching another trial then. zimmerman called 911 & told them was following martin.

& when someone follows you, you would run & call cops, not stand your ground. is that what you would do? :1orglaugh

so his crime is that he was followed, & stood his ground. K.

time out. he was getting followed by zim. he did not have any right to stand up for himself? im not understanding that fists fly, but only the guy with a gun has the right to self defense. what am i missing? did not martin have a right to stand his ground from a dude chasing him?

Time out..

Attacking someone who follows you is ok? No threats made to Martin. No exchanges verbal or otherwise. Just a guy keeping at eye on him as he talks to police and its ok to attack him?

Let me help you... me walking 100 feet away from you, does not give you the right to attack me.

You don't need a law degree to understand that Martin was not acting in self defense as their was no threat to Martin.