George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Ostroeuropa]

Florida and Hispanic.
He's statistically likely to be a democrat, but it's not impossible he's a republican.
We have the gun issue which throws a wrench into the works, I know Michigan is one of those swing(ish) states where Democrats are normally pretty heavily pro-gun, but what about Florida?

I'd imagine the same thing. Southern Democrats tend to be more pro-gun.

What type of Hispanic is Zimmerman? Cuban, Mexican, or something else?

Family is Peruvian.
The half/white half jewish father and the peruvian mother does lend more credence to the idea that he'd be a democrat.
His only mixed heritage also makes it, in my opinion, unlikely that he's a racist.
Which doesn't say anything about whether or not he imagines himself a herocop.

[Hornesia]

So. You all think a mistrial is likely?

[Ostroeuropa]

So. You all think a mistrial is likely?

Why?
I think an acquittal is likely.

[Hornesia]

So. You all think a mistrial is likely?

Why?
I think an acquittal is likely.

As do I, Only reason I say mistrial is because I don't think there'll be a unanimous jury.

[Alien Space Bats]

Finally, vigilante justice is rare in this country these days. I very much doubt Zimmerman has anything to fear.

He would've shot a rich white dude to get lynched.

Why are you citing a case from 1933 when I make a statement about what happens "these days"?

[Herskerstad]

iirc his mom is Peruvian and his dad is half white half jewish. He looks much more hispanic than white though.

Wait, you're telling me that if You're Jewish you aren't considered white? Last time I checked, "Jewish" wasn't an option on the Census.

I would not consider some of the Ethiopian long-liniaged Jewish tribes to be paticularly white. As far as Zimmerman goes? No denying he is at lest half white, but the centeral American outlok is not exactly lost in translation either. So multirace if is how I'd describe him. Though I would not be able to just on his picture tell that he is Jewish.

Anyhow, from what I have seen of the witnesses so far the defence has lost an awful lot of thunder since their passionate opening. Unless something far more spesific, far more credible and damning comes up to directly finger Zimmerman then it's going to be a hearsay cause, which will never be enough for a second grade murder conviction. The ballistic experts conclution that Travon must have been on top of Zimmerman when the point-blank range gunshot was fired is as damning to the defence as it gets.

[Zapato]

thats not the burden of proof, which applies to the Charge, not to the FACTS.

The prosecution is alleging that Zimmerman saying "Looks like he is on drugs" shows bad faith on his part.
In order to do that, they need to show that it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
The facts are consistent with both accounts.
As such, they have failed to prove it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
As such, the Jury must acquit.

I haven't been following the case, so this makes no sense to me. How is it that Zimmerman's guilt or innocence depends on whether or not it looked like Martin was on drugs?

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Not to pick on Herskerstad, but the gross misuse of the term "hearsay" below is extremely common on NSG and has become a pet peeve. I almost wish NS's OSRS had a rule against misuse of the term.

Unless something far more spesific, far more credible and damning comes up to directly finger Zimmerman then it's going to be a hearsay cause, which will never be enough for a second grade murder conviction.

Hearsay is a legal term for a category of generally inadmissible evidence that is almost always misused by non-lawyers (and often by lawyers). Most simply, hearsay is testimony given by a witness who is not telling what he or she knows personally, but what others have said. Wikipedia correctly notes that a hearsay statement would be if a witness made a statement such as, "Sally told me Tom was in town," as opposed to "I saw Tom in town," which is direct evidence.

Suppose that a witness stopped at the scene of a car crash. At the crash site, an injured driver stumbled up to her and said "Martians caused the accident!" Because of the hearsay rule, the statement cannot be used as evidence that Martians caused the accident. It could, however, be used as evidence that the injured driver was capable of speech after the crash. source

Testimony by a witness about something he or she saw or heard is not hearsay. Expert testimony giving an opinion or results of tests is not hearsay. Circumstantial evidence is not hearsay. Weak evidence is not hearsay.

More specifically, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts (i.e., an out-of-court statement is hearsay if the parties care about whether or not the statement is true.) Hearsay is basically inadmissible at trial. In general, the hearsay rule is motivated by a belief that hearsay is unreliable and because of the inability of the other party to cross-examine the maker of the repeated statement to test its truthfulness. However, many exclusions and exceptions exist for particularly reliable statements and/or where allowing the evidence advances public policy goals.

The hearsay rule prohibits the use of out-of-court statements that are offered as proof of the subject of the statement. For example, if Cathy, an eyewitness to an accident, later tells Betsy that the pickup ran the light, Betsy would not be allowed to recount Cathy's remarks.

Out-of-court statements that aren't offered to prove the truth of the statement are admissible, however. Suppose Tom is called to testify, "On January 1, Bob said the Steelers stink." If the party calling Tom wants to prove that Bob was alive on January 1, Tom's testimony would be admitted, because the other side could question Tom about whether the conversation really took place on that date. Whether the Steelers are a poor team is beside the point.

Even statements that are hearsay may be admitted if they fall within one of the many exceptions to the rule. In general, hearsay will be admitted if the circumstances of the statement indicate a high probability that the statement is true. For example, a statement uttered spontaneously and under duress -- such as a victim's remarks immediately following an accident -- could be admitted because the judge might find that the person had little time to plan to say anything other than the truth. cite

The basic notion of hearsay and why it is generally not admissible as evidence is really pretty simple. The term simply gets misused -- prominently in the media, even by "legal experts." The rules of evidence defining what is and is not hearsay are little bit more complex and the rules regarding exceptions to hearsay being inadmissible (i.e., when it is admissible despite being hearsay) are length and even more tricky, see Fed. R. Evid. 803-807. I will not bore anyone further on this unless asked, however.

Anyhow, from what I have seen of the witnesses so far the defence prosecution has lost an awful lot of thunder since their passionate opening. Unless something far more spesific, far more credible and damning comes up to directly finger Zimmerman then it's going to be a hearsay cause, which will never be enough for a second grade murder conviction. The ballistic experts conclution that Travon must have been on top of Zimmerman when the point-blank range gunshot was fired is as damning to the defence prosecution as it gets.

George Zimmerman is the defendant. The State of Florida is prosecuting him. So, the state are the prosecution and Zimmerman and his lawyers are the defense.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

thats not the burden of proof, which applies to the Charge, not to the FACTS.

The prosecution is alleging that Zimmerman saying "Looks like he is on drugs" shows bad faith on his part.
In order to do that, they need to show that it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
The facts are consistent with both accounts.
As such, they have failed to prove it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
As such, the Jury must acquit.

The facts which determine the charge's appropriateness are in dispute.

In such instances, the defendant must be proved wrong. Not suggested to be wrong. Not look like he's wrong. But actually PROVEN to be so.

Zimmerman hasn't been proven wrong to my knowledge. Perhaps he has been and the jury will find him guilty, but...

To clarify, this is not how the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt works. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each element of a crime (including the absence of at least one element of an affirmative defense) existed. Nothing more and nothing less. The state need not prove or disprove beyond a reasonable doubt each individual disputed fact/allegation that may tend to show the existence or lack of an element of a crime.

Moreover, irrelevant facts are irrelevant -- period. Whether or not something is "consistent" or "inconsistent" with something else (particularly out of court statements) does not necessarily make it relevant. (I note that ideally irrelevant facts are objected to by a party and excluded by the court. Even relevant facts may be excluded if the potential prejudice outweighs the evidentiary value.)

Also, arguments are not evidence, nor are theories of the case. The jury may find them useful to determine whether the elements of a crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but may find a defendant guilty or not guilty without believing the state's arguments/theories or disbelieving the defense's arguments/theories beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Zapato]

The prosecution is alleging that Zimmerman saying "Looks like he is on drugs" shows bad faith on his part.
In order to do that, they need to show that it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
The facts are consistent with both accounts.
As such, they have failed to prove it was unreasonable of Zimmerman to say that.
As such, the Jury must acquit.

The facts which determine the charge's appropriateness are in dispute.

In such instances, the defendant must be proved wrong. Not suggested to be wrong. Not look like he's wrong. But actually PROVEN to be so.

Zimmerman hasn't been proven wrong to my knowledge. Perhaps he has been and the jury will find him guilty, but...

To clarify, this is not how the presumption of innocence or the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt works. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each element of a crime (including the absence of at least one element of an affirmative defense) existed. Nothing more and nothing less. The state need not prove or disprove beyond a reasonable doubt each individual disputed fact/allegation that may tend to show the existence or lack of an element of a crime.

Moreover, irrelevant facts are irrelevant -- period. Whether or not something is "consistent" or "inconsistent" with something else (particularly out of court statements) does not necessarily make it relevant. (I note that ideally irrelevant facts are objected to by a party and excluded by the court. Even relevant facts may be excluded if the potential prejudice outweighs the evidentiary value.)

Also, arguments are not evidence, nor are theories of the case. The jury may find them useful to determine whether the elements of a crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but may find a defendant guilty or not guilty without believing the state's arguments/theories or disbelieving the defense's arguments/theories beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thanks for clearing that up, it all makes more sense to me now...

[Blakk Metal]

He would've shot a rich white dude to get lynched.

Why are you citing a case from 1933 when I make a statement about what happens "these days"?

Because no one has the balls to kill a white dude these days, and such an occurence wouldn't become famous enough to get a lynch mob going. Therefore, your theory can't be tested.

[Coccygia]

iirc his mom is Peruvian and his dad is half white half jewish. He looks much more hispanic than white though.

Wait, you're telling me that if You're Jewish you aren't considered white? Last time I checked, "Jewish" wasn't an option on the Census.

I assume he means half-goyish and white, and half-Jewish.

[Yankee Empire]

Family is Peruvian.
The half/white half jewish father and the peruvian mother does lend more credence to the idea that he'd be a democrat.
His only mixed heritage also makes it, in my opinion, unlikely that he's a racist.
Which doesn't say anything about whether or not he imagines himself a herocop.

>Implying people of mixed race can't be racists.

Not that it matters.

Also why does the news keep calling him "White" it like the how the top 10 criminals in Texas are classified as "White" even though they are all Hispanics.

[Alien Space Bats]

Also why does the news keep calling him "White" it like the how the top 10 criminals in Texas are classified as "White" even though they are all Hispanics.

Because "Hispanic" is not a race.

[The Grey Wolf]

Well it's a conundrum. Zimmerman is half-white(Jewish), half-hispanic. However, as you said before women are more biased in accepting use of force. I would think in any case, there would be a retrial, especially considering the media blasted Zimmerman badly and built all kinds of hype. On whose prerogative was the jury turned into 6?

Zimmerman's a Jew?

[Greed and Death]

Final strech my odds going into it.
60% acquittal, 30% manslaughter, 10% 2nd degree murder.
Reasoning, seems pretty proven that Martin was on top, and Zimmerman received wounds that he has while martin was on top of him. Because when someone is on top of you and has broken your nose you means of escape have been exhausted. Case then hinges on if Zimmerman reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Manslaughter would be a compromise if there are 1 or 2 hold outs and the jury wants to hurry home.

[Tsaraine]

Sitting in the hotel lobby here they have Faux News going in the background - I know, I know, it's not a source, but from the general flavour of indignant protest coming from the TV they've found him guilty - not sure of whether manslaughter or murder or what. I'd find a more reputable source except my iPad kinda sucks for browsing the web.

[The Grey Wolf]

Sitting in the hotel lobby here they have Faux News going in the background - I know, I know, it's not a source, but from the general flavour of indignant protest coming from the TV they've found him guilty - not sure of whether manslaughter or murder or what. I'd find a more reputable source except my iPad kinda sucks for browsing the web.

I'm stuck with an Android. I'm so cheap.

[Ashmoria]

Sitting in the hotel lobby here they have Faux News going in the background - I know, I know, it's not a source, but from the general flavour of indignant protest coming from the TV they've found him guilty - not sure of whether manslaughter or murder or what. I'd find a more reputable source except my iPad kinda sucks for browsing the web.

wow thats faux outrage alright.

they just finished closing arguments. the judge is going to give jury instructions after lunch. deliberations havent started yet.

[The UK in Exile]

Sitting in the hotel lobby here they have Faux News going in the background - I know, I know, it's not a source, but from the general flavour of indignant protest coming from the TV they've found him guilty - not sure of whether manslaughter or murder or what. I'd find a more reputable source except my iPad kinda sucks for browsing the web.

wow thats faux outrage alright.

they just finished closing arguments. the judge is going to give jury instructions after lunch. deliberations havent started yet.

Forgot this is on US time.....

[Tsaraine]

Sitting in the hotel lobby here they have Faux News going in the background - I know, I know, it's not a source, but from the general flavour of indignant protest coming from the TV they've found him guilty - not sure of whether manslaughter or murder or what. I'd find a more reputable source except my iPad kinda sucks for browsing the web.

wow thats faux outrage alright.

they just finished closing arguments. the judge is going to give jury instructions after lunch. deliberations havent started yet.

In that case I guess that Fox is scared he's going to be found guilty and is preemptively indignant? Granted, yesterday morning they were saying that Zimmerman might be charged with child abuse (!) because Martin was under 18.

[The Grey Wolf]

Sitting in the hotel lobby here they have Faux News going in the background - I know, I know, it's not a source, but from the general flavour of indignant protest coming from the TV they've found him guilty - not sure of whether manslaughter or murder or what. I'd find a more reputable source except my iPad kinda sucks for browsing the web.

wow thats faux outrage alright.

they just finished closing arguments. the judge is going to give jury instructions after lunch. deliberations havent started yet.

Yeah, I was watching it just a few minutes ago.
I hope poor George gets free. One thing I do know, he probably won't want to be the watch captain any more. Can't say I'd blame him.

[The Grey Wolf]

wow thats faux outrage alright.

they just finished closing arguments. the judge is going to give jury instructions after lunch. deliberations havent started yet.

In that case I guess that Fox is scared he's going to be found guilty and is preemptively indignant? Granted, yesterday morning they were saying that Zimmerman might be charged with child abuse (!) because Martin was under 18.

He was over the age of consent.

[Grave_n_idle]

wow thats faux outrage alright.

they just finished closing arguments. the judge is going to give jury instructions after lunch. deliberations havent started yet.

Yeah, I was watching it just a few minutes ago.
I hope poor George gets free. One thing I do know, he probably won't want to be the watch captain any more. Can't say I'd blame him.

Who is 'poor George'?

[Greed and Death]

Sitting in the hotel lobby here they have Faux News going in the background - I know, I know, it's not a source, but from the general flavour of indignant protest coming from the TV they've found him guilty - not sure of whether manslaughter or murder or what. I'd find a more reputable source except my iPad kinda sucks for browsing the web.

Recessed until 2 pm.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/12/de ... man-trial/