re: Zimmerman not guilty

quote:

---

CHSgc

---

Could you please tell me what law office you work for, or if you are self employed, just a name please?


I just want to make sure I never hire you for anything, if you are a lawyer, you're a pretty bad one..

quote:

---

quote: First of all, your definition of justice is different than that used by our court system. That is the biggest inherent flaw in your post. Second, if Trayvon was using the level of force the defense says he was (and the prosecution offered no proof that he wasn't) then Zimmerman was justified. He could have easily been killed by what he claims Trayvon was doing. I'm an attorney. I'm eager to here a/b what your definition of "justice" is that I misunderstood so egregiously when I took the bar. Consider why Trayvon might've used force. He was confronted, likely in a hostile manner (by an armed civilian), by a person who had an established motive, who was ignoring the advice of professionals. The statutory definition of manslaughter is a PERFECTLY REASONABLE fit for this sort of case.

---

It is highly disappointing if your statement is true that you're an attorney. You are clearly disregarding the actual facts at presented at trial and condemning a man based on your own prejudices and reliance on media snippets.

The jury heard what happened the night of the crime. It was from an interview of Zimmerman before the media circus began and before Zimmerman was represented by counsel. Zimmerman did not confront Trayvon. Zimmerman was not ignoring the advice of dispatch when Trayvon stopped him. Neither of those things are true and the only way somebody could believe them to be true is if they disregarded the overwhelming evidence at trial. Zimmerman was headed back to his car when he was confronted by Martin. Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's version as well.

I sincerely hope you are lying about being an attorney because any attorney should rely on the evidence presented, not their own personal feelings are misleading CNN tag lines.

Damn, we agree. I doubt "evidence" will be presented here. Sounds oddly familiar and appropriate to this conversation.

quote:

---

I agree with TeLeFaWx.

---

Feels good, doesn't it?

Thas gay, brah

quote:

---

Could you please tell me what law office you work for, or if you are self employed, just a name please?


I just want to make sure I never hire you for anything, if you are a lawyer, you're a pretty bad one..

---

LOL, I wouldn't sweat it, you couldn't afford me.

quote:

---

The jury heard what happened the night of the crime. It was from an interview of Zimmerman before the media circus began and before Zimmerman was represented by counsel. Zimmerman did not confront Trayvon. Zimmerman was not ignoring the advice of dispatch when Trayvon stopped him. Neither of those things are true and the only way somebody could believe them to be true is if they disregarded the overwhelming evidence at trial. Zimmerman was headed back to his car when he was confronted by Martin. Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's version as well.

---

Most of this is circumstantial. The real issue (as I understand it, and I've freely admitted I didn't follow this trial all that closely) is whether he was privileged to use deadly force. As I've noted, under the general common law, I don't think he was (and whether you disagree or not it's certainly a question for a jury). Under FLA law, there is a laxer statutory standard, and the jury probably reached the correct result. I'm not going to cheer a standard, though, that results in a verdict like this. It seems to me, and many others, an egregious miscarriage of justice.

quote:

---

I sincerely hope you are lying about being an attorney because any attorney should rely on the evidence presented, not their own personal feelings are misleading CNN tag lines.

---

No, at trial a jury should rely on evidence presented. An attorney should make a case. Now when deciding whether to bring the case to trial the attorney should assess the evidence and probability of a conviction. Given what we're dealing w/ here, there was a political side to it, too. In the absence of witnesses, and using the FLA statute as a guideline, the case didn't have the greatest chance of success: especially if the strategy from Day 1 was not to put GZ on the stand. But I don't think you can fault the prosecution for pressing charges (nor would any judge uphold any sort of claim of a frivolous suit by the defense).

quote:

---

The State should seek the truth. It's clear from the presentations in the trial, lack of discovery, and press conferences, they did not.

---

The truth is sussed out in the trial. That's the purpose of advocacy. It's definitely NOT the state's role to be impartial.

And I should point out that under FLA law it's VERY difficult to figure out the truth in a situation like this. In most states, the burden of proving self-defense is on the defense. In FLA, it's the opposite: the state has to prove its absence beyond a reasonable doubt. That's insane. And it's how you get a crazy result like GZ not even having to testify to prove his innocence after shooting and killing someone.

quote:

---

Feels good, doesn't it?

---

It makes me feel a little dirty but I dont think I hate it.

So far I've agreed with Telefawx AND TB2008. That's my cue to leave the thread

quote:

---

And it's how you get a crazy result like GZ not even having to testify to prove his innocence after shooting and killing someone.

---

I don't believe what I just saw

Why on earth would you EVER willingly put a defendant on the stand plus it's not the defendant job to prove he is innocent