In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

Very interesting day in court for Zimmerman today.

Judge grants $150,000 bond to Zimmerman; Zimmerman apologizes to Martin family while on the stand.

Also, a picture of Zimmerman's head from the night of the incident.

What shocked me most is how awful the investigator was on the stand. How are you going to sit up there and say, under oath, that you have no idea who started the fight? That's kinda one of the critical points. And he "didn't expect to testify today." Really? Unless the prosecution is still holding on to some powerful evidence, I won't be surprised if Zimmerman is acquitted at this rate. Of course, I'm pretty sure the prosecution had time to gather up all facts and evidence before considering 2nd degree murder, but we'll see.

This, I think, but I also think that it's possible that the underlying motive for the prosecution was to charge him with a serious enough crime such that the lack of evidence would make for a relatively controversy free acquittal. Placate the masses with the dog and pony show while posing no real risk to the defendant.

I got to thinking about this last night and honestly, unless some evidence surfaces that is compelling enough to remove all doubt in the self-defense claim, I really do hope Zimmerman doesn't end up with a prison term, but if he does go free, I think the court should impose restrictions such that a) he is never allowed to own, possess, or use a firearm (without supervision) again and b) he is banned from participating in any "neighborhood watch" type activities ever again. Even if this particular incident was self-defense, I think there's enough info available to determine without a doubt that Zimmerman is a bit of a vigilante with a hero complex, and steps should be taken to ensure he is never in a position to (even in self-defense) commit such an act again.

I considered this possibility as well, but I would hope that the special prosecutor takes her oath of office seriously enough that she wouldn't stage what amounts to a mock trial just to pander to the public.

I also agree that Zimmerman should not be allowed to own a gun or participate in neighborhood watch anymore, but how do you abrogate hsi 2nd Amendment rights without him being a convicted felon? I could totally see this ending with a plea deal where Zimmerman pleads to the most minor felony they can apply to the case and in exchange he gets a sentence that is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Something like a year of probation and community service. Although the danger in that is that it may be obvious enough that the talking heads screaming for Zimmerman's lynching realize they are being pandered to.

Because manslaughter is a much lesser charge than Second Degree Murder?

Not that it matters, he can still plea or be found guilty of manslaughter.

It's hard to say really. I'm holding out the possibility that there is some evidence we're unaware of which makes a case against Zimmerman's self defense claim. At the very least, she isn't making the same mistake that Nifong made. She's leaving her own facts scanty (the affidavit was as minimal as it could be), and allowing the public to do the spreading of unproven/untrue stuff. That avoids the potential of disbarment and lawsuit against her (maybe) if things go badly for her, but I'm still of the opinion that if she doesn't have that evidence, she should not have brought trial. Better to make that case to the public from day one than allow them to continue to believe in something that isn't going to happen, only to dash those hopes later.


While I'd love to think that there's some way to get a controversy free acquittal, a part of me believes that's just pure wishful thinking. History shows us that the longer these things go on, the stronger the emotions get and the more angry people become when they don't ultimately get their way.



You can't. If he's found not guilty, he's not guilty. We can't have a legal system that punishes people who are found not guilty anyway because we think they should be.




Yeah. I don't think that will work. And frankly, I don't see it happening (or even being possible). Charges that are brought aren't just arbitrary in order to make a deal. I don't see any way to plea what is clearly at least manslaughter (he deliberately pulled that trigger and shot someone), down to anything that Zimmerman would be willing to take. His best shot is exactly what he's doing: Self defense. And unless there's that unknown evidence floating around out there, he's got an incredibly strong case. There is every possibility that this will not even get to a jury (judge could grant motion to dismiss right off the bat).

[ :tinfoilhat: ], iirc.
Yep.

I think that if someone admits to killing someone else, but claims self defense, the immunity from civil action stands until/unless his claim is proven false. Another way of looking at it (which requires no tinfoil hat), is that the only way for any civil action to happen against Zimmerman, the prosecution must charge him and convict him. So you could also argue that she's taking the only action which can allow for a civil claim (against Zimmerman at least).

I'm not sure how a plea might fit in here in terms of that. Again though, I don't think a plea (bargain) is possible in this case. Zimmerman has admitted to killing Martin. You kinda *cant* charge him with anything less than manslaughter. I really do see the decision by the prosecutor as more of a "if we can't get past the self defense claim, we lose no matter what the charge, but if we can we may as well go for the strongest charge we can get". And to be honest, second degree murder actually fits the facts better. He didn't just put Martin into a situation he knew might result in the loss of his life, but without intending for him to die (manslaughter). He deliberately used a lethal weapon on Martin. The gun didn't accidentally go off. He didn't accidentally hit Martin. He fired it with the intent to inflict that force against Martin. That, absent ruling of self defense, is second degree murder. Or at least sufficiently so to make an attempt for that charge.


I'll point out also that if Zimmerman's claim of self defense is not upheld (either by judge acting on a motion to dismiss, or a jury finding him not guilty by reason of self defense), he can still be subject to civil suit. So if the jury somehow finds that it wasn't self defense but also wasn't second degree murder (you never know with juries), Zimmerman could be found not guilty, but still be subject to civil action.

I thought this was the reason that the judge decided this would be a bench trial. Is that not accurate any longer?

That was part of it, yes. Additionally, a grand jury is only required if it's Murder 1, and they knew they didn't have any evidence or reason to charge him with that.

They've already gone through a couple of judges trying to find one that can be objective. That's bad enough right there.

Either you misunderstood my post, or I'm misunderstanding your response. I'm saying that if there is an acquittal I don't think there's any way for it to not be controversial. More specifically, I believe that if an acquittal occurs, there will be more than just controversy. There will be violence and rioting. But, as I said, I would love to be wrong about this. I'm just commenting on an historical pattern here.

Having family who are publicly outspoken about a case makes it appear like the judge's decision could be influence by outside sources, which would lead to a mistrial. It doesn't have to be true, just the appearance of it is enough to have the case thrown out. Like here, he either choose the same as his wife which is pretty easy to see that she could have influenced his decision, or he could go in the other direction and someone can argue the only reason he did so was to appear unbiased and the other decision was impossible for him to make.

Oh, well that being the case nothing changes because there is still a tangible connection that can be argued influenced his decision. It isn't a matter of it actually happening, just the possibility of it causing a mistrial that both sides are trying to lessen. I'm pretty sure I mentioned somewhere that the idea of a fair trial was ludicrous at this point, considering just how poisoned the jury pool (which would include the judge presiding over a bench trial) is. Nothing good is going to come out of this.

Edited, Apr 22nd 2012 8:45pm by lolgaxe