Enough evidence?

digitalbeachbum's picture

Over the past couple of weeks I've had discussions with people who are completely lacking in any common sense. They have told me that George Zimmerman committed murder but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

Hmmmmm.

Now you have this woman coming out talking about being a juror and how she owes an apology to Trayvon's family. She says that Zimmerman committed murder but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

WTF?

There was enough evidence for you to come to a conclusion that he didn't act in self defense but you didn't have enough evidence to convict him for??? She also said the case shouldn't have gone to trial. HUH?

It doesn't get any dumber than this people. Pure stupidity.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

It is called reasonable doubt

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubt

 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt

Simply feeling or even believing that the defendant is guilty is not enough in our judicial system for criminal cases. You are instructed as a juror to know that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There are many things one can believe without knowing beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Zimmerman can (and almost certainly will) face a civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is lower and only require a preponderance of evidence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

danatemporary's picture

This Junor's verdict . . . (honestly I don't know)

I missed practically all the reporting on this case due to busying myself with other things. On four other occasions I may have mentioned it's re-defining 'rural' out where I am here. As recently finding myself in my own personal Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, a Research station in Antarctica. Or what I like to call Moon base twelve. I mention to say I missed all the buzz about this case, you normally can't help but hear about. No joking matter. Was Justice served ? I don't know, I never followed any of this case. Obviously, This is an emotionally charged case.
The junor's final verdict notwithstanding, there are matters of admissibility and procedure. Much of the trial information doesn't always necessarily match the coverage. Most people are not willing to sit down with the 'evidence' and courtroom transcripts, to figure what the instructions to the jury were (what if anything was withheld) and what was presented to the panel. I assume they were instructed as most panel's are. What were they thinking ? Hard to say. More simply they may have felt there was a fight, someone pulled a weapon. One of the person's were killed. Issues of intent were clouded, after being cautioned about what constitutes reasonable doubt. All that means it's hard to say, not meaning to get anyone's blood-pressure up.

I think intent; the law; a lethal weapon should weighed heavier than a potential minority and racial issue, that's for sure. But, Again, as I indicated, I don't know.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubt

 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt

Simply feeling or even believing that the defendant is guilty is not enough in our judicial system for criminal cases. You are instructed as a juror to know that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There are many things one can believe without knowing beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Zimmerman can (and almost certainly will) face a civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is lower and only require a preponderance of evidence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence

 

The civil case will be interesting.

I would ask for a judge and not a jury; which makes me wonder if he would have asked for a review by the judge on "stand your ground", would he have been able to avoid a civil suit.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Beyond Saving's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The civil case will be interesting.

I would ask for a judge and not a jury; which makes me wonder if he would have asked for a review by the judge on "stand your ground", would he have been able to avoid a civil suit.

In a civil suit, both parties must waive their right to a jury. I'm sure Zimmerman would prefer a judge, but no doubt Trayvon's family would opt for a jury. 

In the case of a civil suit Zimmerman will certainly issue a motion to dismiss on the grounds of statute 776.032 which states

Quote:

(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.

776.012, 013 & 031 comprise the three self defense statutes including the "stand your ground". However, since it has already been determined that he was not immune from criminal prosecution, it is probable that the judge will rule against the motion. If the prosecutors office had declined to prosecute in the first place, then such a motion would have a far better chance at success. It is possible that a judge would dismiss the lawsuit, but I wouldn't count on it if I were Zimmerman. 

 

The "stand your ground" statute 776.013 subsection 3

Quote:

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.

Is completely irrelevant because Zimmerman argued that he did not have the option to retreat since he was on the ground. A duty to retreat is only relevant if you have a realistic option of retreating, so if Zimmerman was in a state that had a duty to retreat statute it wouldn't make a difference since according to his story retreat was not a viable option. And in all states, if you are incapable of retreating you have the right to use deadly force. 

The advantage that Trayvon's family will have in a civil suit is that it will be a wrongful death suit rather than murder. They don't have to prove that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, they only need to prove that he caused wrongful death through negligence or irresponsible action and caused emotional damage to Trayvon's family. Since Zimmerman has admitted that he did shoot Trayvon, that he caused damage is not in dispute. The decisions that he made to follow Trayvon that led to the confrontation become more relevant, because while there was nothing criminal about them, a jury might see them as negligent actions that a reasonable person would expect to lead to a confrontation. If a jury can be convinced that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly and could have avoided the confrontation in the first place, they might award the Trayvon family damages.  

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken

digitalbeachbum's picture

I would hope that GZ would

I would hope that GZ would win that case; I find the evidence proves his innocence.

I think it is terrible that TM died. It could have been avoided any number of ways, but it wasn't racial. GZ isn't a racist. He wasn't profiling. He was a frustrated guy who worked as a NHW block captain. Hell, I'm one too. No one else in my community wanted to do it and I'm the only one with military experience, so they voted me in.

I'm the one always doing fliers or communicating with others. I setup cameras, security lights and distributed phone numbers and emails to every one so we could stay in touch. I'm calling the sheriff too if I see anything suspicious and instructed all the people involved to do the same. And it has nabbed several shitheads, one guy was stalking this woman.

We caught this dude sleeping in his car at the entrance to our subdivision. He claimed to be a private detective so we called the sheriff. Turns out he was waiting for this woman to leave the other subdivision across the main road. He said he wasn't doing anything wrong but apparently he wasn't even supposed to be near her or the house.

GZ was honestly trying to make a difference. He was being proactive. Unfortunately TM thought he was a tough kid who could take on the dude following him. I think he was frustrated also and misdirected.

And I'm going out on a limb here to make an assumption, but that witness for TM's family, Jeantel, I think she left out a lot of stuff concerning what really happened.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Brian37's picture

digitalbeachbum wrote:Over

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Over the past couple of weeks I've had discussions with people who are completely lacking in any common sense. They have told me that George Zimmerman committed murder but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

Hmmmmm.

Now you have this woman coming out talking about being a juror and how she owes an apology to Trayvon's family. She says that Zimmerman committed murder but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

WTF?

There was enough evidence for you to come to a conclusion that he didn't act in self defense but you didn't have enough evidence to convict him for??? She also said the case shouldn't have gone to trial. HUH?

It doesn't get any dumber than this people. Pure stupidity.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

 

 

"Beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Even outside serious court cases in daily life, have you not ever suspected a friend or co worker or family member of doing something you knew they did but couldn't prove it?

 

Her hands were tied based on the current state  law and jury instructions. What she did was consistent with what the founders wanted. YOU DONT convict on nature of the charge or emotions. You convict on evidence. So if anyone is to blame then blame the prosecution and blame the laws on the books.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

digitalbeachbum's picture

Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Over the past couple of weeks I've had discussions with people who are completely lacking in any common sense. They have told me that George Zimmerman committed murder but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

Hmmmmm.

Now you have this woman coming out talking about being a juror and how she owes an apology to Trayvon's family. She says that Zimmerman committed murder but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

WTF?

There was enough evidence for you to come to a conclusion that he didn't act in self defense but you didn't have enough evidence to convict him for??? She also said the case shouldn't have gone to trial. HUH?

It doesn't get any dumber than this people. Pure stupidity.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

"Beyond a reasonable doubt".

Even outside serious court cases in daily life, have you not ever suspected a friend or co worker or family member of doing something you knew they did but couldn't prove it?

Her hands were tied based on the current state  law and jury instructions. What she did was consistent with what the founders wanted. YOU DONT convict on nature of the charge or emotions. You convict on evidence. So if anyone is to blame then blame the prosecution and blame the laws on the books.

Her words, her coming out in to the open like this, convicts him based on her own personal feelings.

Sure I have suspected some one of taking things or doing "whatever" but my assumptions are based on past experiences with those people, like my brother or an acquaintance. She knows NOTHING about Zimmerman. ZERO. NADA. He isn't black and he shot a black man. That is ALL she knows.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Vastet's picture

Clearly you weren't paying

Clearly you weren't paying attention to what she actually said, which was that without the stand your ground law she would have found him guilty, because he was guilty of murder. The only one lacking common sense here is you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:Clearly you

Vastet wrote:
Clearly you weren't paying attention to what she actually said, which was that without the stand your ground law she would have found him guilty, because he was guilty of murder. The only one lacking common sense here is you.

Let me review this, because I don't have any common sense (per your claim):

1) "Stand your ground law" says that if you are being threatened you can defend yourself.

2) She found him "not guilty" because he was being threatened and defending himself.

3) She now claims that if it weren't for the "stand your ground law" he would be guilty.

4) Guilty of what? being threatened and defending himself?

5) Finding him guilty with out the "stand your ground law" makes her a racist. She would find him guilty because he wasn't black.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams

Vastet's picture

Still proving your lack of

Still proving your lack of common sense. The entire basis behind the reasonable doubt that prevented conviction was the law. The prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had no reason to believe his life was in danger. Which is hardly surprising. I could do exactly the same thing Zimmerman did, stalking dozens of people. And provided any of them took a swing at me I could kill them regardless of their intent, and get away with murder just as he did.

Without the law, there was no doubt that he murdered the boy. No doubt whatsoever. By stalking and provoking the incident he was 100% guilty of murder.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

digitalbeachbum's picture

Vastet wrote:Still proving

Vastet wrote:
Still proving your lack of common sense. The entire basis behind the reasonable doubt that prevented conviction was the law. The prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had no reason to believe his life was in danger. Which is hardly surprising. I could do exactly the same thing Zimmerman did, stalking dozens of people. And provided any of them took a swing at me I could kill them regardless of their intent, and get away with murder just as he did. Without the law, there was no doubt that he murdered the boy. No doubt whatsoever. By stalking and provoking the incident he was 100% guilty of murder.

I think that this thread is too closely related to the other thread so I'm going to move it over there.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams