Without clear, eye-witness testimony on the actual events, it was pretty difficult to expect anything but a wrongful death/manslaughter type conviction could have been expected.

controversial murder trial that was conducted in Oklahoma is that there is no time limit on intent. Intent can be formed in as little as a second or two. If you have an opportunity to walk away from trouble and don't, one might make an argument that there is intent because you choose to walk toward trouble. Zimmerman had every option to stay in his truck and let the police handle the matter, he chose not to.

I think that it is tragic that the police did not take this case serious from the beginning and did a lousy job in their investigation. They did not press GZ on some of his comments but let them slide. It is possible that, if a better investigation was conducted, the prosecution might have had a chance of conviction for a higher charge.


Here are a lot of my comments on the case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3262508

That really hurt the prosecution.

the common sense needed to uphold a Murder-2 charge. From the outset, I supported manslaughter and was very surprised they went with Murder-2. They obviously saw it was going bad so asked the judge during the trial to also add instructions on manslaughter.

With a case that was messed up by the cops and county authorities in the first place and knowing they were going to have to rely on a lot of circumstantial evidence, they should have pushed manslaughter and not Murder-2. It still would have been tough, but I think a much strong case for manslaughter.

should have been a slam dunk. When I have discussed the case with people and walk through what i think happened I build upon the narrative and continually hammer on certain phrases over and over so that what I am saying sinks in.

Had the police actually done their job, taken the case seriously, not flirt/buddy up to GZ, the prosecution might have had a case for Murder 2 or Murder 1. The police failed to call GZ out on a lot of things. The Prosecution played too much of the various interview instead on honing in or what they needed. Then needed to anilhate his story in order to force him onto the stand and then tear in into itsy bitsie pieces. I am an optimist, better investigative work, reworking the Prosecutor's case and they might have gotten him convicted for a higher charge. It all comes down to strategy.

Would have been done whether they had a good case or a bad case, so I think manslaughter would have been in whether or not they had presented a good case.

The part I think they tried to tack on as a result of realizing it had all gone bad was the 'give instructions for murder 3 by way of child abuse' that the judge threw out as not supported by the evidence.

with manslaughter.

Overcharging is really common with cases where there's a lot of media interest. This case is much more similar to the Casey Anthony prosecution than a lot of people think because of that too.

I haven't really checked it out but it would be interesting to see if there's any relation between overcharging and whether or not the DA is elected.

that the prosecution should have charged only manslaughter, because they had a fighting chance of proving it. Murder was too much of a stretch, and it could have made the jury think they were overreaching.

I have known some cop wannabes. They are just like that; they want to be heroes and they're always hanging around the police, signing up for ride-alongs, generally being pests. Most of them, like Zimmerman, would have had trouble even getting jobs as mall cops, but they see themselves as cops in training and hoping for their big chance to prove they can be "real" cops, too. I'll bet kroner to Kruggerrands that's exactly what Zimmerman was up to. He didn't set out to kill Martin - that makes no sense because he'd already called the police - but he figured he'd catch up with him and detain him until they arrived. Then he'd be the hero for catching the "burglar" and the real cops would respect him. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way; an innocent kid is dead and (at least to some extent) because the police and the prosecution screwed up a guilty guy is free.

whatever people think of cops and security guards (and i havent always had the kindest thoughts toward them), it's not an amature job, and being a good one takes at least as much training, judgement and self discipline as it does courage

and i think most professionally run departments are looking to screen out the 'Big Man'

Murder 2 was a reach and fueled a large part of the Zimmerman support. The case is a parallel to the Trevor Dooley case except James was much larger than Martin and a 41 year old ex-Iraqi veteran. The state basically demonstrated that it was ok for James to grab Dooley by the throat and force him to the ground after Dooley flashed his gun and turned away.

I still do not discount that the screams came from Martin (it can't be proved one way or the other). The screams end immediately after the gunshot (in mid scream). Now two things could have happened - neither favorable to Zimmerman. One you can't scream with a hollow point through the heart or two you stop screaming when the kickback from the gun breaks your nose.

was yelling. He has a high pitched voice. The point though is that Z INSTIGATED this altercation and INCITED it. Then when it wasn't going as well as he'd thought, he used his gun to end it because he really is a wimp cop wannabe. Then said, "Oh shit, did I have enough cause???" So he starts embellishing was happened to make Trayvon look like more of a threat than he was. I think it was a strong case for manslaughter.

Corey's goal was always to protect Florida's laws that protect gun owners.

That's why she went for the tougher 2nd degree, to make it harder for PROSECUTION. The case was always a manslaughter case. Going for 2nd degree didn't make it harder for defense, it made it harder to prosecute and EASIER for the defense. Much of what played out in that courtroom was a dog and pony show by the state of Florida.

Think about this - there was a safety officer put on the stand by the defense and the prosecution never thought to ask him if he, when he visited schools as part of child safety programs, did he train children to trust their instinct of fear when they are being followed by an adult stranger while they are walking alone and that IF that adult stranger got close enough to grab them, they are supposed to fight, punch, kick at the stranger in hopes of making themselves too difficult, too troublesome for the adult stranger to pursue whatever they had in mind for that young person?

Now, kids will feel the need to give in to any adult stranger who gets that close to them, because if they try and fight for THEIR lives as they were previously instructed, the state of Florida says that it is OK for the adult stranger to kill them to protect themselves from the young person's punches and kicks.

That was always the ONLY thing in this case that was actually relevant, yet it was never the narrative of the case, was it?

Remember, the FIRST so-called "martyr" of the case was the Sanford police chief who had to resign from public pressure...Early in the case, the cops in general really had their faces rubbed in the shit for their general indifference/ineptitude which was on display in a national media spotlight...These people are buddy-buddy and get revenge in their own way....

and i think that's been the whole issue of this case, someon thinking 'stand your ground' made being an amature security guard a good idea. it didnt

skydiving is legal too, but nobody guaranteed that being a careless amature skydiver was a good idea

corporations dont pay for security uniforms, training, insurance bonding and background checks because they like spending money, they do it to limit legal risk

Gotta understand people and ideas of common sense. Murder-2 under what they darn well knew was going to be a tough case
having had to come in 45 days after the fact and take over the case, with fuzzy circumstances around who threw the first punch, etc. means the NARRATIVE they should have pushed would be the most provable, and that was the manslaughter narrative and that Zimmerman acted with "bad judgement", "negligently," "recklessly," etc. in a course of action which led to the kid's death I think they would have had a stronger shot at a conviction. Just think about it. Under all facts and circumstances, did they really think Zimmerman was a "murderer" per se? No. And neither do I. No matter what you do, jurors want a strong degree of intent with a murder charge and a clearer-cut case.

But did he commit a "reckless act based on very bad judgement which resulted in another's death?" Yes. No question. They should have pushed manslaughter.