I hope no one does.

You will see more "mistakes" by the state in the near future.

maddezmom

Everything to botch the evidences, and let Zimmerman off the hook i guess... This Will be used by the defense to make the case about the whole affair being botched, and in the end, Zimmerman Will be a free man - and a man who could make a fortune from telling "his side of the story":. He might even be a star in a movie or two...

Wow - the legal twists and turns this case could make most criminal movies a walk in the park...

I really doubt mr Zimmerman Will have a day in prison, in fact I serious doubt Mr Zimmerman Will be in any court answering for his crime....

Diclotican

so here goes:

“The primary focus of a ‘stand your ground’ hearing is whether George Zimmerman reasonably believed that his use of his weapon was necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself at the hands of Trayvon Martin,” defense attorney Mark O'Mara wrote on his website.

“The defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense.”

Team Zimmerman is pinning its hopes on the law, which allows people to use deadly force — rather than retreat — if they have a reasonable belief they could be killed or badly harmed.

The hearings are mini-trials — except that the burden of proof is on the defense rather than the prosecution. A judge, rather than a jury, decides the outcome.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-seeks-stand-ground-hearing-defense-killing-trayvon-martin-article-1.1132501#ixzz235L0W33O

Zimmerman bears the burden of proof. I suspect his lawyer may have requested this hearing in part in order to test the prosecutor's evidence and presentation.

And yes, to a DUer above, this is a bad sign about the prosecutor's handling of this case.

will be able to pull that rabbit out of the hat. But the court may favor him, and the prosecutor may give him free reign in the courtroom. You never know.

Besides, we don't know what evidence Zimmerman may have that has not been provided to the press.

but you are right about the evidence. If I was a betting man I would be certain that this case will take some surprising turns before it is all over. The OJ and Casey Anthony trials should be cautionary precedents for all those that are so certain as to the outcome.

That means that the prosecutor does not have to disprove anything. That means that Zimmerman has to provide the proof that he acted reasonably. True, the standard of proof is not as high as in a regular criminal trial, but the burden of proof is on Zimmerman.

It will be a challenge for Zimmerman to prove that he had any reason to fear Trayvon Martin prior to their encounter. By that I mean that Zimmerman will have to prove that his suspicion of Trayvon Martin was reasonable enough to warrant following Trayvon Martin while carrying a gun and while knowing that the police had been called and were presumably on their way.

There may be some evidence that we don't know about, but the burden on Zimmerman is pretty great.

when he was getting his head pounded into the pavement. According to Florida law that is all that is required. Remember that the law allows the aggressor to use deadly force in self defense under specific circumstances. If one of those circumstances applies to Zimmerman then what happened up to that point is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

You don't have the legal right to instigate a fight, then escalate it to lethality because it wasn't going to go your way. Just approaching someone in an intimidating way, not even saying anything or brandishing anything, can give them the right the to defend themselves. Martin could likely have been defending himself. The law can go either way. It is mostly up to the court.

But you make it sound like like Zimmerman has a slam dunk case whereas I would say it is not looking good. That part you bolded is a tall order, especially in a situation where the burden of proof is on the defendant.

There is a common perception here that it is an open and shut case against Zimmerman. I am just pointing out that there are complexities to the law that many are ignoring.

In that law you quoted, phrases like "reasonably believes", "reasonable means", "imminent danger of death" "exhausted every reasonable means", "In good faith", "indicates clearly&quot Pretty much the entire passage) are relevant will be put up to scrutiny.

This reminds me of that recent self defense case in Texas where that guy shot his neighbor to death over loud music. Yeah, the neighbor charged at the shooter, but the jury did not buy that he did his best to avoid escalating the situation. In the end, he got put away for a long time.

all those phrases can be extremely subjective - it will depend on the evidence, the skill of the lawyers and ultimately the jury.

I think it could either way.

other than his saying so. Your repeating this claim as if it were a fact does not make it so.

The physical evidence does not support his head being "pounded into the pavement." It supports a single punch to the nose. The small cuts on the back of his head support a single fall to ground, which may or may not have been pavement. A sharp stone can cause cuts that bleed if you fall on it the right way.

If it all depends on what happened in those final seconds, then it all depends on his credibility as a witness.

Why do you think they requested yet another judge? Because he has already been caught and called out for lying blatantly to this judge.

If that is correct, the law contradicts hundreds of years of Common Law and the emphasis it places on the value of human life in our society and our responsibility to defend ourselves only if a danger is imminent.

Imagine that you are 17 years old and walking down the street talking to your friend on the phone and drinking some tea, doing nothing wrong, and some guy starts to follow you. You run a little, and then, fearing you might trip, decide just to walk fast to your home. (This is an emotionally troubling thought for me, a small woman who has sometimes had to walk alone in the dark on city streets or in a parking lot.)

You think the stranger has stopped following you so you slow your pace. Suddenly you realize that the stranger is nearly upon you. Seems to me that with that scenario, under the SYG law it's you who have a right to defend yourself against the stranger who is following you. It is you who have a reasonable fear in the darkness of the night of someone whose intentions you do not know.

If you are the person following, and you have a gun, you have the tactical advantage, and you know it. You can approach and follow confidently because you can kill. You can defend yourself no matter what happens. The guy holding the iced tea and talking on the phone has no defense other than his fists. So, the guy holding the gun is actually the person who decides how the situation develops.

That is something that the NRA forgets to tell its members. If you carry a gun, you have a physical advantage in just about any situation. Therefore, you bear more responsibility for what happens in that situation. If you who are carrying a gun act in an aggressive manner or in a manner that promotes or sets off a confrontation, you are to blame. If you are carrying a gun and you follow someone or act in a way that might make that person fear you or feel they need to defend against you, you cannot shoot that person and then claim that you were defending yourself. You are, so to speak, the adult in the situation. You need to take care not to set off a chain of events in which the person you are stalking might feel the need to defend himself.

We don't know if these are the facts, but they may well be. The lawyers have to be able to put themselves in the shoes of both of the people involved in the situation.

The decision to defend yourself has to be based on a reasonable fear. That will be the decision. Was Zimmerman's fear of Trayvon Martin reasonable under the circumstances?

Remember, Zimmerman knew that the police were going to arrive soon because he had already called them. Considering that the police were coming, was it reasonable for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin? Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to get close enough to Trayvon Martin that Trayvon could hit him? How did that even happen? There may be an explanation for that.

What was reasonable in the situation? We won't know until we see all the facts.

Were the facts on Zimmerman's side very clear, I doubt that the prosecution would have brought the charges. In that case, and in spite of the internet and TV uproar, it would have been very easy for the prosecutors to make the evidence public and explain why they were not bringing charges.

If there were clear evidence that SYG applied, I doubt even more that the prosecution would have brought the 2nd degree murder charges. In fact, I was surprised a bit that they did, but they know best.

There are facts that we do not yet know. Zimmerman's lawyer knows them.

The fact that Zimmerman's lawyer has requested both a continuance and this hearing suggest to me that he also knows he has nothing to lose.

In this SYG hearing, Zimmerman's lawyer may get Zimmerman off. But even if he doesn't, he can test the prosecution's case. And then maybe Zimmerman's lawyer can soften up the prosecution to get a plea bargain.

So either way Zimmerman wins something from this hearing. Doesn't mean that Zimmerman's lawyer thinks that Zimmerman will win.

Thus far, Zimmerman has not shown himself to be a very honest person. That is a big problem for the defense since Zimmerman may be the only witness to the key events.

Nevertheless, Zimmerman has nothing to lose in trying the SYG defense.

Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin has already lost everything. And sadly, he may have lost all, even his life, to the unreasonable fear of a rather paranoid and certainly not outstandingly intelligent individual. It is a very interesting case in any event. I hope that it is a fair trial or hearing for the sake of both parties and their families.

there will be no consequences for the murder of a non white human being for being in the white man's world. These are the stories our history, the story of America as we inch our way along to the promise of our Constitution. Two steps forward, one step back. Lately it seems we're running in place.

...have done as poorly in criminal justice education as did George Zimmerman.

I HATE the thought of some of those who would want to look at Trayvon like that. Such a sacrilege against his family!!

It isn't graphic.

something.

Couldn't have any more of the gawking than there has already been.

Hard to explain; I just would NOT want that.

Let his family find piece.

THAT explains alot. Still guilty as fuck, but it explains alot.