<p>
</p>
<p>[Jury</a> selection in George Zimmerman murder case begins](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/09/jury-selection-in-george-zimmerman-murder-case-begins/2399235/]Jury”>Fla. town on edge as Trayvon Martin case goes to court)</p>
<p>Jury selection starts Monday.</p>
<p>[Hysteria</a> narrative](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20130609_Hysteria_narrative.html]Hysteria”>Hysteria narrative)</p>
<p>Is a separate trial going to be conducted on this CC website?</p>
<p>EMM1, the author of that article is really off-base. For one thing, the witness who originally claimed to have seen TM raining down blows on GZ “MMA-style” recanted his testimony long ago. Another thing: the injury on TM’s hand that he refers to is a small abrasion on his ring finger, less than 1/4" in length, and not on the knuckle. This was the only injury other than the gunshot wound. </p>
<p>Anyone who watches GZ’s multiple accounts of the events will see multiple, major inconsistencies. Furthermore, his stories do not match the evidence, particularly the location of TM’s body and the ejected cartridge. </p>
<p>There was no GZ DNA on TM’s hands. This contradicts GZ’s claim that TM was punching him, holding his hand over his bloody nose trying to smother him, etc. </p>
<p>GZ’s injuries were minor. There is no evidence that his nose was broken. And the photo taken of him immediately after the shooting shows the blood from his head injury flowing forward - inconsistent with his claim that he was on his back under TM.</p>
<p>The forensic and autopsy evidence is all available to the public.</p>
<p>I’m bothered by the way the defense is trying this case in public. That’s not who judges him. And the public doesn’t decide the legal standards. </p>
<p>Other than that, we have to me a fairly typical case made famous because the killer claims a defense under a specifically weird law that he personally interpreted as meaning he could confront a person, get in a fight with that person and then kill that person. That is interesting as a legal matter: did the law allow that? Can a person with a gun, a self-appointed non-police officer, approach someone, get into some sort of a beef and then claim self-defense when he did the approaching? </p>
<p>I’m not sure what I expect out of a FL judge and jury but I hope it’s more rational than the Texas judge and jury that excused a man who murdered a prostitute because she left without refunding his money. I can’t help but think the verdict would have been different if she weren’t a prostitute. (I also don’t know if any of the facts were disputed, such as whether she did in fact take off with his $150.) But then it’s Texas and yet another reason not to live there.</p>
<p>It was a mistake to ever get involved in this discussion and I’m done after three points:</p>
<ol>
<li> On the broken nose:</li>
</ol>
<p>[George</a> Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News](<a href=“ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News”>ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>George Zimmerman is not relying on the Stand Your Ground law. At this point, he is simply claiming self-defense. There is no direct evidence showing who jumped whom.</p></li>
<li><p>The idea that it is Zimmerman who is primarily responsible for attempting to try this case in the media is ludicrous. Anderson Cooper and his buddies have been pounding the drums on this case and essentially declaring Zimmerman guilty since immediately after the incident. And who was it that was on The View last week? I guess that was Zimmerman’s new legal team.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Welcome to the stand your ground law in Florida. The case is being tried in public by both the defense and prosecution on what information they release or try to have withheld because they have a small window of opportunity to able to influence a potential jury pool and when the trial begins, the judge will issue further rulings on what is or is not admissable. It is fairly typical behavior of both sides in a high profile case. Don’t count on a Florida jury, look at the results of the Casey Anthony trial and the case decided last week based on stand your ground:
Ralph Wald, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran, walked into his home around midnight, and less than ten seconds later, fired three shots at Walter Conley, according to ABC News. He told the jury he thought Conley was raping his wife when he saw them having intercourse in his home. But during a 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Wald if the man was dead, Wald responded, “I hope so!” and refused to help the man. He asked for medical help for his wife, Johnna Flores, since he thought he accidentally shot her also. He said he didn’t recognize Conley even though he had been roommates with his wife prior to her relationship with Wald, lived next door to Wald, had tattoos of Flores on his neck and back, and worked for Flores at her fencing company.
Prosecutors argued that Wald, who suffered from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage, pointing out that Wald used the word “fornicate” in reports to police, and never the word “rape.”
To acquit Wald under the state’s Stand Your Ground law, Wald had to prove only that he believed his wife was being raped. It doesn’t matter that he shot immediately without taking time to assess the situation, nor that he could have likely taken other measures short of firing three shots into Conley’s head and back. Stand Your Ground laws authorize the unfettered use of deadly force where someone fears assault, without even a duty to first attempt to retreat.</p>
<p>I see my post crossed with EMM1. I would like to see all of the evidence presented to the jury. The rulings at this point by the judge heavily favor the prosecution.</p>
<p>Nancy Grace must be orgasmic just thinking about this trial.</p>
<p>There would not have even been a trial at all in this case if not for media attention. The excuse for not charging him with anything originally, or even apparently doing very much to investigate the case, was the stand your ground law.</p>
<p>And of course George Zimmerman (and his lawyers) wants as much publicity as he can get. How else will he get people to give him money?</p>
<p>To be clear, I don’t care about the verdict. I’ve worked in criminal justice. You learn very quickly that you can’t lose objectivity and that a new horror will soon emerge. And frankly, to quote House, “everyone lies” … and that’s pretty much true. Some lie because they justify untruth and others lie because they don’t realize how their perceptions are clouded. Eyewitness accounts are terribly unreliable because the mind fills in stuff, even justifications for stuff. </p>
<p>I read an interview yesterday with a scientist who has been examining how babies and very young children identify with groups. They have found fascinating things, notably for example that babies seem to switch story lines based on group identity. That is, if a member of the self-identity group mistreats another, the mental story line justifies that but if the other group mistreats one of the self-identity group members the story line shifts in the young child’s head to align sympathy, even greater identification with the mistreated one. It appears we can’t escape these group alignments and, contrary to what we’re told, they are stronger in the young and then are unlearned by exposure and teaching, at least in a rational world where hatreds aren’t emphasized. (And most of the world by far is not rational.)</p>
<p>So it’s nearly impossible to see Zimmerman or Martin except through a set of lenses that distort whatever happened. This is why we have laws and an adversarial system. It is also why I tend to prefer this system to ones where judges are empowered to find truth, though I wouldn’t mind seeing judges enabled to ask more questions here. The problem with judge-led systems is natural bias takes over and becomes directed by the judge as though that is objective truth. </p>
<p>When people ask what I think about a case, I always say, “Every convict I talked to in a prison or jail said a version of 'I’m not saying I haven’t done bad things, but this time they framed me/got it wrong/blah, blah blah.” I think most of them actually believe that; they have internalized notions of right and wrong in which their getting caught must result from some perversion by the police or prosecutors and in which not getting caught means I’m not guilty.</p>
<p>EMM1, the article you posted is dated May 2012, which is pretty old info on a case like this. If you look at some of the more recently-released photos, you’ll note that the blood appears to come from the tip of his nose, not from internal injureis; and as ECmotherX2 points out, there was no smearing or other sign that the injury actually resulted from a messy fight. </p>
<p>You also have to ask yourself, why did the police officer who conducted the interrogation recommend arresting GZ ?</p>
<p>Having said that, however, the victory was in getting this to be reviewed by a court. Whatever a jury may decide will be okay with me.</p>
<p>Zimmerman instigated the battle. End of Story. The key will be the vehicle that Z got out off. All he had to do was drive away and let the police do its job. The trial will end badly for Zimmerman.</p>
<p>^ not that simple…confronting someone without battery can easily turn to self defense if the other person becomes aggressive. I’m just so sick of the media picking and choosing what stories they feel need to be covered…and totally ignoring other stories, many of which are important to Americans.</p>
<p>I think both sides have over used the media to tell their side. I don’t know which side to believe .Regardless of whether he is found guilty or not , I highly doubt I will ever know what really happened that day.</p>
<p>I am not confident about what kind of justice the Martin family will get out of this case. However, my teenage son is not allowed to go out alone or with friends in Florida where gun toting nuts believe they can confront him and kill him bc he symbolizes a threat to them. In an ideal world, Zimmerman’s right to defend himself or stand his ground stops where my child’s right to be left alone begins. But in this world some are more equal than others.</p>
<p>Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove or disprove anything, he must get the benefit of reasonable doubt (and the benefit of the badly formulated stand your ground law).</p>
<p>Actually, the burden of proof is on Zimmerman because he claims his killing is justifiable as self-defense. He is also reserving his right to a lower burden of proof under stand your ground. His reasonableness is at issue.</p>
<p>No, you have gotten it backwards. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that it was not self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt; however, the burden of proof on a stand your ground motion would have been on Zimmerman (by a preponderance of evidence) – however, he waived his right to a pre-trial stand your ground hearing, so that defense is essentially off the table.</p>
<p>How can we defend ourselves against Nancy Grace?</p>
<p>"How can we defend ourselves against Nancy Grace? "</p>
<p>By first watching Jane Valez Mitchell? You can ready and desensitise your sense with Jane before Nancy show. :)</p>