JCC What are your thoughts on Trayvon Martin's death?

There is a very simple reason for that. I believe that the prosecution needs to be held to the highest standard at all times. The power of the state to accuse and incarcerate someone has perhaps the greatest potential for abuse, and as such it needs the most in the way of safeguards.

The day could come when any one of us could be in Zimmerman's shoes, facing a highly publicized trial and a prosecutor who is cutting corners to win a high-profile case. (It may not be for the same sort of charge, but it could potentially happen to anyone here.) I would take the same position for anyone, even you. If we don't hold the state to the highest standards in the high profile cases, where there is so much public pressure to throw standards out the window, then we weaken those standards for everyone.

I've consistently taken the same position over the years, even back with the OJ Simpson trial when I was in high school. I knew quite a few people who were outraged that he "got off", but I consistently held that he deserved to get off because of the prosecution's misbehavior in the case.

One of my greatest historical heroes is John Adams, largely because of his defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. I am a very strong believer that it is better for 10, or even 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be imprisoned.

At every turn, you have almost blindly accepted any interpretation that puts Zimmerman in the worst light. How is that not discarding the presumption of innocence? From your posts, you barely even attempt to consider any of the evidence that might support his story.

How, then, is that any different than your posts, except for the fact that we have taken opposing positions?

If you are going to make that accusation against me, then you can't really complain about others making the same accusation of you.

I don't believe that, based on the evidence presented so far, he is guilty of the crime with which he was charged. I would say that, based on the current law and evidence presented, his situation likely fits the criteria for civil and criminal immunity from prosecution. I also believe that the prosecutor's behavior and actions in this case (much like in the OJ Simpson case) will weaken any hope that the prosecution has of convicting him.

Of course, I also believe that he acted foolishly and recklessly (specifically by pursuing Martin), but that doesn't make him guilty of the crime of murder, in any degree. A person can act foolishly and recklessly, and yet still legitimately defend themselves with lethal force.

I'm going to do one better for you Kimball The Duke Lacrosse Case. Where is Mike Nifong at after the sunt he pulled. In that case the media right from the get go were saying the men were guilty. Turns out they were innocent and Mike Nifong was brought up on ethics charges. That whole case should have been awake up call to ever one in the USA that are legal system is YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

The Sanford police chief has been offically fired.

Now that we have that out of the way, I'd like to address something brought up by anidanami and KK. We already did this with LeeKenobi, and it should be pretty basic civics. But let's reiterate, since it's coming up again. The "presumption of innocence" is a procedural question. It prescribes how the justice system should handle evidence, assess likelihood, and ascertain guilt. To do so, a whole body of procedures has been articulated. One might also reasonably extend this principle to require certain things of mass media, recognizing their influence on public opinion.

It is not, though, a requirement that private citizens uninvolved in the case somehow magically believe that every case brought is an innocent man who is being wrongly accused by an oppressive apparatus of state. That is stupid and non-sensical. The personal opinion of non-jurors (and other non-participants in the trial) about what happened has nothing to do with the "presumption of innocence." This was a stupid accusation to make.

No you are innocent until the jurors come back and say other wise. The prosecutor has to prove that you are guilty. But until he can you are innocent of said crime. We have it set up that way because of the fact that we have had cases in which people have been jailed that never did anything wrong. Again case in point THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE. Case in point Kwame Kilpatrick ex mayor of Detroit. It turned out he was gulity of lieing in court. But until the pepole in the court room hear ever thing what I and others thought meant nothing because he was still innocent of said crimes.

I would say you are right if not for people like Nancy Grace and the fact that people believe ever thing she says and the fact that she wanted to see the men in the Duke Lacrosse case to go to jail for something they never did.

It could be argued that Grace did the same thing in the Casey Anthony case. I still don't think the passion surrounding that case and the vehement hatred towards Anthony would have been anywhere close to as severe as it is if Nancy Grace hadn't already personally convicted her before she was ever really charged with anything and started calling her "Tot Mom" on her show. Anthony may have been aquitted, but because of the publicity surrounding her and the emotions whipped up (a lot of it stirred IMO, by Ms. Grace), her life will never even come close to being what she might have considered normal again.

As to KK's contention of Zimmerman possibly being immune from any civil prosecution; I'm not a lawyer and I don't know much about Florida civil law, but if OJ can be criminally cleared of killing his wife and get sued (and lose that lawsuit), then it's an even bet a civil case will be brought against Zimmerman, regardless of the criminal case's outcome.

RANDOM GIANT RED CAPS BOLD TEXT

Ow, my eyes.

KK is right, you're wrong -- pretty simple, really, in at least 3 ways: (1) OJ never claimed self-defense, (2) OJ was in California, which doesn't have Florida's statute, (3) different burdens of proof applicable to OJ and Zimmerman.

I found a pretty good description of how SYG Immunity works in Florida from a Fla attorney. Open question for me is whether his being declared immune in the criminal would also bar a civil suit. I tend to believe it would, since the finding of fact by the judge in the criminal trial would normally have a res judicata (issue preclusion) effect, especially since in the SYG hearing, the burden of proof is on Zimmerman to show his use of force qualified as self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

EDIT: What do people think of the Zimmerman reenactment? The bit about Martin seeing his gun a grabbing for it was an interesting new twist. Not sure I believe him, his assertions about what Martin said ("You got a problem now", "Your're going to die tonight") seem rather made up. Will be interesting to see how this matches up with his written statement given on the night of the incident.

EDIT 2: A pretty good article on how the hearing works procedurally from the LA Times.

You are free to hold whatever opinion you want, and I haven't said you can't. However, I think that you are outright biased against Zimmerman in this case, and that is clouding your judgement. You have essentially advocated "justice" by mob, by trying to lynch Zimmerman. You demanded his arrest, claiming that you just wanted to have it sorted out by the courts, and yet you've proven that a lie. You didn't want it sorted out by the courts, you've already judged him.

However, what I take issue with, more than anything, is how you are so willing to ignore or minimize the misbehavior by the prosecutor's office simply because they are working towards your desired result. Because of that, I pray you never face a prosecutor who similarly cuts corners because they just want a conviction.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on this. Florida law makes him immune from prosecution in any form if it is ruled a justifiable homicide:

Note the part in blue. Unless Trayvon Martin was a police officer and Zimmerman should have known he was a police officer, a successful criminal defense precludes a civil suit.

Sorry for the double post, but I ran out of time with the previous one, because I had to leave for work. I want to add to it a bit more.

The other big problem with what you are saying here is that it doesn't fit with the accusations that you made against me. You complained that I was just accusing those who disagree with me (particularly you) of bias and then accused me of the same.

Well, based on what you've posted, I think we can pretty much confirm the bias on your part. You are essentially trying to justify your bias with these comments, rather than claiming that you have none.

I freely admit that I have a vested self-interest in the Zimmerman case, but it's not the interest that you seem to think it is. As a private citizen who routinely carries a firearm for self-defense, I have no tolerance for those who falsely claim self-defense. At the same time, I also have a vested interest in the proper and consistent application of self-defense law. If I ever have to defend myself or my family from an attacker, I want to be sure that my rights are respected and that I am given fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts.

To that end, I find the rush to judgement by many people to be very troubling. Even the calls of "arrest him and let the courts sort it out" strike me as problematic because it can make a very traumatic experience far worse, and financially ruin someone who legitimately had to defend himself. That sort of attitude treats anyone who defends himself as though he is a criminal for exercising his rights. Most of that rush to judgement is ruled by an emotional reaction to who or what the victim was, rather than a rational evaluation of the actual facts and law of the case.

In that context, I also find the prosecutor's actions to be very troubling, because the way that she is going about this is a miscarriage of justice. Even if you believe that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, it should trouble you because it sets a precedent going forward. If you allow a prosecutor to cut corners and withhold exculpatory evidence in order to press charges on Zimmerman, what about the next case where it's someone else? Shellie Zimmerman may have been trying to hide information about their finances, but what about the next person who honestly doesn't know how much money has been raised, but offers to get in touch with someone who does?

Even if you think that Zimmerman deserves to go to jail and have the key thrown away, what about the next case? It could be you, me, or anyone else facing that sort of behavior from the prosecution. And in that case, there will be people justifying that behavior by claiming that you are so obviously guilty, so there's no reason to defend you.

That would result in the destruction of our rights and our liberties to a large degree. To me, that is a very high price, indeed.

I read an article regarding the re-enactment video of the shooting and Zimmerman's claims were not consistent with the facts. In the article, someone asks why Zimmerman's body doesn't show any bruises from the more than a dozen blows he claims Martin landed on him and why he has no broken ribs, etc. The same person also states that there was no place for Martin to hide (after visiting the site) when Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Martin and then, suddenly, Martin was in front of him, threatening him.

This is why I want a court trial, so the facts can be examined by a jury. Because whatever the outcome, he will have been judged and not lynched.

KK,

Here's some advice I got from my dad on shooting intruders--give them a glass of water so you have their fingerprints inside your house and make sure you shoot them so their body falls into your house and not outside. I used to sleep with a Colt 45 automag under my pillow.

You do. Look at the last few posts in this thread. Note, in particular, your increasingly unhinged speculation about me, to the point that you now have me leading lynch mobs. I'm half-tempted to let things run for another day or two, and see if I'm not accused of trying to build a time machine to go into the past and assassinate all of Zimmerman's ancestors.

Doesn't it give you pause that literally no one in the entire thread has agreed with your characterization of my posts? That several have posted specifically to say how wrong you are? You're out on a bit of a limb here. Of course, though, there's always one way to resolve this. If you want to accuse me of saying such things, show where I've done so. PPOR.

And this is your hypocrisy. You are a person with a "vested self-interest" who thinks does "not believe that [Zimmerman] is guilty of the crime with which he was charged." Somehow, this is perfectly okay. But if someone takes the view that based on the evidence to date, they do believe in Zimmerman's guilt, you denounce them as not only biased, but bloodthirsty and dismissive of the entire justice system.

The hyperbole is quite amusing on one level, but really now. Let's get a grip.

I'll reply to everyone when I get the chance, but it may be a while. I've had a crisis at work, courtesy of a fire at the facility that stores almost all of my servers. I'm probably going to be sent to the facility to start rebuilding our systems, and hoping that I'll still have a job (as the FAA might just decide to save money by not replacing the systems as our contract was coming up for renewal in a couple of months).

I'll be able to read from my phone, but replying will be difficult. Frankly, taking care of my work and making sure there's food on the table and a roof overhead for my family are more important than any of you.

Thanks for taking the time out of your busy emergency and to let us know this.

There is no difference between a mob committing violence against someone directly and a mob intimidating government officials into punishing someone.

To use a historical example, while Pilate may have been the one to actually condemn Jesus to crucifixion, that doesn't mean that those in the crowd who cried out "crucify him" were not a lynch mob. That is a classic case of political intimidation as a means of lynching. (At least, if you accept the biblical account.)

Way to cherry pick my statements. My vested self-interest isn't in seeing Zimmerman exonerated. It's in making sure he receives a fair trial. If he does receive one, and is found guilty, then so be it.

So far, he isn't receiving a fair trial. The prosecutor has acted unethically (IMO), and is trying to railroad Zimmerman into a plea bargain, rather than actually examining the evidence in the context of the law and granting the defendant the benefit of the doubt where it is ambiguous (as should be required by the presumption of innocence). The additional charges against Zimmerman's wife (using edited transcripts) only increase the perception of railroading.

Let's be clear, I've only really accused two people of bias in this issue. Those two people are you and Lady Sami. I've got quite a bit of evidence to back up that claim.

For example, originally both you and Lady Sami claimed that Zimmerman showed no signs of injury in the various photographs released. However, when the photographs showing his injuries were released, did either of you shift your position? No. Lady Sami even went so far as to accuse Zimmerman of faking his injuries! How is that not evidence of bias against Zimmerman?

As more and more evidence has been released, not once have you indicated that any of it might change your view on Zimmerman, no matter how much it might back up his story of the events of that night. You consistently pick the interpretation that makes Zimmerman seem the most guilty, regardless of the evidence presented. What called on it, you hide behind the fact that you aren't the court, so you don't have to presume him innocent. That statement alone is essentially an admission of bias.

I, on the other hand, have simply applied the principle of presumption of innocence to the case. I've stated up front that I am applying that principle, and how it should be applied (interpreting ambiguous evidence to the benefit of the defendant).

Yes, as someone who carries a firearm for self-defense, I have a vested interest in the case. I want to see "Stand Your Ground" upheld when it is appropriate, so that people with legitimate defense needs don't face needless prosecution and persecution for having the temerity to defend their own life. At the same time, I don't want it to be used as a justification for premeditated murder (as in the Paul Rodriguez case in Texas this month). People like Rodriguez are an absolute disgrace to all firearm owners, and rightly deserve to rot in jail.

The problem is that we don't have the evidence to say that Zimmerman falls into the same category as Rodriguez. Is it possible? Sure. But we can't make that claim without assuming Zimmerman's guilt (i.e. by assuming that Zimmerman threw the first punch). Until we have the evidence to demonstrate Zimmerman's guilt, the only reasonable course is to continue to presume him innocent.