Not Guilty? Disappointing.

If anyone is interested in a defense attorney's views, my blog post is here: http://ventrellaquest.wordpress.com/201 ... ur-ground/

If anyone is interested in a defense attorney's views, my blog post is here: http://ventrellaquest.wordpress.com/201 ... ur-ground/

I’m not even sure exactly how the prosecution and the judge allowed Zimmerman to use the “stand your ground” defense.

George Zimmerman, 29, appeared in court Tuesday and affirmed that he did not want a pre-trial "stand your ground" immunity hearing. His lawyers alleged the prosecution had withheld information ahead of Zimmerman's June trial for second degree murder in the Feb. 26, 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

If it hadn’t been for Zimmerman’s aggression, there wouldn’t have been a fight and Martin would still be alive. Martin was the one standing his ground.

The bottom line is this: I’m a defense attorney and I can’t figure this verdict out

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.

Thankfully, he didn't have you as his defense attorney. That's a shame. As far as Trayvon standing his ground. There was time when he ran out of Zimmerman's site to just disappear and head home, but he didn't. Why didn't he? What's the motivation to confront the "stalker". A co-worker was telling me that she'd be one of those folks who would confront someone who was following them. Um, it's dark and rainy. He already told Rachel that he was being followed by a creepy person. Why confront someone late at night who's following you? Wouldn't you be calling the police or heading home and Then calling the police.

Why stalk a teenager and carry a gun while you approach him even though police told you not to?

The police did not order him not to follow Martin because this is not within the dispatcher's purview. The 911 dispatcher only said the police did not "need" Zimmerman to investigate further. Clearly, Zimmerman felt it was his responsibility to do so. Granted, maybe an egotistical asshole macho rent-a-cop B.S. choice on his part, but not illegal nor undermining any police command.

Sean Noffke, the dispatcher who was on the phone during Zimmerman's non-emergency call, testified regarding his own statements at that time. Noffke said that when he told Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that," he was making a suggestion, not giving an order. He said that dispatchers do not give orders because of liability issues. During cross-examination, Noffke testified that Zimmerman did not seem angry during the call, and that he wanted the police to come to his location. Noffke also testified that he asked Zimmerman which way Martin was going, and that his question could be interpreted as a request to go and see which way he was going. He clarified his statement that dispatchers do not give orders, but suggestions for the safety of the caller. He testified that Zimmerman's swearing and comments about Martin did not raise any particular concern, but under redirect said that Zimmerman's language could be interpreted as "hostile." The defense then asked if Noffke actually heard hostility, and he said no. The defense asked about the statements regarding Martin's race and appearance, and Noffke testified that all of the discussion was for the purpose of identification of the suspect, and did not seem unusual

If anyone is interested in a defense attorney's views, my blog post is here: http://ventrellaquest.wordpress.com/201 ... ur-ground/

if you're a black person walking home from the store in your own neighborhood and some white dude starts following you, start beating the fucker and don't stop until you're sure he's dead.

except if you're a black person and you do that you're going to jail for life.

It should've been manslaughter. The jury got this wrong.

MANSLAUGHTER

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.

2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the
death of Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent
act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that
duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while
resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a
felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the
following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by
lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any
sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden
combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or
unusual manner.In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death

Remember kids if you get bullied after school, just use apply the stand your ground law and shoot if you get beat up.

you really should spend a day at a public school one day if you think those statsitics are overly blown. I'm not gonna argue that they're 100% accurate but they're not overly blown to the point that bullying is a major issue with youth today in this country.

I was seriously disappointed.

Most jurors start with an overwhelming presumption that the police always tell the truth, and (contrary to jury instructions) most jurors do hold it against the defendant (at least subconsciously) if the defendant does not testify. On top of this, in most criminal cases there is a vast resource disparity in favor of the prosecution, both in terms of the respective skills of the particular attorneys as well as the access to experts, forensic resources, etc. Most judges are former prosecutors, and it is darn near impossible for a prominent member of the defense bar to ascend to the state or federal bench.

All of these factors, and probably more, contribute to the fact that we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Every couple of years seems to bring a new wave of exonerations of people who were wrongfully convicted, often in trials where an honest review of the evidence will reveal that the reasonable doubt standard, properly applied, would have resulted in a not guilty verdict.

If you want an accurate sense of the manner in which our criminal justice devalues the lives of young black men, take a look at the population of our prisons, the unrelenting severity of our sentencing practices, and the disgraceful failure of our recent Presidents and most governors to mitigate these impacts through use of the clemency power. Whatever legacy Trayvon may have, I cannot imagine he would want it to be the further weakening of a legal standard that is one of the only protections young black men have when facing prosecution and imprisonment on a scale unheard of in virtually any other country in the world.

Ooh, damn. And I wrote this especially to please you.