Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Zimmerman Trial

Today can only be characterized as an utter debacle for the prosecution in Florida v. Zimmerman. Besides the testimony of a couple of highly professional law enforcement witnesses, the testimony of the the other State witnesses ranged from signing George Zimmerman�s praises, to acknowledging the utility of following a suspicious person from a distance, to being utterly discredited by razor sharp cross-examination of the defense.

I've been watching a good bit of the trial. I'm just hoping the jury can decide on the facts, not the emotion or the medias account of the story. This should have never even been to trial.

Andrew Branca | June 26, 2013 at 1:26 am

I don�t claim to be �unbiased�. I am very much biased against those who would do harm to innocents. I spent the bulk of my firearms instruction years teaching, for free, women how to protect themselves against violent ex-partners. Are the women I trained and the men I trained them to defend against morally equivalent?

Of course not.

I DO however, claim to be fair. I go where the evidence leads me. In this case, the overwhelming majority�really, ALL�the evidence points to Zimmerman being a good neighbor exercising his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, who was attacked by a foolish and brutally violent young man who thought he could use deadly force against an innocent with impunity, and whose attack was relentless an unceasing until a desperately-fired 115g 9mm tore open his heart.

If the State has actual evidence to the contrary, they�ve kept it well hidden through more than a year of mandatory mutual discovery.

In any case, I don�t see the the two people in that above described encounter as being any more morally equivalent than I would a rapist and his victim.

So, yes, in that sense I am biased, indeed.

�Andrew

I've been watching a good bit of the trial. I'm just hoping the jury can decide on the facts, not the emotion or the medias account of the story. This should have never even been to trial.

Andrew Branca | June 26, 2013 at 2:30 am

You are mistaken.

If I launch a non-deadly force attack against you (e.g., simple battery), and you respond with non-deadly force, I cannot justify my use of non-deadly force as self-defense, because I was the aggressor (unless i retreat, communicate intention to retreat, etc.).

If I launch a deadly force attack against you, and you respond with deadly force, I cannot justify my use of deadly force as self defense, because I was the aggressor.

But if I launch a non-deadly attack, and you respond with DEADLY force, I am entirely entitled to use deadly force in self-defense. I may later be held accountable for my initial use of non-deadly force (e.g., prosecuted for simple battery), but I do not lose my right to save my life from your gun shot simply because I chest-bumped you.

�Andrew

If he is found not guilty, do you think we will see the riots like we did after the LA case in '92?

If he is found not guilty, do you think we will see the riots like we did after the LA case in '92?

How far from this are you TRH?

Check out this site for great info and commentary on the case.

Zimmerman Trial Day 2 � Analysis of State�s Witnesses

About 150 miles.

PS When I lived on Long Island I personally attended the trial of Colin Ferguson, the Long Island Railroad mass murderer who insisted on handling his own defense. That was nuts to watch live. The mass murderer was up there cross examining the witnesses who saw him murder folks. He would ask them, for example, "Can you identify the person who committed the murders?" and they'd point to him and say, "Yeah, you."

I've been watching a good bit of the trial. I'm just hoping the jury can decide on the facts, not the emotion or the medias account of the story. This should have never even been to trial.

Where can a person watch the proceedings?