[lbo-talk] zimmerman not guilty

[Carl G. Estabrook]

'...State of Florida v. Zimmerman is a straight up traditional self defense case. It has never been pled as a Stand Your Ground defense case, irrespective of all the press coverage, attention and attribution to Stand Your Ground. It’s never been Stand Your Ground, and certainly is not now that the evidence is all in on the trial record. It is a straight self defense justification defense, one that would be pretty much the same under the law of any state in the union including that which you are in, and that I am in, now (so don’t blame “Florida law”)...'

- See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/11/uncomfortable-truth-the-state-of-evidence-in-the-george-zimmerman-prosecution/#sthash.j89tcZbp.dpuf

On Jul 14, 2013, at 11:25 AM, <knowknot at mindspring.com> wrote:


> 
> Re: [lbo-talk] zimmerman not guilty
> 
> On 7/14/2013, Wojtek S wrote:
> 
>> Did you expect anything different
>> from a Southern jury?
> 
> The acquittal almost certainly has very little to do with "a Southern jury" in the sense apparently implied and, instead, by the trial being (even if not deliberately) one of the most incompetently prepared and tried criminal prosecutions especially of a high profile case that one is likely to see.
> 
> It is easy to make a list of obvious things the prosecution should have done but did not do and of things that (with some exceptions by the two younger lawyers) the prosecution chose to do but should not have done or did (at best) ineffectually.
> 
> BTW, except for the media frenzy from the outset of Z's non-arrest and ensuing incessant bloviating about it - e.g., on an important day of the Bradley Manning trial, which he hasn't even mentioned much less informatively covered, MSNBC's mostly execrable Chris Matthews referred Z's trial as "The Most Important Criminal Case In The Country!!!" - it was an essentially trivial case and trivial trial.
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk