Image 01 Image 03

Did the Jury get it right in The Zimmerman Trial?

Did the Jury get it right in The Zimmerman Trial?

Umm, let me think on that.

I have until September 12 at 4 p.m. to decide.

This event sponsored by the Cornell Law School 2nd Amendment Club is open to the public, although good luck finding parking!

Cornell Event Posted - Zimmerman Trial

Update: In response to some reader inquiries, I’m not sure if there will be a live stream, but the event will be recorded, and we’ll post the video.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


AB needs a new mug shot. Kinda wild-eyed creepy, lol. Or is that on purpose?

    How funny, that’s what my ex-wife told me, too. 🙂

    Now that I’ve heard it from a (presumably) unbiased source, I guess a new photo is on the to-do list.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Andrew Branca. | September 3, 2013 at 4:25 pm

      Well, it would be a great look for a prosecutor.

      I glossed over WJ’s mug shot because it’s the same as he’s used on the blog masthead for years, but when I take a closer look, it sort of says, “ganga”. Again, it’s all in the eyes.

      ZurichMike in reply to Andrew Branca. | September 3, 2013 at 5:13 pm

      Gentlemen: It’s OK to smile in a photo. By the way, black and white photos are all the rage now on online professional network sites. Full headshots, though — no cropped scalps that make you look like you’re in a police line-up! LOL!

    Henry, that is the look of a happy BMW rider after his final drive went while still in warranty.

      Haha, my final drive went less than 1 week after my 3 year warranty expired.

      BMW nevertheless covered 2/3 of the replacement cost, and the local BMW dealer (I was on a lengthy road trip) took a final drive off a bike on the showroom floor to put one on my bike so I could be back on my way (rather than wait for one to come from Germany).

      I can live with that. 🙂

      –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    A facial expression like that will get you stopped and frisked in NYC.

Yes. Yes, they DID get it right.

As I said they would back a year ago or so.

An obviously balanced presentation is in store by two legal minds of differing appearance.

Whoa Nelly! Where’s Al Sharpton? Why isn’t he on this panel? This panel seems stacked for gun-toting God Fearing Righties.

OTOH: Thank you both for excluding Dhimmicrats from this panel!

God Bless; I’m allowed to say that as a lapsed Anglican!

    Unfortunately, although I’m licensed (or merely Constitutionally privileged) to tote around my sidearm in the vast majority of the country, New York remains one of the most vehement anti-civil rights states in the nation. My companion 1911 will not be accompanying me on my foray into “enemy” territory.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Andrew Branca. | September 3, 2013 at 3:41 pm

      So if someone takes a pot shot at you I guess William will have to take the bullet for you.

        I learned long ago that you avoid bullet impacts by using the cover actually available, and not the cover that you wish was available. Hopefully that won’t be the Professor. 🙂

        In any case, I excel at my #1 self-defense strategy, which is “run away to fight another day”.

        Besides, with New York’s Sullivan Laws and SAFE Act I can be utterly confident that there’s no bad guys roaming around the states with illegal guns.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Don’t worry, I hear they have their police response time down to darn near half an hour these days.

OK, what kind of “refreshments”?

I ask, because I just did finish the last bit of Patron?

and in the new nomenclature, what is da’ juice?

Brave guys! Be sure to bring bodyguards.

Think long, think hard. At the free refreshments table.

Expect student protestors: Code Punk

You guys should invite Al Sharpton, Colon Powell, Piers Morgan and all the other talking heads who have opined about the verdict to participate in the discussion.

thorleywinston | September 3, 2013 at 2:39 pm

I’d love to attend but I’m in a completely different State and I work during the day. Any chance that the hosts are planning to record the discussions, maybe as a podcast?

    I believe the Professor mentioned to me that there were plans to record the event. Of course I don’t personally have anything to do with that end of things.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Walker Evans in reply to Andrew Branca. | September 3, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      Don’t let him NOT make a video record of this conference! There are a lot of us that would love to be there but can’t travel that far … especially on short notice.

      And for the record, barring any newly discovered evidence, the answer to the question is a resounding “YES!”

There was no evidence presented to the jurors that proved Zimmerman was guilty of anything but defending himself.

The State puerpetrated LIES and deceptions. Dr. Boa did NOT perform an autopsy on Trayvon Martin that took in the “hands.” (The knuckle areas) to show that he had been hitting “somebody.”

O’Mara’s CLOSE was brilliant. He said it was “bizarre for a defense attorney” to show the jurors how to weigh evidence. But the State of Florida PURPOSELY did not produce a shred of evidence! All you got were assumptions. To go along with Debbie Half Nelson Farley imitator … making believe this is how judges act on “de law.” She, instead, was “acting” on her bloomers.

Okay, I’ll bite. Suppose that they did “get it wrong.” On what legal basis did they make their error? To my mind, the facts were not disputed – the jury was essentially asked to conclude that he was justified in the legal sense.

So it seems to me that in order for the jury to conclude he was NOT justified, it would necessarily have to find that he had criminal intent, right? And just where would the admissible evidence be found from which the jury could find intent, criminal or otherwise?

And what do they make of the testimony of the cop who told (falsely) GZ that they had video of the entire thing? He said GZ almost collapsed with relief while uttering Thank God.

I get it – GZ is an accomplished method actor who never plied his craft for money but who nevertheless remained in top acting form for a day such as that.

No offense but this entire “revisit” is nothing more than a racist effort to salvage the meme. And no, I don’t care how “respected” or “experienced” the members of the debate team might be. This needs to be tossed in the trash yesterday and I strongly suggest that both of the main bloggers on this site take a stand against this “all sides” nonsense. If the “got it wrong” crowd is so sure, let them go fund their own campaign to “prove” it.

And one last point. We “believe” in the jury system even when it “gets it wrong.” The jury has the final word and that is called justice. If it is NOT justice, or if it is eternally open for discussion, then we aren’t in America any more.

    Awkward . . . . 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      legacyrepublican in reply to Andrew Branca. | September 3, 2013 at 4:00 pm

      In a bizarre twist of application, I assert that the state was attempting jury nullification of conceal and carry plus stand your ground laws by asking for a guilty verdict.

      That kind of perversion of the judicial system should concern anyone who seeks justice for the common man.

      I am hoping that this gives you the vehicle to talk to the assembled about what this kind of malicious prosecution could do to our freedoms.

    Eskyman in reply to platypus. | September 3, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    I’ll go way out on a limb here, and guess:

    You haven’t been following this site at all, have you?

      platypus in reply to Eskyman. | September 5, 2013 at 11:45 am

      I don’t follow it as much as I should, considering the wealth of teaching available here. But I am uncertain what portion of my admittedly “rib-poking” comment is a bother to you. Sometimes I am dense — this may be one of those times.

    LSBeene in reply to platypus. | September 3, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    This is a reply to Platypus saying no to the forum:

    Sir, I completely disagree. Yes, this case needs to go away, but the problem is that so much of what folks “know” is from inaccurate propaganda.

    1) I have heard, ad nauseum that “GZ was told by the dispatcher to stay in his truck and not pursue” – which is completely false. He was told after he was outside the truck, and then he DID break off his pursuit, went to find a street sign, and then was headed back to his truck to leave. But, if you asked a non-biased average citizen, who watched the nightly news, they’d repeat the false assertion.

    2) We have all heard that “Stand Your Ground” was involved – it was not. The MEDIA played that up and mislead the public to get a “conversation about gun control” started. The problem, like race issues, is that the “conversation” is a bunch of like minded anti-2nd Amendment types all sitting around using misleading terms like “vigilante”, “assault rifle” (which played no part), and Stand Your Ground laws (which took no part) – and it’s not a “conversation”, it’s a lecture defined solely within their parameters without much regard to actual events.

    “They say”: That SYG laws were involved – they point to the jury instructions. They don’t say what those instructions were, that neither the defense nor prosecution raised it as a legal argument, nor that what did happen was classically SELF-defense, not SYG.

    3) Why this panel DOES need to happen is to show how the media distorted and used this case to it’s own ends and how the general public was mislead. Showing the race baiters and hustlers and false reporters as the frauds they are is a very useful thing.
    Just sayin’


      platypus in reply to LSBeene. | September 5, 2013 at 11:40 am

      Your disagreement is actually an agreement – I have no objection to a forum which analyzes the proceedings and teaches why certain things happened. I merely think the way that it is being pitched is inadvertently feeding the loons who go where their feelings lead them. Frankly, I doubt that any of the “got away with murder” crowd will even watch this, or could understand it if they did watch.

      In any event, when Dershowitz and I agree, pigs fly and we must be correct. 🙂

    Musson in reply to platypus. | September 4, 2013 at 8:10 am

    If the Jury did in fact get it wrong then I am sure we will get a indepth legal explanation on an upcoming episode of Law And Order.

    Dung. Dung.

    gene_frenkle in reply to platypus. | September 4, 2013 at 10:05 am

    I think the better question is “did the prosecution get the case right?”

    For example, we know Zimmerman engaged in racial profiling because it is HIGHLY unlikely that Trayvon was engaged in suspicious behavior at the exact house that had had problems several weeks prior to the event. There is no way Trayvon would have been looking intently at the very same house that had a problem a few weeks before because Trayvon was new to the neighborhood and had no affiliation with the burglars in that area, so Zimmerman’s reason for initiating the event does not hold water.

    We also know that Trayvon was not really dressed exactly as those that would burglarize a house, he was not wearing a black hoodie and black pants. Zimmerman clearly racially profiled Trayvon because Zimmerman knew just enough about criminal justice to get himself and others in trouble. We also know Trayvon was on the phone which casts major doubt on Zimmerman’s version of the event. So Trayvon just happened to be a young black male walking near a house that had been targeted by burglars while being dressed similarly to the burglars…but skin color clearly played a major role in Zimmerman’s cloudy reasoning.

    The Sanford PD believed Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter and now that we know Zimmerman misled Hannity about his wife’s whereabouts that night I think it is obvious that manslaughter charges were warranted. The prosecution really screwed this case by bringing murder charges which I do not feel were warranted and were politically motivated to the actions of racists like Al Sharpton.

Prepare yourselves to be assaulted with lies, deception, illogic and stupidity. In other words, there will be liberals in the audience.

As Glenn Reynolds says: “Yes. Next question?”

Wow! Would love to be able to watch this event via streaming or podcast.

Really looking forward to seeing the video of this event ! CSPAN should be covering this !