Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MysticCat
I see it happen a lot in murder cases. When you think the evidence is such that the jury may believe it needs to convict of something, it's good to have an alternative that doesn't involve life imprisonment.
|
That's why I'm baffled at people complaining about how the prosecution handled this part of the trial. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to switch up charges and try to get the defendant convicted of
something.
Nothing new under the sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands
Would there have been an altercation if Zimmerman did what the authorities told him to do?
|
Probably not but depending on the actions involved there isn't a legal obligation to abide by the 911 Dispatcher. Yes, what the 911 Dispatcher said can be used in a court of law. Yes, people can say that Zimmerman disobeyed the Dispatcher (which isn't automatically disobeying the law) and therefore got what he deserved.
But, that isn't groundbreaking evidence to lead to a conviction in these types of trials. I keep using Joe Horn as an example but he is someone who was acquitted by a grand jury. He was an idiot who disobeyed the 911 Dispatcher, excitedly went outside with a gun, and shot his neighbor's burglars while saying "bang, bang, you're dead". This was all recorded because he remained on the phone with the 911 Dispatcher. He claimed Stand Your Ground --the 911 Dispatcher's instructions to Horn were not instructions under the law--and Horn remains a free man.