... and convict him on what you think he might do.

what he did do. Murder an unarmed kid.

I'm sure the jury is either sequestered or told not to watch the news or read newspapers.

Just wondering.

But I understand after reading some other threads that the tape was actually played in court today. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't make sense to me, because unless GZ takes the stand, nobody can question him on those statements. Of course, a lot of things about this trial don't make sense to me.

that he would never get it out and another person would be trying to convince a jury that he or she acted in self defense.

dragging that guy into this?

Snowden, Zimmerman, Greenwald, Deen, so many names zipping around, so much screaming at each other over all of them...

Or had you ever said before today that you thought Zimmerman was guilty?

and consider all of the evidence. Including that which is yet to be presented.

Z said so. And his boy Hannity just sat there.

I hope they follow the law and not predictions based on personal opinion.

he needs to go to jail

You would only be exposed to evidence presented in court, not any of this talk on DU or in the rest of the media. You would have been screened out if you were predisposed to convicting Zimmerman. So you're not a juror in that case. None of us are and we don't think like those jurors.

Yes?

and jurors have been screened out for that.

Except that I'm talking about what they heard today. I don't care about their preexisting views at all. I'm talking about a few specific words that they heard today.

We'll see what happens.

You can say any damn thing you want when they are screening you.

Imagine if you were on trial for, say, assault. And a juror didn't find that you DID do the assault, according to the law that the judge wrote down and gave you (the elements of the crime), but the juror thought you were so reckless in your behavior that you MIGHT be reckless again so that an assault MIGHT happen again, so that juror votes that you are guilty of the assault crime....

that would not be justice. You would have been victim of injustice and locked up for something you didn't do.

jurors think.

If somebody is a murderer and the possibility is there that they will kill again, I think a 'body count' thought or two would cross their minds.

seriously. You've never served on a criminal jury, I take it. It's not a blog or a forum or a see who can pee further thing. It's a serious job that everyone on the jury takes seriously. And you see a live person sitting there, with family, whose life hangs in the balance. It's a weighty job.

Even if you find he's guilty, it's not a pleasant thing to enter your guilty vote. And you don't do it unless you're sure.

And yes, through all the discussions, living with the other jurors day after day, all day, they will know why you arrived at your vote. They are your fellow jurors. They will see your soul.

You would not be the Henry Fonda character in that movie.

on a jury.

Gee, really? It's not a forum or blog?! Thanks for your wisdom there.

Besides the defendent's family, I would also see the victim's family. Their lives have been ruined and they must relive the crime and their pain through the trial.

It's an excellent movie.

Most of the jurors at the beginning want to vote guilty, based on either their gut feelings, the top level of evidence, or their own negative feelings toward the defendant. Henry Fonda looks at the evidence throughout the discussions and...well, I won't tell you what happens, in case you see it.

Because I think I remember him admitting that he pulled the trigger. This isn't about mistaken identity or being falsly accused of being somewhere or doing something. This is about WHY he pulled the trigger. The WHY has everything to do with how the jurors decide this case. GZ's state of mind has everything to do with the WHY.

Tell me, in that film you refer to, did the defendant admit to killing someone?

You do understand that because you kill someone, it doesn't necessarily mean you committed homicide under the law? Of course you know that.

He is accused of 2nd degree murder. That's why there is a trial going on. (duh)

This isn't a defense of Zimmerman, whom I hope is convicted. Its a defense of the jury trial system. If you're ever a defendant, you are going to hope and pray that none of the jurors think its okay to make up their minds before your defense is presented.

They want to win, win, and then win some more.

Garagos was probably just stating that they were doing that bad a job that they had to be throwing it...just an offhand remark about the prosecution not being executed properly.

...which of the prosecution's witnesses that have been presented so far bolster the idea that GZ committed either murder or manslaughter? And of the witnesses presented so far, which present reasonable doubt that GZ acted in self defense?

We haven't even heard the defense witnesses yet.

He got away with murder once, and went on to kill again...

because then he admits it was a mistake.

he doesn't even give that much. So fuck 'im

by saying his sorry or regrets it or feels remorse and probably any other way of apologizing would almost certainly be viewed as an admission of guilt and wrongdoing.

It's for the same reason you so rarely get a public apology from a police department or any other organization where their direct or indirect actions resulted in someone getting hurt. It is admission of guilt which leads to an almost certain loss in a trial.

to do that, it would be an ad hoc admission of guilt.