is designed to work - follow the law and, if the State can't produce enough (or good enough) evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes, any further justice has to come from some other quarter.

What other quarter?

The civil justice system? Peaceful public shunning and humiliation? Karma?

He can never make up for what he did, other than serving time for it.

Divine justice

Fuck that!

we need to return to some "civics" education

nt.

justice for Z would come from a Divine Quarter. No escaping final justice.

god

Wish she would have held out, knowing he was guilty. B37 held out and seemed to have little knowledge of the case why not this lady?

The police effed up from the get-go. The judge effed up when she allowed contaminated witness testimony to stand, instead of striking it. The prosecution was caught in the middle. They had to follow the rules; the defense broke them right and left with impunity.

The laws in Florida are fucked up. Anybody can stalk an innocent, unarmed person, corner them, initiate a confrontation and kill them; then claim self-defense.

She said the evidence and the case was not sufficient, so she followed the law.

The law is not always correct.

Interesting concept. Sounds like a cool society - freedom and all. So, when the jury is sworn to follow the law, they should only do that if they want?

Civil disobedience ... Jury nullification... Sometimes shit is wrong and you do something.

case. If jury nullification results in a guilty verdict which it would have been in the Zimmerman case that verdict would almost certainly have been overturned.

Jury can vote how they want.

via nullification can be appealed whereas a not guilty verdict cannot. If someone is found guilty due to nullification that means by definition that someone who should have been acquitted was not. That would not stand on appeal. If they truly are guilty then it's not nullification.

In the Zimmerman case, if Zimmy really were guilty and should have been convicted as many people believe, then if the jury had found him guilty that would not have been nullification. It would have been a correct and just verdict. The only way it could be nullification would be if he were really not guilty and they found him guilty anyway.

. . . not ever to convicting the guilty (or innocent) against the law. Ethically, you cannot justify disobeying the law to find somebody guilty. That's no longer civil disobedience. That's uncivil. It's unequal application of the law. That goes against every constitutional principle, and the very basis of rights and equality before the law.

My bad, hadn't thought it through.

their understanding of the law and not what your interpretation means. Even Supreme Court Justice's don't agree on the interpretations of the law. That is why you have a consensus. On my interpretation of the same law you interpret, George Zimmerman would have been guilty.

One example where I disagree with many of the Zimmerman's backers is provocation. They claim following a person with a loaded gun and profiling them, wasn't evidence of provocation. Intent is part of the Law to decide one's guilt. Zimmerman also intended to use that gun on Martin if he gave him any problem. That was the necessary apprehension of Zimmerman for Martin to believe his life was in immediate danger of Zimmerman. Zimmerman started the whole incident and that made him guilty. That is where the disagreemant lies.

Is the law clearly says your situation is legal.

No I don't like it but the law says

1) George can have a gun
2) George can question TM
-no law violation there even if he profiled him only on race it's still not illegal
3) George can use said gun to "defend" himself

Like it or not the law in FL seperates the following and questioning from the figh/shooting.

I think the law should be looked at more closly

1) states that he has a right to carry a gun, but not to use it to hunt suspects or kill someone unlawfully. He was not a police officer and using it on community watch was advised not to. 2) The law may allow George Zimmerman to question any citizen, but not as a police officer or community watch captain. If he wanted to ask TM the time of the day or if he needed help is perfectly OK but that was not his intent now was it?
30) George can use a gun to defend himself but not to hunt or start provocations with people. He started the provocation by pursuing Martin. You still evade the definition of intent concerning the law.

Furthermore, if he was at any fault of starting the provocation, he cannot use self defense, unless he reasonably thought his life was in danger and was not at fault. THe only reason he can use Deadly force, is if he used all alternative means to retreat. That includes letting TM know he wishes so. And it has to be equal or enough force to do so before using deadly force.

So are you with the Sanford Police Department or Zimmerman's defense team? You may convince others that Zimmerman had no other alternative ways to retreat or constrain Martin without resorting to using a Deadly weapon. As I said in another post, it was unreasonable. Where was Zimmerman's hands and arms at while TM was beating him to Death as he claims? He had the power in them to over power TM for his gun, but didn't have the power to hold TM's arms from beating him or slamming his head on the pavement?

He couldn't restrain TM for a few minutes for the police tyo arrive which wasn't much longer from the time he and others had place 911 calls?

I think parts of the law was with held from the jury. The part about initial aggressor and provocation. That should have been left up to the jury and not the judge or lawyers. Did she act politically?

Initial aggressor would require the state to prove he assaulted TM first (the state could not and it was complicated by witness testimony and zimmermans "injures".

It is not aginst the law for Zimmerman to profile and confront Trayvon.

The state could not prove Zimmerman hit travon first.

The law in FL clearly says if Zimmerman was doing a lawful activity (even the state does not attempt to show Zimmerman did anything illegal until the shot was fired )

Zimmerman met his burdeon of establishing his self defense case and the state failed spectacularly at proving murder 2 and spent almost no time on manslaughter even specificly arguing aginst it in an attempt to get a 2nd degree conviction.

I belive Zimmerman profiled Trayvon based primarily on race. He confronted TM and an altercation took place. Witnesses say travon before the shot was on top and ballistics match that story. Obviously Zimmerman shot him and claims self defense.

Given the law of Florida and the fact that Zimmerman even according to the state committed no crime until the shooting. (Following TM/profiling him and even questioning him is not against the law)

Now clarification may need to be added to the law or it modified but the state failed in its job and the result is Zimmerman walked

Just an FYI, there are a good deal of people on here that just LUUUURRRRVVVVEEEEEE the LAW to a ridiculous degree. I know you understand.

When it supports their hero Zimmerman.

Funny, I've not heard any of them LUUUURRRRVVVVEEEEEE the LAW enough to defend Marissa Alexander. Wonder why...

Their LUUUUURRRRRVVVVEEEEE is highly selective. We know why.

have been made with the evidence/testimony in the trial for a manslaughter conviction. It just needed someone with the conviction to lay it out for the rest of the jurors and then dig her heels in (even if is resulted in a hung jury). It is evident that the jury might not have had a good grasp of manslaughter given that they sent a question to the judge.

Florida's law is flawed, and she could have stood up for her beliefs that Zman was the aggressor, and Trayvon had the right to protect himself from a bigoted, trained fighter, with a gun in case his fighting skills failed him, and a history of violence.

The problem in this case was not the law. It was the stupid jurors that didn't see his numerous lies about what happened. Yes, the prosecution did an epically shitty job, but you'd have to not be paying attention to what the evidence said in order to believe he was truthful and therefore not guilty. Some of his lies the prosecution DID point out, and the jurors ignored all of it. They were given the evidence and found it wasn't sufficient despite what that evidence should have told them as so many of us clearly saw without the help of the prosecutors at all. They had to follow the law, but they didn't find him not guilty because of the law nor the evidence, they found him not guilty because they believed his stories of what happened (despite there being more than one story), and believed that he feared for his life because of this bitty little booboos and ignored what the evidence showed. And the evidence clearly showed that he lied about what happened despite how badly the prosecution presented some of the lies, and the ones they missed the prosecution didn't bother to point out they could have noticed themselves just going by the evidence of Zimmerman's own words. If he lied about what happened then he's guilty because there is no reason whatsoever for an innocent person to lie about what happened and every reason a guilty one would.

The whole thing sucks, as does Zman.

What matters is that the prosecution has to prove it's case. The defense can claim that it was a terminator sent back from the future, or that twinkies made him do it.

What matters in our system of law is that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And there's plenty of reason for innocent people to lie. There are countless cases of police getting confessions from people for crimes they didn't commit. Those are lies, told because sometimes people get confused, or they just don't remember or they get taken advantage of.

The Innocence Project has a good summary here:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

I think Zimmerman is absolutely morally guilty of killing Travyon Martin, but I don't think the prosecution proved its case. It's supposed to be hard to convict somebody, that supposed to be the basis of our criminal justice system.

if they in any way believed Zimmerman's RIDICULOUS story

But, you almost never see a fully informed jury.
http://fija.org/

"the evidence put forth was not sufficient to prove murder"

much less go on national TV and blab about how he got away with murder like she was powerless to stop it? all she did was to help facilitate injustice...

and what happened to B37's "moral duty to follow the law"?? She's pretty much admitted her mind was made up before the opening motions...

And I still don't get the "evidence put forward was not enough to prove murder" -talking point...There have been high profile convictions with a lot less hard evidence, and if the victim was white the jurors would be singing a different story...

it wasn't - she didn't

But not in a jury?

Yeah, what the fuck ever. She's a fucking coward. She let herself get bullied. She wanted to go home and grab a snack. Fuck her.

n/t

One might say with equal validity that Zimmerman had a moral duty to stay in his vehicle.

... then she believed it beyond a reasonable doubt.

She's a fucking coward that got bullied into her vote. No fucking sympathy from me. Trayvon's murderer walks free because of her no more than if she pulled the trigger her-fucking-self.

She could have had this guy in prison where he belongs and have her moral and ethical integrity intact.

I have no sympathy for her at all.

she had proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) for manslaughter.

Thanks.

If not, she should be sued for libel, right? I mean, if she didn't have the evidence for manslaughter, and now she's going around saying Zimmerman is a murderer, he should probably sue her. She had the evidence to convict for manslaughter. She got bullied by another know-nothing juror into voting for acquittal (even though she thinks he's a murderer). She could have hung the jury or convinced them that they had the evidence for manslaughter.

She could have retained her moral and ethical integrity by doing so.

Instead, she'll be known as a coward, in my eyes.

he was morally, but not legally guilty. That is what she said. And the reason was lack of evidence.

She never stated nor implied the evidence was there to convict GZ on manslaughter charges - just the opposite. She stated the evidence was not there.

You are claiming she was bullied. She never said that.

Her "moral duty" was to look at the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence and the law. Doesn't always turn out the way we would like it to, but I would rather have the system we have, rather than a bunch of rogue jurors making decisions based on their gut feelings.

But the idiot judge included them anyway.

The law is written very leniently in Florida for self defense...

Florida Statue 776.012
"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

It was a SYG case, because SYG altered definition of self-defense and juror B37 mentioned SYG was part of decision.

Specifically, California says that a defendant "is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself" while Florida says the defendant is "justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat".

To my non-lawyer self, this suggests that in California, one isn't automatically able to escalate the situation to deadly force unless the situation warrants it. Florida, on the other hand, would allow an escalation to deadly force in any situation.

Thats just great. I feel so much better now.

nt.

And hopefully they could get a more diverse jury.

What would that do. The law right or wrong is the law. The instructions right or wrong were the instruction.

You expect minorities to disregard the law in a court of law to issue retribution.

DU elevated to the ranks of the youtube comments section.

You are reading the law the way you want it to work, in favor of bigots and gun toters.

I guess their reasoning for that is quicker trials and no hung juries.

From watching CNN I learned that all Florida criminal cases (and I presume civil cases) are six jurors. Capitol cases are 12. I don't know about Capitol cases but six member juries but be unanimous or it's a hung jury. Whence the judge will plead with them to try again

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2013, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

"Capitol" is the building and the hill, and nothing else.

EDIT: oh how sharper than a serpent's tooth is irony...

Before "and."

there is no re-trial. If the prosecutor believes the outcome would be the same, usually because of the same evidence, then they may choose not to re-try the case. Money also can come into play in a situation such as I have described.

I should have said there could be a retrial. But there would not be anything barring one. This goes back to my point that in this case public officials have to simply want it(i.e. care).

but I don't believe they are obligated to do so.

In the Zimmerman case I think a hung jury probably would have had the same result as acquital since I'm not sure the state would have bothered to retry the case.

That would be unconstitutional.

In the event of a hung jury, the court returns no verdict and therefore the case can be retried. Yes that means the same crime.

There is a lot of misinformation about this case going around. The most egregious of which that the jury had 'no choice' but to acquit. That is an excuse.

Not if in a hung jury verdict.

Although there are other legal avenues through which he can still face justice for this crime, not related to a second degree murder conviction, which is why the Federal government stopped the return of his weapon as evidence. The Justice Department has to want it though. I'm not confident this justice department really wants it.

So will drop it for lack of evidence this was a hate crime.

No sane human being would believe Zimmerman would have stalked and killed a White child that night. The evidence is plenty sufficient.

I specifically said "want".

I was just saying what some people on here that are in the legal profession told me it wasn't going to happen.

As for what other posters might say:

Appeal to authority
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

They have sucked on many issues, but they are not that crazy.

....correctly could have proved it. The DA and Judge completely failed.

So, he pulls out his gun, intentionally. Points it at Trayvon's chest, intentionally. Pulls the trigger, intentionally. (And let me tell you, that model's safety is in the extra long trigger pull, so he HAS to have intended to shoot Trayvon.) And killed him. Yet somehow this jury somehow could not come up with INTENT???? Did they confuse it with premeditation???

the one juror, I was waiting to hear from. If that jury had been more diverse, the verdict probably would have been hung. Giving the evidence that I heard, I would have voted guilty of murder also. Jeantel has made different statements than what she claimed on the stand which would have given reasonable doubt.

My exact point was there was no at first Trayvon Martin circled back on Zimmerman to confront him, until Jeantel's latest statements. On the stand, she did not say Trayvon told her he had something to take care of. What she claims that she believe Trayvon would have done doesn't matter. She just needs to tell what she know and not add in her opinions. She could get charged for perjury, changing her story like that, after testifying under oath before a jury. It did Trayvon Martin no justice by claiming that he would have went back just to kick this Dude's ass. She claims beating someone's ass is a Black thing. That is stereotyping Black people as violent. She is just playing right into their hands.

Are defense exhibit #1.

There is no time limit on what it takes to establish intent. Intent can form in as little as a few seconds. (Intent was a big factor in a murder trial that as conducted here a while back so there was a lot discussed about the concept of intent at that time). George Zimmerman had a choice of getting away from the situation and he chose not to. He chose to follow Trayvon. Upto to the point that the scuffle was initiated, GZ had a chance to back off and walk away. That he chose not to could infer intent at that point. When he fired his gun, it was so with the desire to greviously harm Trayvon Martin. He shot at Trayvon, not a warning shot elsewhere.

and we know which juror that would be. From the article, it looks like other issues might have been discussed as well, like whether Zimmerman should have been charged, given her additional answer to the question about it. That information was excluded from evidence.

I've said all along that a strong jury could have taken the evidence presented and come to a guilty verdict. Just as the original investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman, and just as the DA did charge. The DA did not present the case well but the evidence was there.

IMO, the case rests on the evidence not on how well the DA speaks.

A person who would purposely let themselves be beat up in order to shoot someone else would have had very strong motivation to do so. If that was racial shouldn't it have shown up in something more tangible?

Yes if you believe Zimmerman goes around taking pot shots at people because they are black then he should be convicted of 2nd degree murder. But it must be proven that that is his motivation as opposed to fearing for his own safety.

Zimmerman was guilty of premeditated murder because premeditation is also not tied to a specific time limit but can occur in as little as seconds. If you are given a choice to flee to safety (which Zimmerman did because he could have stayed in his truck and not follow Trayvon) but instead choose to go towards danger, should you shoot and kill someone you can make the argument that the person committed premeditated murder because they could have avoided the situation. Once GZ made the decision to go after Trayvon, every action thereafter is premeditated.

We had a case in Oklahoma where two teenage black kids walked into a pharmacy with the intent to rob it. One boy was armed the other was not. The Pharmacist got a gun and shot the unarmed kid (why he didn't shoot the armed kid is a mystery to me). The shot kid dropped to the floor. He then chased the other kid out the door with his gun. A very brief time later he walked back in the door, walked past the kid turning his back to the kid as he walked to the back of the store the change guns to one that was loaded. He then walked back to the front and proceeded to shoot the injured boy several more times. The first shot was self defense, the rest of the shots became premeditated murder. He was tried and convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The nail in his coffin was the store's security video which caught the whole thing on video. It also didn't help him that was kind of a nut, spinning tales to the police during his interrogation and was popping quite a number of different pills. There are a lot of people here who view him as a hero and are outraged by his conviction. The security video and police interview really sealed the deal for a conviction. They nailed him for premeditation because he left the building and then came back inside where he proceeded to finish killing the kid.

Seriously? That is your legal justification?

I guess hiring a PI to follow a cheating spouse equals murder for hire?

Zimmerman's defense WAS that he killed Treyvon intentionally, but was justified in doing so because of self-defense.

I think the jury did confuse intent with premeditation. That *plus* the lack of diversity brought the verdict we got.

Playing ones on message boards that don't understand it.

The legal community even on TV was almost 100% state did not prove case and about 70% it was a weak case to begin with.

Intent or not is irrelivant if at the time you shoot u are covered by FL self defense law and in this case he was.

If you don't like the law fight to change it but according to the law and the case presented the Jury followed the law given to them.

I would not vote to acquit somebody who shot an unarmed kid. Not happening.

I did not pull this discussion out of my ass. Good god.

Around the self defense case he put on.

Had they been able to prove he intended to shoot travon when he spotted him and got out of te truck they could have avoided the FL law about self defense and would have been able to convict him.

I belive she was trying to find a way I show his intent made his claim of self defense invalid but they could not prove this.

Almost by default I knew Zimmerman would walk once I understood FL law and the jury was given instructions. In fact I belive the only way to get around zimmermans self defense claims was to prove his intent was to kill TM at te beginning of the altercation

But, there was NO QUESTION on intent in manslaughter. He did pull the gun out. He did point it at his chest. He did pull the trigger. Trayvon did die as a result of his act.

All that is in the tapes of his interviews with police.

And he did have a choice. He could have fired the weapon into his shoulder or leg or side. Or into the air or the ground. The fight would have stopped. He would not have been "in danger" anymore. And Trayvon would have been alive. He chose the most deadly course.

In a dynamic situation u are luck to get shots on target.

No in a static situation where u have time and full clear presence of mind u can say that but if you are truly fearing for your life u don't say well let me concentrate and hit a non vital part of the attacker. You shoot to drop the threat. With someone on top of u when you pull your gun u are shooting pretty fast or that gun is being ripped away from you or otherwise deflected quite possibly.

There is a reason no weapons instructor will ever to teach you to aim for a leg or arm but rather center mass. You chance of getting a hit on target is greatly increased your chances of over penetration is decreased and your chance of hitting a vital organ thus stopping the attack greatly increased.

Read up o. The Miami FBI shoot out that lead to the development of the 10mm round and the .40 cal round (most popular police round in the USA) and read up on how many times and where the criminals were shot. If you don't hit a vital organ the attacker has a greater chance to continue the attack.

Not saying Zimmerman should have even been involved in a fight with TM had he not profiled him. But let me know when profiling becomes an illegal act so some of the fuckers I run into can go to jail for being racist assholes but until then racial profiling by citizens is not aginst the law. (Ps I'm a 31 year old black male who is profiled daily)

And I won't fill you in.

You would know that in a dynamic situation shot placement is very difficult even for the police.

Once you make the decision to deploy your gun and use it u understand you could likely take another persons life. It's not complex shooting someone will Likly kill them.

The problem in this case is not wither Zimmerman should have shot him in the leg instead of the heart it's that he should have never pursued him to begin with and did so because of racial profiling. Unfortantly profiling someone on race is not against the law.

the jury. They started to look at evidence when they asked for a complete list. But that got nipped in the bud. They got rid of Murder 2 since they decided race wasn't a factor. All that was left was intent, according to this juror. And that got screwed up royally.

It defies common sense. Murder 2 takes into account the full time frame, from the car to the murder. State of mind, what GZ was thinking all that time comes into play. But they discounted that verdict.

Then they go to manslaughter, which narrows the time frame to the killing itself. What happened immediately before the death. Yet they allowed themselves to be taken back out of that time frame and back to premeditation?

In manslaughter and intent, all they had to decide was that he intentionally got his gun out, which he admitted. That he intentionally pointed it at his chest at close range, which he admitted, and that he fired the weapon, which he admitted. The result of that action was death, which any reasonable person would have expected from that caliber firearm at that range.

Conversely, GZ could have pointed that gun at Trayvon's arm and fired. The fight would have stopped immediately. GZ would no longer have "feared for his life" and the police could have dealt with the situation with two live people to talk to instead of just one. Or, GZ could have fired a shot into the air or the ground. He indeed made a conscious choice. That choice was to put a bullet into Trayvon's heart. It may have been a split-second choice; nevertheless, it was a deadly choice.

She followed the law as she was instructed. Don't like the law - change it. Many jury's later say they thought the defendent might be guilty of the crime, but the facts did not back it up.

could also meant she felt under pressure or was intimidated by the other jurors who was predominately white.

or she reviewed the law and the jury instructions and realized that legally there was not enough to convict him.