The Zimmerman Trial

Not good. I was expecting the verdict to be reached today within just a few hours...

Its really an open and shut case so I can't see how an objective person can find him guilty of either 2nd degree or manslaughter.

reply to post by AlexG141989

I was expecting the verdict to be reached today within just a few hours

I wasn't. I don't think the jury wants everyone to think they made a rush rush verdict. I guess a verdict late tomorrow or on Monday. On a side note, I wonder which juror will write a book on the case.

Peace

I have heard that two jurors were crying when the prosecution was on rebuttal. That's a concern.

I know he will go free on appeal if he is convicted, but man if he get's charged with manslaughter I will lose faith in our justice system and our government. If that happened then people really would have a reason to get out in the street and protest.

And every night on these media shows they pick these little dramatic t.v. juries that ALWAYS say he will be found guilty, yet the online polls always have numbers like 70 percent than he is innocent.

What do you guys think? Do you think the two crying jurors will be turned by the others if they are using logic? I hope there are no covert jurors that made it in.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by AlexG141989

 

I was expecting the verdict to be reached today within just a few hours

I wasn't. I don't think the jury wants everyone to think they made a rush rush verdict. I guess a verdict late tomorrow or on Monday. On a side note, I wonder which juror will write a book on the case.

Peace

Interesting take... but do they actually know that this case is as big as it is?

Seeing the trial through the eyes of the juror, that would be a nice book...

well, we know for a fact that Mark O'Mara is writing a book on the case. He said so during an interview with CNN earlier today, not long after the Jury started deliberating...

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

if he get's charged with manslaughter I will lose faith in our justice system and our government.

Sad to say that he wouldn't be the first convicted with no evidence against him. There is a good odd that they will get him with manslaughter just to give the family what they are seeking.

Peace

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I have heard that two jurors were crying when the prosecution was on rebuttal. That's a concern.

I know he will go free on appeal if he is convicted, but man if he get's charged with manslaughter I will lose faith in our justice system and our government. If that happened then people really would have a reason to get out in the street and protest.

This is the deal. Zimmerman could "possibly" be guilty of profiling in trailing and confronting TM that night. I as most any reasonable person however feel that TM had no right in that neighborhood and should have made an attempt to address Zimmerman in some sort of conversation.

I believe he did not because he was a racist and believed because of the dark that Zimmerman was white and was going to confront with violence instead of words. I think that whatever happened that night was most likely a product a TM own racism, fear and the paranoia he was experiencing through the effects of the THC he has been proved to be under the effects from.

Some people call the wounds on Zimmerman "superficial" I strongly disagree, I was in a brawl, one I was thrust into because somebody hit my girlfriend and I hit them back. It turned out there were five of them and they were here on vacation and members of the Tel Aviv police force, I had to fight for my life on that night, had a part of my right ear bitten off and had a 12 pound bowling ball dropped on my head, if I had a gun that night, I would of used it without another thought.

My living through that experience was sheer luck, while you may look at me now and say the wounds are "superficial" they sure didn't feel that way at the time nor did I think I was going to make it through that encounter. I remember the feeling as the blood was rushing from my skull and I knew I would be disfigured for life, I remember the rage and the primal will to live and fight. They were trying to kill me and the fact that they didn't doesn't mean anything.

I would have shot those people and I would have had every right to do so, they tried to kill me and they fell short, not by lack of trying. Believe whatever you want but I will say one last thing. No American can say if they are informed on this case that the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. He is innocent on ideals and principles alone, the evidence provided, does not support his guilt or conviction of any crime.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I have heard that two jurors were crying when the prosecution was on rebuttal. That's a concern.

I know he will go free on appeal if he is convicted, but man if he get's charged with manslaughter I will lose faith in our justice system and our government. If that happened then people really would have a reason to get out in the street and protest.

And every night on these media shows they pick these little dramatic t.v. juries that ALWAYS say he will be found guilty, yet the online polls always have numbers like 70 percent than he is innocent.

What do you guys think? Do you think the two crying jurors will be turned by the others if they are using logic? I hope there are no covert jurors that made it in.

edit on 12-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Seriously, if they're to be instructed that they can't convict based on emotion, then why is it allowed for lawyers to play on the emotion card? It always seems so irrelevant to me. It sucks that a 17 year old died, but all the evidence points to him being the cause of his own death.

Zimmerman shouldn't spend 30 years in prison due to a manslaughter conviction just because they feel bad that a 17 year old died. Trayvon wouldn't have died if he hadn't got on top of Z and beat him.

Wrong thread

reply to post by jam321


I hope not man. It was a trick on the state and judges part. They included the lesser charge to trick the jury. They may feel they need to make SOME kind of charge BUT the trick is that the judge doesn't inform them of the possible sentence of manslaughter and that could be up to 25 years (essentially life).

I do think he will go free on appeal and there will be outrage, but I want the world to see him go free because he deserves it.

Also it wasn't fair to add during the trial because the defense didn't know to argue against it.

It was a trick on the state and judges part. They included the lesser charge to trick the jury.

Not so. That is the law in Florida. Auto inclusion of applicable lesser offenses.

reply to post by Helious

No American can say if they are informed on this case that the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. He is innocent on ideals and principles alone, the evidence provided, does not support his guilt or conviction of any crime.

I have to agree 100%. The only thing they tried to do in the closing is to say that Zimmerman was full of hate. Nothing but emotions.

Peace

reply to post by roadgravel


It's stupid though....... Why even have that rule? Imagine how horrible a juror would feel if they were guilted into giving him *something*, convinced that he might just end up doing a year, and find out after what the lesser charge actually is? I hope they have a ballpark idea, hopefully at least one of them pays attention to these kinds of legal things and knows.

As much as I knew about law, I still learned some woppers in this one. Like I always assumed that all the evidence would be in the deliberation room so they can examine it whenever they need to. WTF is up with having to ask for access to evidence? That don't seem right to me.

reply to post by AlexG141989


No he shouldn't and if he is sentenced to that (i am still certain he will go free if not tomorrow, then on appeal) people should be furious. He shouldn't have gone to trial, he was railroaded, met one after another biased judge, literally had the US government against him.

I think the jury would be furious to find their decision got him 30 years. How could anyone ever see this case with more an INSANE amount of doubt? I mean honestly if the jury comes back with anything not guilty, the jury is wrong.

I have never said that before, and I have faith in the system, but this case is just a joke and there is no way any juror could deny there is too much doubt.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Think about this..... This one has been in the spotlight the whole time. Imagine how many people per year are similarly railroaded quietly, since there is no spotlight on it at all, probably even in worse fashions. It's a scary thought, no wonder our jails are so full.

reply to post by TKDRL


Seems like a way to be sure of some conviction. As for as a juror filling guilt for a conviction, I hope a juror never feels that way because that is failing in duty.

reply to post by roadgravel


No, I know what you mean, but I am saying trying to include assault (which isn't) and including Manslaughter at the end of the trial (it wasn't automatically included when the trial started it was added later and is why Don West was very upset). The judge doesn't make the jury aware of the possible sentences (assault had it been added could have got him more than murder 2 and manslaughter can be 20 plus) means if the jury feels pressure by threats or rules by emotions (we need to charge him something lesser - maybe thinking it's a few years) then they are being manipulated.

www.mrconservative.com...

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Think about this..... This one has been in the spotlight the whole time. Imagine how many people per year are similarly railroaded quietly, since there is no spotlight on it at all, probably even in worse fashions. It's a scary thought, no wonder our jails are so full.

I know. I have thought about it. When I was in college I was really interested in starting a group that would use media to bring questionable cases to light.

Look at the west memphis three. If HBO hadn't don't that documentary they would have never been freed. And they were still locked up for like 20 years. We are talking about a case where the man is COMPLETELY innocent. We are watching a man on trial that could potentially lose his life, and he's innocent with insane amount of doubt. I hope they paid close attention to the chart that explained when you must acquit.

West was upset over the murder3 charge being considered.

The idea that manslaughter would be in play was known from the start, despite what some here said. But as far as the jury, they may not have been aware. I don't recall that mentioned in the trial for them to know positively. (until the jury instructions)

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I have seen some doozie cases too, but until now, I had always assumed they were some freak exceptions. I am not so sure of that anymore....

Originally posted by roadgravel

It was a trick on the state and judges part. They included the lesser charge to trick the jury.

Not so. That is the law in Florida. Auto inclusion of applicable lesser offenses.

I was told that this wasn't an auto inclusion. It was pushed forward by the prosecution and ruled on.

Honestly in my opinion charging someone with manslaughter is enough to create reasonable doubt for the murder 2 lol.