Zimmerman Trial- Will you accept the Jury's Verdict?

Accept it indeed especially since I am not the one being judged or have to do the time. But if I was Zimmerman, I would be highly ticked if they found me guilty after the prosecution's poor performance.

Peace

*UK perspective, so forgive any misunderstandings etc*

I will accept either verdict as, for me, both 'versions' are plausible. I suppose I err towards Zimmerman not being guilty of murder, and I see little evidence of an actual racial angle, but I certainly feel that it's not right a young man was shot and killed in such a manner. I do accept that Martin may have instigated the physical contact though.

However, for me, the problem is with the 'stand your ground' law itself. It might make sense in principal, but as this case shows, it also creates situations of one word against another - and in this case the other word isn't around to speak for itself.

On that simple basis, I believe that it is almost impossible for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their case against Zimmerman is watertight. I think the law itself permits too much 'grey area' and interpretation to successfully convict.

Right decision? I have no idea, but I can't see another option for the jury at this time.

reply to post by KingIcarus


Hi King I,

They are not even using the "stand your ground" law as part of their defense. They are just going with self defense. They could have even avoided a trial if they would have claimed the stand your ground line of reasoning, if I am not mistaken.

reply to post by violet


You can hear Trayvon's voice on youtube. He has a deeper voice than Zimmerman. It was obvious who was screaming based on testimony and evidence, but once you listen to Martin's voice you KNOW it was Zimmerman yelling.

reply to post by pavil


They couldn't avoid the trial. It shouldn't have gone forward (Zimmerman was released by the police). The Obama admin got involved to address the lynch mob and hired a special prosecutor who falsified an arrest warrant leaving out the exculpatory evidence.

Basically the whole trial was to appease a bunch of biased, misinformed idiots, and is a travesty of justice.

If you are *not* going to "accept the jury's verdict", and plan to do something about it, just remember this:
choose your actions carefully, or you may wind up joining Trayvon.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


You are incorrect, if they had claim stand your ground and were sucessful it is an immunity statute. www.wcjb.com... 13/06/zimmerman-trial-self-defense-stand-your-ground-law

Yes. I have no idea who is guilty or innocent but there is a bit of a problem with accepting the only survivors claims without question, when the only ones on the ground the only absolute witnesses to such an outcome are the survivor with a gun, and a dead guy on the ground unarmed.

The survivor can say whatever he wants, he can claim whatever he wants, but the dead guy on the ground can't say anything, either to defend himself, admit whatever guilt he might hold in the outcome, provide his perception of the events that transpired.....he's been permanently silenced.

And although the shooter's actions may, following investigation, be found to be warranted I believe that in such a case where only the person holding the gun has the ability to speak for himself and defend himself from guilt due to the outcome, It is vitally important for those charged with investigating the incident to fully investigate all aspects of the circumstances before accepting a claim of self defense from the survivor and letting them go on their way with no further questions, when there is no other on the ground witness to clearly confirm the actions that took place, when only 2 people know what really happened and one is the shooter and the other dead.

The investigations are the only voice that speak for the dead and they should not be discounted.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by violet

 

You can hear Trayvon's voice on youtube. He has a deeper voice than Zimmerman. It was obvious who was screaming based on testimony and evidence, but once you listen to Martin's voice you KNOW it was Zimmerman yelling.

It's too hard to tell who's screaming. Lets face it, it sounds like a woman.
For me personally. I hear a desperate scream of somebody who feels they're about to die, like there's a gun being pointed at them. Since trayvon is dead, I lean towards it being him. I don't think the gun just came out during the struggle between the two

Besides, Zimmerman had his nose and mouth blocked off by trayvon s hands and couldn't possibly be screaming.

There is no way Zimmerman could be in fear of his life when he knows he has a loaded gun with no safety on it.

Well, that was a quick verdict..... Now that the jury has given their verdict, it seems a lot of people still aren't ready to accept it. Some people won't be happy till Zimmerman is either locked up for life or killed it seems.

Very sad that people can't process this decision without their own bias seeping through.

The Prosecution didn't / couldn't present a case beyond a reasonable doubt and the quickness of the jury's decision points to that glaringly.

Hopefully, NOBODY else has to die because of this.

Originally posted by violet

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by violet

 

There is no way Zimmerman could be in fear of his life when he knows he has a loaded gun with no safety on it.

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

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

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

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

May I

May I suggest you know little about guns or fighting. I do tend to believe the last scream might have been Martin's as he saw the gun come out. However once you pull a gun you fire it. To pull it and NOT fire is extreme stupidity.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I don't like this whole agreeing with you thing I'm experiencing.

I'm going to be honest and say that if Zimmerman hadn't walked I would have been furious. There was ZERO evidence he acted maliciously. If following someone were enough reason to attack someone then I could attack anyone on the sidewalk.

It was the correct verdict. The state had no business trying to go for that charge in the first place, if anything involuntary manslaughter. Both parties are at fault for the death, Martin was clearly not the innocent victim that the media tried to portray him as.

It's a shame that a life was lost. But that's the way it goes. I can't get caught up in the whinings of slacktivists and people who only care about a young black man dying when the person who pulls the trigger white or hispanic. Hypocrites annoy me.

Originally posted by freedom12
You have no choice but, to accept it.

I disagree. We are free to believe as we choose.

What I seriously disagree with is that the prosecution was brought in the first place. The top police in the case says that this was a political decision to prosecute. It's worse than that. The prosecutors did not provide the defense with info they had. An IT manager that worked for the prosecution blew the whistle on this illegal conduct and was fired for his pains. Big surprise huh?

The system is completely, totally rotten. Nothing more than a circus to distract the masses.