George Zimmerman found not guilty

[LiberalAtheist]

Sorry, but no can do.

I served as juror in a 2nd degree murder case in Florida, Hillsborough County. It involved an abused wife, a revolver, and a dead husband. It was a six-man jury composed of four women and two men. The foreman was fellow USAF. He was in a different unit than I was but we were at the same base -- MacDill. Two women knew how to handle firearms. All of them married with children. Unanimous acquittal in 3 hrs of deliberation. Unless you know exactly what transpired inside the jurors' minds and during deliberation, do not presume that your opinion has any validity.

Well those are extenuating circumstances the wife had the right to shoot him as the husband from what it sounds like was committing acts of domestic violence not to long ago there was a trial that happened in Santa Clara county California a while back involving a tweeker and his ex girlfriend prior to that the tweeker made verbal threats to her baby in the days and weeks before the murder and the ex gF did not do squat to protect her baby

the charges were murder 2, reckless endangerment, among a plethora of others the tweeker was annoyed of his girl friends weeping baby so he shook the hell of the toddler causing significant brain damage (as a result of shaken baby syndrome) and now he's doing 25 to life at San Quentin, the jury only took 2 hours to convict but they let the ex gf go scott free why? because her lawyer painted her as a desperate junkie in need of treatment (which is legal in CA b/c of Prop 36) she was not fit to be a mother blah blah blah point in case jury nullification

Now zimmerman's attorney painted Trayvon as a thug and zimmerman as a mindful neighbor. this case is the finest example of jury nullification

 

[Silverblaze]

the only thing found on Trayvon's body was the packet of M&M's (candy) that he went out to get, that man discriminately picked out trayvon pursued after him with his gun and got his azz beat for acting like the racist pig he is, Trayvon worked him pretty good so good that Zimmerman shot him and you cannot take Zimmerman's account of the events since it is so one sided.

It does not mean its untrue.

circumstantial evidence points that the one shot was up to some mischief. The one who shot the boy had the responsibility of watching a neighbour hood.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

It does not mean its untrue.

circumstantial evidence points that the one shot was up to some mischief. The one who shot the boy had the responsibility of watching a neighbour hood.

I am not saying Zimmerman is a cold blooded killer but he instigated the encounter with the kid how can you claim self defense when you instigated the incident?

 

[Sedqal]

Not in a racial sense , iran is a racially homogenous country , at least according to American measures



Again not in that sense , when was the last time you heard of such a racial fiasco inside iran making news worldwide?

Absence of news does not mean such incidents don't happen it may point to censorship. When was international media allowed inside Iran anyway, a huge incident like green revolution only went international after locals put pictures and videos online.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Absence of news does not mean such incidents don't happen it may point to censorship.

haha , it may happen in Pakistan , between the pukhtuns and hindus , but not in iran , the last time I heard of something racial in iran was 15 years ago and a minor incident between arabs and Persians in Khuzestan , remember the key rule is that turks consider anything south of them to be arab , and turks rule iran...

 

[A1Kaid]

I am not saying Zimmerman is a cold blooded killer but he instigated the encounter with the kid how can you claim self defense when you instigated the incident?

T. Martin initiated the bloody fight with Zimmerman, correct Zimmerman followed but Zimmerman did so passively, T. Martin is the one who initiated the hostility by starting combat which left him shot and dead after he refused to stop beating Zimmerman. Zimmerman acted in self-defense.


Take a look at this. George Zimmerman lawyer accuses Florida prosecutor of hiding evidence | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[LiberalAtheist]

T. Martin initiated the bloody fight with Zimmerman, correct Zimmerman followed but Zimmerman did so passively, T. Martin is the one who initiated the hostility by starting combat which left him shot and dead after he refused to stop beating Zimmerman. Zimmerman acted in self-defense.


Take a look at this. George Zimmerman lawyer accuses Florida prosecutor of hiding evidence | World news | guardian.co.uk

I'm not saying he didn't work him because he did I saw the pictures of Zimmerman in the patrol car with lacerations and bloody nose, but regarding that my point is simply that He could have waited for the police to arrive, he could have shot him in the leg self defense and Florida's stand your ground law is being used a cover voluntary manslaughter, I agree that TM shouldn't have assaulted zimmerman but he should have waited for the police or fired a warning shot or something before killing a unarmed kid.

And in regards to the article that is not surprising it is known as a Brady violation in which the defense is being withheld vital information regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused

 

[A1Kaid]

What eyewitnesses say...


Eyewitness testifies at Zimmerman trial | National News - WTAE Home

 

[Sedqal]

haha , it may happen in Pakistan , between the pukhtuns and hindus , but not in iran , the last time I heard of something racial in iran was 15 years ago and a minor incident between arabs and Persians in Khuzestan , remember the key rule is that turks consider anything south of them to be arab , and turks rule iran...

It happens everywhere dear, I have heard many instances of how Afghan immigrants were ganged up that too from Iranis (who surprisingly said that it was the right thing to do, pesky immigrants were getting out of hand and had to be put in place). Tales are abound about Baluch Sistan where state machinery is being effectively used in same manner.

Same phenomenon certainly happens in Pakistan. I'm not 'patriotic' enough to discard serious issues like that

 

[BeyondHeretic]

It happens everywhere dear, I have heard many instances of how Afghan immigrants were ganged up that too from Iranis (who surprisingly said that it was the right thing to do, pesky immigrants were getting out of hand and had to be put in place). Tales are abound about Baluch Sistan where state machinery is being effectively used in same manner.

Same phenomenon certainly happens in Pakistan. I'm not 'patriotic' enough to discard serious issues like that

I'm not denying racial hatred in iran too dear , you said it yourself , it happens with afghans who are foreigners , it happens with the sunni baluch , because they live a better life than their shia' brethren in south east iran , (with all the smuggling they do across the border) ,

But when was the last time you heard of a major Persian protest against the turks or jews? It simply doesn't happen because the regime has criminalized it , in Europe for instance the police doesn't stop the skinheads , while the same can't be said for places like iran

 

[gambit]

I am not saying Zimmerman is a cold blooded killer but he instigated the encounter with the kid how can you claim self defense when you instigated the incident?

There lies the problem in your argument. Instigate what? How would either Martin or Zimmerman know they were going to fight? Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch member and as such, he has a responsibility to do the obvious -- keep watch on the neighborhood. It is not illegal to follow someone and when you do it in the course of duty, whether you are a baby sitter or a policeman or a concerned citizen of your neighborhood, if you are attacked you still have the right to defend yourself.

 

[gambit]

I'm not saying he didn't work him because he did I saw the pictures of Zimmerman in the patrol car with lacerations and bloody nose, but regarding that my point is simply that He could have waited for the police to arrive, he could have shot him in the leg self defense and Florida's stand your ground law is being used a cover voluntary manslaughter,...

That is absurd. This is not a movie and even if it is a well trained FBI agent, if he feels his life is in danger, he will shoot to kill. There is nothing, morally or legally, that compels anyone to inflict only wounds in response to being beaten.

 

[Juice]

I will be honest....used to live in black neighborhoods....and they like to get in your face (supporting Zimmerman)....on the other hand a neighborhood watch should report and back off...as the cops told him....if nothing else reckless endangerment....he did force the issue....someone died...some correction is needed. (not supporting Trayvon....but is some one was following me....probably say something...not nice either)

 

[jhungary]

This is BS to say the least that bastard shot and killed Trayvon point blank and gets off scott free? he should have at least gotten manslaughter in the first degree if he shot and killed a white kid he'd be doing jail time, but the defense promptly painted Trayvon as a "thug" who attacked Zimmerman first if some weirdo with a gun was following me around I woulda done the same stuff I agree that Zimmerman's claim of self defense is plausible but he shot him in the chest point blank he knew what he was doing and he gets away with it.

So much for delivering justice the system is failing as we know it.

Didn't the high lighted part already answered your question??

His self-defence defence is plausible, then he have to be acquitted as there is a slight chance that he was indeed act on behalf of self-defence.

The whole point of the case is, while TM were active suspiciously, he has no so called "Criminal Intent" but an equally important aspect one should know is, so does GZ. GZ was acting on behalf of Neighbourhood watch and being a concern citizens. He have no intent (rather proven intention) to instigate a fight with TM.

However, when TM confronted GZ, a criminal intent has created by TM to assault GZ. Same as I walk down the street, seemingly following you, then you come to me and hit me because you don't like being follow, although there are no proof that exist that point to ME following YOU.

Why the juror reach a not guilty verdict I think mostly based on 2 things.

1.) The burden of Proof - There are no evidence what-so-ever pointing GZ have any criminal intention. And he was acted passively. GZ don't know TM, nor have any altercation or encounter before

2.) The fog of war - GZ could not have known TM was unarmed. He could have thought that he was in grave danger.

The only things remain unclear is, are there anyway for GZ to avoid confrontation. Juror obviously think there aren't. Giving the witness statement. However there is ample time and evidence point out that TM do not need to instigate the encounter. He could have move on to his marry way.

 

[gambit]

Well those are extenuating circumstances the wife had the right to shoot him as the husband from what it sounds like was committing acts of domestic violence...

You are making a baseless assumption. You ignored my advice about jurors. The wife did not have any 'right' to shoot her husband, even if she was abused. Not only did you ignored my advice about jurors but you jumped to conclusion without knowing the facts about the case.

She was charged with 2nd degree murder....

Murder (United States law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.

Not premeditated or planned. That is the key.

She was an abused wife but NOT on the day of the killing. Her husband was intoxicated from both hallucinogenics and alcohol. He threatened to kill himself because of how they were: poor and struggling. There was a struggle as she tried to take the revolver from him. The weapon accidentally discharged and he died. The prosecution tried to portrayed her as a vengeful wife because of her abused condition -- motive. She was no angel as she was complicit in their substance abuse lifestyle. The prosecution never denied there was a struggle because there were signs of it all over the area. The neighbors testified that the husband-wife relationship was never a peaceful one.

We deliberated for about 3 hrs and when you have four out of six jurors have firearms experience, what they know from their personal lives are going to influence how they mentally (re)create the event, which will influence their conclusions -- individually.

A person who intends to commit suicide will direct the weapon at his own body. If anyone tries to reorient the direction of that weapon, he will find there will be strong physical resistance to that effort. You are talking about a man with superior muscle mass and strength than a woman. He is holding a gun pointing at himself. It does not matter if he points the gun at his head or his body. His weapon arm is curled towards himself. Ever arm wrestle with another man? You would be doing what that woman was trying to do on that event -- point the gun away from the man, and when the trigger pull is only a few pounds, even for a revolver, when both persons are struggling over the same weapon, the odds of having a fatality increases.

Four of us six jurors have handgun experience. We have no choice but to include our own experience in deliberation. It would be a gross injustice if we did not.

Now zimmerman's attorney painted Trayvon as a thug and zimmerman as a mindful neighbor. this case is the finest example of jury nullification

No, it is not. Both attorneys did what they believed to be the best tactics to increase the odds of convincing a jury. Inevitably, one side must fail. Jury nullification is when the jury did not agree with the law itself...

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.

It is important to note that even though you may be guilty under a law, if that law is an immoral one, jury nullification is not about your guilt but about removing you from punishment and a jury will do that by declaring you 'not guilty'. The issue with jury nullification is about the law, not necessarily the charge. The law here about murder. The charge here is about murder. There is nothing immoral about charging someone with murder. In this case, the jury believed the defendant (via his attorney), based upon evidences.