[tucson]

My vote, not guilty!

[NJblue]

I presume the standard is that the jury has to believe without a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense. After watching the trial, I would say that beyond reasonable doubt he WAS acting in self defense. I also believe that should the jurors vote on emotion rather than fact and vote some sort of guilty verdict, that the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

[buggyone]

I actually do not know the answer here for sure, but when a person is convicted of a felony and their lawyer files an appeal, doesn't the convicted person go to prison until the appeal is heard and that usually takes a couple of years? I don't think the convicted person is allowed to be free on bond until the appeal is heard.

As for the jury hearing Zimmerman describe on the phone the types of people that always get away with it - I have my opinion that he is not a decent guy - but rather a bully with a built up ego and nothing physical to back it up - so he packs a gun wherever he goes.

Guilty!

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by buggyone

...I have my opinion that he is not a decent guy - but rather a bully with a built up ego and nothing physical to back it up - so he packs a gun wherever he goes.

Guilty!

I don't think that makes him a murder. I guess my understanding of "beyond a reasonable doubt' differs from yours.

Not Guilty!

[joe19bulla50]

1. This case should have never gone to trial and probably would not have if it wasn't for the media.
2. These types of cases should not be televised. It allows the zealots from both sides to be used by the media to breed more trouble.
3. This case was about two knuckleheads getting together and just allowed things to go bad.
4. The president should have never put his two cents into this.
5. The money Florida has wasted on this could have been spent on much better things.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by buggyone

I actually do not know the answer here for sure, but when a person is convicted of a felony and their lawyer files an appeal, doesn't the convicted person go to prison until the appeal is heard and that usually takes a couple of years? I don't think the convicted person is allowed to be free on bond until the appeal is heard.

As for the jury hearing Zimmerman describe on the phone the types of people that always get away with it - I have my opinion that he is not a decent guy - but rather a bully with a built up ego and nothing physical to back it up - so he packs a gun wherever he goes.

Guilty!

What you say may be true. He may not be a decent guy and might have some off the wall opinions, but that is no reason to find him guilty. The issue is simply was he defending himself when he shot Martin or not.

[NJblue]

Originally Posted by buggyone

I actually do not know the answer here for sure, but when a person is convicted of a felony and their lawyer files an appeal, doesn't the convicted person go to prison until the appeal is heard and that usually takes a couple of years? I don't think the convicted person is allowed to be free on bond until the appeal is heard.

As for the jury hearing Zimmerman describe on the phone the types of people that always get away with it - I have my opinion that he is not a decent guy - but rather a bully with a built up ego and nothing physical to back it up - so he packs a gun wherever he goes.

Guilty!

I haven't seen anything from the trial to make me think he is not a decent guy. In fact, everyone who knows him, both black and white, say he's a very nice guy. I think it was his "nice guy" that did him in - he was so concerned about what was becoming of his neighborhood that he did something a bit foolish by getting out of the car, thinking that if he can keep track of where Martin was, he would help the police find him.

However, the notion that he "chased Martin down" is completely foolish and unsupported by any testimony. The last he saw Martin he was going down the "T". Yet, the confrontation began AT the "T" - so clearly he did not pursue him down the "T".

Now, on the other hand, Martin was likely not so nice. I found it very interesting that the judge wouldn't allow text messages from his phone which talked about his fighting to be put in evidence. And, no, I don't think just because someone is "not nice" that they desreved to die. However, his attack on Zimmerman left Zimmerman with no choice.

[redwitch]

Going back to the original question, the use of language would be irrelevant to me. I think the final verdict will be determined by the jury instructions. I don't know Florida law enough to determine what actions/thoughts are needed to claim self-defense. As a juror, I would wonder why stand your ground is not being used as a defense since it seems that this law has a lesser burden of proof (even though I would know that I'm not to consider things not put into evidence, but the stand your ground law has been mentioned throughout the trial). I'd be wondering what it is that Zimmerman is hiding -- was there justification for Martin's action?

All in all, I'm very grateful that I'm not on this jury. I think that given the basic law of self-defense (and I'm assuming for the time being that Florida follows the basic elements) I'd have to find Zimmerman not guilty but I wouldn't be happy about it. I do believe that Zimmerman got the exact outcome he wanted. He did follow Martin just enough to provoke Martin to react, which gave Zimmerman an excuse to pull out his gun and use it. At the time, he thought he was protecting his neighborhood from another bad guy who would just get away whatever. Instead, he shot a kid who had gone to the store and was returning home -- that's the only thing he didn't expect (even though Martin wasn't exactly a model kid, so I'm sure Zimmerman feels some justification for the final outcome).

I don't like either of these characters but one of them might have grown up to become an upstanding citizen but, for now, there's little question that he was a punk by our definitions. The other one was a cop wannabe who got to do what few police officers ever do except in practice -- fire his gun to stop a "bad guy."

[Lark7]

My speculation, and it is purely that, is Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter - not second degree murder. Yes, the judge's instructions to the jury will be pivotal.

[Shirleevee]

Originally Posted by Lark7

My speculation, and it is purely that, is Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter - not second degree murder. Yes, the judge's instructions to the jury will be pivotal.

Manslaughter!

[manaboutown]

It is clearly self defense. Zimmerman should sue the race baiters and the mainstream media for libel, slander, violating his civil rights and ruining his life.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

It is clearly self defense. Zimmerman should sue the race baiters and the mainstream media for libel, slander, violating his civil rights and ruining his life.

The person getting sued will be Zimmerman. Don't forget that OJ had a huge civil suit on him after being found not guilty of killing his wife and waiter.

Of course, there was no proof who killed them. Here we all know who the killer was! Zimmerman!

[kbace6]

Not guilty.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by buggyone

The person getting sued will be Zimmerman. Don't forget that OJ had a huge civil suit on him after being found not guilty of killing his wife and waiter.

Of course, there was no proof who killed them. Here we all know who the killer was! Zimmerman!

As strange as it may sound, killing someone is not necessarily a crime and not necessarily grounds for a successful civil suit. Just because you kill someone it's not necessarily the fact that you took away his civil rights.

The OJ case was a bit different. I think that most reasonable people feel that the evidence against OJ was overwhelming and that the jury was biased. OJ could not be claiming self defense or any other type of justified homicide. If OJ had admitted killing his victims, it would have been a case of first degree murder.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by NJblue

I haven't seen anything from the trial to make me think he is not a decent guy. In fact, everyone who knows him, both black and white, say he's a very nice guy. I think it was his "nice guy" that did him in - he was so concerned about what was becoming of his neighborhood that he did something a bit foolish by getting out of the car, thinking that if he can keep track of where Martin was, he would help the police find him.


Now, on the other hand, Martin was likely not so nice. I found it very interesting that the judge wouldn't allow text messages from his phone which talked about his fighting to be put in evidence. And, no, I don't think just because someone is "not nice" that they desreved to die. However, his attack on Zimmerman left Zimmerman with no choice.

The character witnesses for Zimmerman would of course say he is a nice guy. Don't forget that one of his daily co-workers (a woman) said George typically referred to a lot of people on his job as a-holes and that was just part of his character. He was a wannabee cop that did not get accepted into the police academy because of poor credit.

One piece of evidence I don't get is that IF Martin was straddling Zimmerman and had his arms pinned, how did Zimmerman get his gun out? I also think the gun was on his right side but it looks to me like Zimmerman is taking all of his notes in court with his left hand.