George Zimmerman Trial

[crsublette]

Are you saying a not guilty would deny a civil suit how would this be different then OJ being not guilty was he not subsequently sued successfully in civil court ?

Nope.

OJ most definitely had ability to give reparations.

I am saying there will be absolutely nothing left of value of Zimmerman after this trial, regardless of the verdict, that is if he survives prison or the public after this.


Although, it is interesting how Zimmerman's buddy wrote a book, Defending our Friend; the Most Hated Man in America. I wonder how the proceeds from this book is being distributed.

 

[waynefrcan]

I'm waiting for the verdict now. I hope not guilty. Bottom line the kid started the beating, crys for help by GZ didn't work, so out came the gun. Case closed IMO.

Let the Martin family file a civil case if they feel that will bring them some justice.

He won't have nothing left for living, he still has my $12.00.

I did watch the Defense closing argument last night and thought it was weak. He didn't want to inflame the fact that a boy died, to the female juror's of whom most are mothers.. WE will see if it worked.

 

[crsublette]

I'm trying to think what the book title would be written by the Martin family or friend of the Martin family.

hmmm... a title such as, " 21st Century, Racial Tragedy Inflicted : the Most Adorable Kid in America ".

 

[crsublette]

Oh, and the word " Skittles " would have to be injected in the title somehow. Maybe a subtitle describing a fictional story about a kid named Skittles, a potential life in a world in which the Zimmerman's of the world were never born.

 

[crsublette]

Yep, no suprise. Jury is now asking about clarification on the level of proof to qualify for manslaughter.

 

[capewind]

I think it is more the wording of what IS manslaughter ....

 

[waynefrcan]

Still it will be not guilty, just watch! No way they put that guy in jail on manslaughter after the beating he took.

 

[dieselplower]

The line below, quoted from the jury instructions, is why i believe he will be found not guilty.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.

 

[capewind]

I think they are TRYING to follow the letter of law, the problem is what they believed of the testimony, and what part of the manslaughter standard they do not understand ...

 

[crsublette]

The problem is Juries are entirely within their previlege to entirely ignore the law, make this a case entirely out of perception and emotions, ignore the instructions and how it is ignored can sometimes lead to appeal. Juries do not have to share their rationalize as long as the papers are properly signed.

 

[dieselplower]

Well that's true and its one of the things I don't like about juries. I have little faith in most people to do the right thing.

 

[crsublette]

Well that's true and its one of the things I don't like about juries. I have little faith in most people to do the right thing.

Yep.

If anything, the jury instructions simply only define the options available for a verict.

 

[dieselplower]

New topic inside of this one... What do you folks think about the fact that Zimmerman only fired 1 bullet into Martin? To me it shows he was trying to protect himself, rather than trying to kill Martin. How many times do we hear of police officers emptying 10 rounds into a person, reloading, and firing off another 10? Plenty often. If Zimmermans intention was to kill Martin, I believe he would have fired more rounds. What say you?

 

[waynefrcan]

This law that law, emotions. What the heck?

The guy took a severe beating. Why is no one on Tv talking about the screams!!!

Think about the screams for help as you watch this ground n' pound that is very close to what happened.

 

[crsublette]

Welp, I think that is due to many Police officers just have terrible aim.


I think the problem with the Self Defense positioning is the lack of witnesses and usually only one victim is living and one victim is dead and the dead victim, where evidence is not allowed to tarnish the dead victim, is the one presumed innocent rather than the person on trial. Unless it is unbelievably quite obvious of self defense, such as ya actually do have broken ribs, hints of concussions, or broken bones, and then ya kill the assaultor, then only then it is properly called self defense in the eyes of the jury.

According to the physical trainer who was teaching him how to fight, that is describing Zim as being a girly man, I think Zimmerman truely had a very low pain tolerance so, after fighting a while and all the obvious good hits the kid had on Zim, so then Zim was quick to shoot him since he could not take the pain anymore. Zimmerman should have allowed himself to gotten beaten up much more or even allowed the kid to grab the gun, for Zim to properly position himself as self defense.

If someone got out their dang house to approach the two using some common sense, maybe watching behind a car 20 feet away or something to safely watched or even intervened, then there would be a better witness so for Zim to claim self defense.


I think this is just how it is with self defense cases. Ultimately comes down to perceptions and emotion rather than following the law, just how it is with juries.


Now, I think folk can demonstrate so to reasonably corrupt the jury by stating how that Zim showed wreckless intent by being so quick to shoot the kid too soon into the fight.