Zimmerman Not guilty

[Formaldehyde]

Well, i am sure in the large scale of things, sending Z to prison (ie to his brutal death the same night) would not really help the "cause" of afro-americans at all. I suspect they are so much associated with violence due to the streetgang culture, and not due to their ancestors being slaves or anything else.

So now this would have been a death sentence for George Zimmerman? The skinheads and the Latinos wouldn't have protected him from the blacks as they do the other non-black racists?

And this is another example of how renowned the US criminal justice system actually is in the eyes of the rest of the world?

 

[JollyRoger]

If we learned anything about stand your ground in Florida, it's that a black kid can't stand his ground to the point of neutralizing the perceived threat.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well Z would have been in jail had he just shot T as target-practice/execution.

If T was in reality fighting Z, and possibly in a position to harm Z permanently, then self-defense is an obvious enabler of using lethal force.

Now one can theorize that Z from the start just wanted to shoot T down. In that case though it is highly unlikely he would have waited to have his head hit against the pavement before doing so.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If we learned anything about stand your ground in Florida, it's that a black kid can't stand his ground to the point of neutralizing the perceived threat.

At least not until he is 18 and can get his own concealed carry permit.

If T was in reality fighting Z, and possibly in a position to harm Z permanently, then self-defense is an obvious enabler of using lethal force.

Is that what you are alleging? That Martin didn't actually hurt Zimmerman very much at all in the entire time the scuffle occurred, but that in the next few seconds before the cops arrived that he would have?

 

[JollyRoger]

CCL? Not a chance with his youthful indiscretions.

 

[Kyriakos]

So now this would have been a death sentence for George Zimmerman? The skinheads and the Latinos wouldn't have protected him from the blacks as they do the other non-black racists?

And this is another example of how renowned the US criminal justice system actually is in the eyes of the rest of the world?

I don't know if anyone would have protected him. Surely even if they tried to, there would have been some sort of price Z had to pay for that. Its not like Z was some known supremacist mastermind or figure of note. He is not even "white" (he is hispanic, which i understand in the US is not seen as the same as white for some dumb reason or other).

Either way i believe Z would have died in a gruesome manner a few hours after he would have arrived to the prison.

Is that what you are alleging? That Martin didn't actually hurt Zimmerman very much at all in the entire time the scuffle occurred, but that in the next few seconds before the cops arrived that he would have?

No i did not allege any such thing. I just meant that Z would almost certainly have shot T far before T could endanger Z's life by attacking him, if Z only wanted to kill T anyway. It seems more likely to me that Z did not have any clear such motive.

 

[Quackers]

He is going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

 

[Patroklos]

There will be a lot of racists gunning for him for sure.

 

[metatron]

It's not anything "the world" doesn't already know.

And many are clearly embarrassed by it. But don't expect the George Zimmerman wannabes to be so. They [...]

Nah. I didn't mean the verdict itself.
I meant the prosecutor's claim. Even after a verdict that would be hailed as "good" saying such a thing would be... odd.

 

[Kennigit]

Well Z would have been in jail had he just shot T as target-practice/execution.

If T was in reality fighting Z, and possibly in a position to harm Z permanently, then self-defense is an obvious enabler of using lethal force.

Now one can theorize that Z from the start just wanted to shoot T down. In that case though it is highly unlikely he would have waited to have his head hit against the pavement before doing so.

people get manslaughter all the time in the US from deaths in bar fights/etc

I read a little bit about the alleged altercation and it really doesn't seem all that different from run of the mill fights that lead to manslaughter pleas.

 

[Zelig]

And this jury of six white women who don't read newspapers or watch the news did take about 16 hours to arrive at this verdict. So at least one or two of them apparently had to be convinced to vote the same way as the others did.

I've always found this to be one of the most bizarre parts of jury trials; if I don't agree with other jurors, we're staying there until we get a hung jury, I'm not changing my mind.

Yeah, I'm not sure why he didn't get manslaughter. From what I've read, this sounds exactly like manslaughter.

This case isn't very interesting, so I haven't actually read anything about it or followed anything other than this thread, but presumably manslaughter wasn't given as an option.

 

[Kennigit]

This case isn't very interesting, so I haven't actually read anything about it or followed anything other than this thread, but presumably manslaughter wasn't given as an option.

it was in the news article of the OP

 

[Formaldehyde]

No i did not allege any such thing. I just meant that Z would almost certainly have shot T far before T could endanger Z's life by attacking him, if Z only wanted to kill T anyway. It seems more likely to me that Z did not have any clear such motive.

So you don't think what the prosecution suggested what might have occurred was just so much utter nonsense? That it is quite possible "Z" went for his gun as soon as he saw "M" instead of his cell phone as he claimed? That "M" tried for over 40 seconds to keep "Z" from shooting him? That "Z" finally did so? Wouldn't that help explain the lack of actual physical damage to "Z" because "M" was simply trying to gain control of the gun?

Do you believe that "M" somehow defied the laws of physics by retrieving his gun from his back when "Z" was "mounted" on him "MMA-style", thereby pinning "Z"s arms and making it impossible for him to reach his gun? That the only way for him to do so was as the prosecution suggested? That "M" was in the process of getting off of "Z" when he was killed because that would have been necessary for him to finally have access to his gun that was underneath him at the time?

I've always found this to be one of the most bizarre parts of jury trials; if I don't agree with other jurors, we're staying there until we get a hung jury, I'm not changing my mind.

I would tend to agree with you unless I missed some critical piece of evidence.

In the case which I participated, I convinced the other 5 jurors to change their minds and convict the person based on the evidence presented. It was an audio recording made by the police where they had the victim call the defendant to try to get him to confess. It was so difficult to hear that the other jurors didn't realize that he actually did confess until we replayed it while listening quite intently.

 

[kramerfan86]

I've always found this to be one of the most bizarre parts of jury trials; if I don't agree with other jurors, we're staying there until we get a hung jury, I'm not changing my mind.

The fact they debated doesnt necessarily mean someone got their mind changed. One or two of them could have been unsure. You figure they go almost right from closing arguments to deliberating so one of them could have been pondering whether or not they thought the doubt was reasonable enough or something along those lines.

I agree with you though, if Im a juror and after looking at the evidence and listening to the lawyers I have made a decision I dont see why. I should be expected to change my mind. It seems like a bad justice system where you are forcing jurors, who are usually living in isolation, to keep going until someone changes their mind. Its a brutal game of attrition. To me the system should work as once everyone has a vote, THAT'S the vote, no re-voting or bickering or browbeating the jurors who are different. That isnt justice. Excluding the above example of course where someone is ignorant of a piece of evidence that might change their mind.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Forma: not sure what you are trying to get at. I did not watch the trial so do not know what the prosecution presented, but i highly doubt it presented anything similar to what i noted as being possible, ie that Z did not have as an end to shoot T, and only decided/reacted that way when his life seemed to be threatened.

 

[Patroklos]

I see nothing wrong with people debating the merits of the case. You don't have to change your mind, the law provides for instances where the jury is split.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The fact they debated doesnt necessarily mean someone got their mind changed. One or two of them could have been unsure. You figure they go almost right from closing arguments to deliberating so one of them could have been pondering whether or not they thought the doubt was reasonable enough or something along those lines.

I agree with you though, if Im a juror and after looking at the evidence and listening to the lawyers I have made a decision I dont see why. I should be expected to change my mind. It seems like a bad justice system where you are forcing jurors, who are usually living in isolation, to keep going until someone changes their mind. Its a brutal game of attrition. To me the system should work as once everyone has a vote, THAT'S the vote, no re-voting or bickering or browbeating the jurors who are different. That isnt justice. Excluding the above example of course where someone is ignorant of a piece of evidence that might change their mind.

Do you think it took 15-16 hours for this person or people to no longer be unsure with the rest of the women trying to convince her or them? I guess it is possible, but it sounds more like at least one person had to be convinced to change their mind.

And going by the first vote is patently absurd. Many juries do that immediately after electing a foreman just to see where everybody stands before even starting deliberation. To expect 100% agreement on that vote is simply not realistic and defeats the notion of deliberation entirely.

@Forma: not sure what you are trying to get at. I did not watch the trial so do not know what the prosecution presented, but i highly doubt it presented anything similar to what i noted as being possible, ie that Z did not have as an end to shoot T, and only decided/reacted that way when his life seemed to be threatened.

You do realize they were trying to convict him of second degree murder which requires a "depraved mind"? If they thought "Z" was just defending himself, they wouldn't have even brought charges against him.

 

[kramerfan86]

Do you think it took 15-16 hours for this person or people to no longer be unsure with the rest of the women trying to convince her? I guess it is possible, but it sounds more like at least one person had to change their mind.

And going by the first vote is patently absurd. Many juries do that immediately after electing a foreman just to see where everybody stands before even starting deliberation. To expect 100% agreement on that vote is simply not realistic.

Fair point, maybe not the first vote, but the current system in which they can stay there for days and days and days is ridiculous. Eventually someone might just change their mind to end it at that point not because they are legitimately convinced.

 

[Kyriakos]

You do realize they were trying to convict him of second degree murder which requires a "depraved mind"? If they thought "Z" was just defending himself, they wouldn't have even brought charges against him.

Which was my point too?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Fair point, maybe not the first vote, but the current system in which they can stay there for days and days and days is ridiculous. Eventually someone might just change their mind to end it at that point not because they are legitimately convinced.

Eventually, the judge intercedes after discerning why it is taking them so long to come to a verdict and declares a mistrial. But I'm sure you can understand why the judge doesn't want to do so prematurely, especially in a case like this that took so long to present.

Which was my point too?

I thought your point was that it didn't make sense that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin because he would have done it far sooner? But the prosecution did provide that scenario which actually makes far more sense than the one that Zimmerman claims occurred.

Isn't that what you stated twice above?