Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[gl555]

Mr. Zimmerman was not on watch patrol at the time of the incident. Nor was he a current "captain" of his neighbourhood watch. Zimmerman stated that he was running an errand. Nothing was intentionally missed.

However, the continual description of Zimmerman as being on neighbourhood watch is intended to colour perceptions.

I don't suppose you are open to consider that Zimmerman was one of those obnoxious neighbours that sticks his nose into everyone's business and would call the police anytime he observed what he considered as "suspicious" activity" This is a man that wanted desperately to have authority, to have power and, it is certainly obvious why the police kept him at arm's length. He would have done well in East germany snitching people out to the Stasi. Know what the kicker is? When interviewed he said he wanted to be a judge. In the words of Jed Clampett, whoa doggie.

Everything you've written on Zimmerman are based on your own assumptions. You do not what was going through his mind when he followed Treyvon Martin. Nor do you know he was desperate to have authority or if he was a snitch or why the police kept him at arm's length.

The man was found not guilty. All the assumptions of what he is supposed to be or wants to be is immaterial.

Remember whatever stuff you pull out of the air to describe Zimmerman can be done the same for Treyvon Martin.

[Jingthing]

Self defence rules out either charge.

No it does not.

IF the jury had decided Zimmerman's fear was not reasonable.

In that case, they could have considered the reality of how TRIVIAL his injuries were.

They could have decided his story that Martin threatened to kill him were lies (easy to conclude as he kept changing his story until he got there).

What reasonable means is not defined by Florida law in this context.

Sadly, they couldn't legally consider the facts of how the killer PROVOKED his victim by stalking him and not announcing who he was and what role he was playing, even when advised by 911 to BACK OFF. That part of the law needs to be changed.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[uptheos]

Pres. finally released a statement, but it was a lame in that it focused more on gun control than anything. I am for gun control, but that is not the real issue here.

Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know.

You're the lawyer - isn't it that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?

I've no doubt you know the difference between your characterization and mine. Oh, and since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict? You sound like the people you rightfully deride...

I think George has a few more bugs to iron out with this new system.

[Ulysses G.]

Self defence rules out either charge.

No it does not.

Of course it does. They were sensible enough to realize that there is no way for them to know what Trayvon might have done if he was not stopped and self defence rules out either charge. Edited July 15, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[F430murci]

So you would be satisfied if a professional jury made the same verdict?

I think it would be the same verdict because of the deep flaws in the Florida law, too much leeway for the killers. So in this case, no. I think in general, the peer jury system is OVERRATED and really part of the myth of American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, I think if they had started on a manslaughter charge and focused only on that, they might have won with any jury.

I realize my one anecdotal experience on a jury doesn't count for much, but at the time it was so totally bad that I thought nothing could be worse, even just the judge deciding. I'll give a taste: I didn't agree with the majority and they weren't even considering the judge's instructions. They didn't even want to TALK about the actual evidence or case details. Their main interest was going home really quick. In response, I was verbally harassed and threatened with violence.

Also to note, on the news recently I heard a discussion which said when jurors are later interviewed on why they decided a certain way, quite often their decisions had no grounding in the law at all (and was nothing related to what the lawyers thought was important). Thus an argument for professional juries which at least you know will be grounded in the law.

There you go again, talking about laws. Yesterday, I provided you a link an explanation noting that the laws at issue in this case were pretty much uniform throughout the US and not peculiar to Florida. Self defense laws are very basic and fundamental. Stand your ground law, the peculiar law in Florida, was not relied upon.

So much misinformation. I listen to hip hop stations and Steve Harvey ever morning on the way to work. Obviously, they are freaking out and interviewing family lawyer this morning. I get that, but then he said well in Federal prosecution by the DOJ and unlike State child's play, Zimerman will have to take the stand and tell the truth.

What??? This is the message that goes out to maybe a million listeners most of believe bs like this. This fale crap only stirs more emotions and cause more anger and leads to people like you spreading more erroneous legal and factual information.

[SteeleJoe]

Self defence rules out either charge.

No it does not.

Of course it does. They were sensible enough to realize that there is no way for them to know what Trayvon might have done if he was not stopped and self defence rules out either charge.

How is it you know that's the conclusion they came to or that that is the course of their reasoning?

[aguy30]

In the state of Florida you have the right to defend yourself with a weapon if you feel you are in danger of losing life or limb.

...

Actually I think its even looser than that. You just have to have a FEAR based on your perception that you are in danger of any harm. Nothing about losing life or limb at all in the law! That law is very flawed. One's person perception of danger is wildly different than another. They use the word what a reasonable person would think but do not define what that means! The Florida law is DEEPLY flawed and massively in favor or the killers vs. the victims.

Jingthing: I have read many of your comments and have to wonder if you have been in a situation where you believed that your life was in danger from an attacker. I certainly don't get the impression that you have and that you don't know what it is like to be in the situation of having to do what ever is necessary to survive. You do what you have to do, period!

Edited July 15, 2013 by aguy30

[SteeleJoe]

Zimmerman has alraedy been found not guilty. He is not on trial either.

But he lives and the consequences of killing the unarmed boy that night, which is NOT disputed, are not finished as long as he lives.

OJ got off too but Karma caught up with him later.

... OJ was the aggressor and the jury ignored the law and let him off anyway, but in this case Trayvon was the aggressor and Zimmerman killed in self defence.

Those are YOUR characterization a. Neither of those things were proven. Different scenarios are possible and plausible (granted, not so much with OJ), but no one was able to prove any of them either.

[F430murci]

Pres. finally released a statement, but it was a lame in that it focused more on gun control than anything. I am for gun control, but that is not the real issue here.

Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know.

You're the lawyer - isn't it that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?

I've no doubt you know the difference between your characterization and mine. Oh, and since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict? You sound like the people you rightfully deride...

??????????????? You either miss the point conceptually or intentionally.

Everyone has resorted to saying that this jury of 6 white women could not render a fair verdict in this case. That was what I was addressing.

Judge Mathias on the radio this morning, lawyers for the Martin family on the radio this morning, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton on TV this morning, and NAACP spokesperson on TV this morning.

Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed.

Again, I have no reason to suspect racism played any role in the jury verdict. I am saying that it is racism to suggest it did (NAACP, Judge Mathias, Sharpton, Jackson et al), when they don't know the individual jurors and have no idea what formed the basis of their decision.

Twist and turn it anyway you like, but it will still be reality that you chose to ignore.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. This thread is about a specific case. It's not about gun control or gun ownership or the situation in other states.

[SteeleJoe]

In the state of Florida you have the right to defend yourself with a weapon if you feel you are in danger of losing life or limb.

...

Actually I think its even looser than that. You just have to have a FEAR based on your perception that you are in danger of any harm. Nothing about losing life or limb at all in the law! That law is very flawed. One's person perception of danger is wildly different than another. They use the word what a reasonable person would think but do not define what that means! The Florida law is DEEPLY flawed and massively in favor or the killers vs. the victims.

Jingthing: I have read many of your comments and have to wonder if you have been in a situation where you believed that your life was in danger from an attacker. I certainly don't get the impression that you have and that you don't know what it is like to be in the situation of having to do what ever is necessary to survive. You do what you have to do, period!

I keep seeing people posting as if it is a given fact that the defendant's story is true. And yet we simply don't know that.

For the record, IF his story was true and Martin's actions are as you and others describe, I don't blame Zimmerman for shooting and killing. And regardless, as I've said previously, I think the jury made the right verdict.

I simply don't understand why people are so certain that his story is true.

[jamhar]

An Awesome message from a police chief in the Bay Area.

Here is a police chief that knows how to talk to the people in his charge.

Antioch police chief writes lengthy message on Zimmerman verdict

Tonight the Trayvon Martin verdict was released to the public. The verdict "Not Guilty."

I must admit I did not follow this case on a daily basis....I heard excerpts from the case and formed my own very limited opinions as the case moved through our court system. I had no idea of what verdict the jury would reach. I was optimistic the jury would be everything a jury should be...fair...impartial...and willing to have the integrity to live with their decision of "justice."

I spent today with family and friends in the comfort of my backyard, but once I heard of the decision, I watched my television intently. I must tell you I was emotional after hearing the verdict for many reasons. Not because I agreed or disagreed with the jury, but rather I knew the emotions so many of US would experience.

A young boy lost his life, a family lost a son, a brother.... friends lost a friend, a man on trial for his life was vindicated through our justice system. Cities throughout this nation are asking "was justice served?"-- what will be the aftermath once the masses learn of the verdict....and so much more.

I then heard the attorney for the Martin family, Benjamin Crump, speak. AlthoughMr. Crump has been addressing media during this trial on behalf of the Martin family, I cannot tell you how his message after the verdict tonight positively impacted me. Mr. Crump noted the family was not at the courthouse, but rather in their church when the verdict was read. Although I am simplifying his message, he relayed the family wanted to be around family and friends when the verdict was read. The family wanted to have peace after the verdict. Mr. Crump was bated by the media multiple times to say negative things about this case...the defense....the Judge.....HE DIDN'T!

Mr. Crump showed amazing integrity which I will always admire and will strive to exemplify. In this case, Mr. Crump is a professional in every sense of the word. Mr. Crump talked about the race relations in this country and quite candidly said they cannot be ignored. Mr. Crump is right.

Mr. Crump talked about his conversation with a relative of Dr. Martin Luther King's family today and noted no matter what the verdict, the response must be peace and continue to work towards Dr. King's dream.......Mr. Crump is walking that path.

Regardless of your opinion on the verdict today, understand that this case has impacted America as a whole. My sympathies go out to the Martin family....I can't imagine the loss you have experienced. The Zimmerman family can get on with their lives and hopefully move past this incident. I truly hope these families find peace.

Tomorrow is another day and I am optimistic we all understand how this single event has impacted us all. When we wake up tomorrow, I am hopeful we will reflect where, we as a society have been...where we are....and where we want to be. I am confident we have all learned something about ourselves as we reflect on this incident, and that is a good thing.

Sincerely,

Chief Allan Cantando

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_23657649

[F430murci]

I think it would be the same verdict because of the deep flaws in the Florida law, too much leeway for the killers. So in this case, no. I think in general, the peer jury system is OVERRATED and really part of the myth of American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, I think if they had started on a manslaughter charge and focused only on that, they might have won with any jury.

Self defense was applicable to manslaughter in the same way it was applicable to 2nd Degree murder.

Florida law on self defense is not different and does not grant any additional leeway as you suggest:

_________________

"She added that the law in question in Florida was not unique to the state, as some critics have said, but shared across the country. Ultimately, this came down to not any particular peculiarity of Florida law, but basic self-defense principles that are enshrined in every state in this country, Guthrie explained."

http://www.nationalr...-principles-are

. . . and then below that, a commentary that may or may not be accurate, but it sounds as if comes from someone with a legal background and seems consistent with what I recall from my law school days 20 or so years ago.

To clear something up, self-defense is not an affirmative defense in Florida—it's an "ordinary" defense. Once the defense raises the issue, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the defense to establish it.

What's more, Florida law is not unique in that regard. 49 of 50 states charge the prosecution with carrying the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Only Ohio holds to the common law rule that self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be established by the defense by a preponderance.

Edited July 15, 2013 by F430murci

[SteeleJoe]

Pres. finally released a statement, but it was a lame in that it focused more on gun control than anything. I am for gun control, but that is not the real issue here.

Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know.

You're the lawyer - isn't it that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?

I've no doubt you know the difference between your characterization and mine. Oh, and since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict? You sound like the people you rightfully deride...

??????????????? You either miss the point conceptually or intentionally.

Everyone has resorted to saying that this jury of 6 white women could not render a fair verdict in this case. That was what I was addressing.

Judge Mathias on the radio this morning, lawyers for the Martin family on the radio this morning, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton on TV this morning, and NAACP spokesperson on TV this morning.

Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed.

Again, I have no reason to suspect racism played any role in the jury verdict. I am saying that it is racism to suggest it did (NAACP, Judge Mathias, Sharpton, Jackson et al), when they don't know the individual jurors and have no idea what formed the basis of their decision.

Twist and turn it anyway you like, but it will still be reality that you chose to ignore.

Speaking of twisting and turning, can you answer my question?

The rest of your post has nothing to do with me.

[F430murci]

You're the lawyer - isn't it that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?

I've no doubt you know the difference between your characterization and mine. Oh, and since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict? You sound like the people you rightfully deride...

??????????????? You either miss the point conceptually or intentionally.

Everyone has resorted to saying that this jury of 6 white women could not render a fair verdict in this case. That was what I was addressing.

Judge Mathias on the radio this morning, lawyers for the Martin family on the radio this morning, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton on TV this morning, and NAACP spokesperson on TV this morning.

Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed.

Again, I have no reason to suspect racism played any role in the jury verdict. I am saying that it is racism to suggest it did (NAACP, Judge Mathias, Sharpton, Jackson et al), when they don't know the individual jurors and have no idea what formed the basis of their decision.

Twist and turn it anyway you like, but it will still be reality that you chose to ignore.

Speaking of twisting and turning, can you answer my question?

The rest of your post has nothing to do with me.

??????????? That is exactly my point. I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point.

I have tried many cases in areas such as Memphis, Tennessee, where juries are largely comprised on minorities and in every single case I represented large wealthy corporations, doctors, hospitals or nursing homes.

I have conducted many juror sciences experiments on actual high exposure cases where we did a mock trial and watched multiple juries deliberate on closed circuit camera and then had psychiatrists go in after deliberation and probe deep into the factors of their decisions so we would know how to argue cases before the actual jury.

I have faith in the jury system and have seen first hand how importantly people take this duty even in mock trial scenarios.

The jury in this case deliberating for what, 16 hours. They asked for the exhibits and exhibit list. They asked several clarification questions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. I have nothing but confidence they discharged their duty appropriately. One juror reportedly was very emotional during rendering of verdict. They took this seriously and to suggest otherwise is perhaps offensive and hurtful to them.

[bunnydrops]

Because he is the one who attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose and injured his head. There is nothing against the law about watching Trayvon. Trayvon is the only one who broke the law.

So, Can you truthfully say that no amount of verbal aggression would bring you to taking a punch? I really doubt it

[Chicog]

Why is Trayvon the aggressor?

Because he is the one who attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose and injured his head. There is nothing against the law about watching Trayvon. Trayvon is the only one who broke the law.

He did not break his nose.

The EMS report is public domain.

[SteeleJoe]

??????????? That is exactly my point. I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point.

I have tried many cases in areas such as Memphis, Tennessee, where juries are largely comprised on minorities and in every single case I represented large wealthy corporations, doctors, hospitals or nursing homes.

I have conducted many juror sciences experiments on actual high exposure cases where we did a mock trial and watched multiple juries deliberate on closed circuit camera and then had psychiatrists go in after deliberation and probe deep into the factors of their decisions so we would know how to argue cases before the actual jury.

I have faith in the jury system and have seen first hand how importantly people take this duty even in mock trial scenarios.

The jury in this case deliberating for what, 16 hours. They asked for the exhibits and exhibit list. They asked several clarification questions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. I have nothing but confidence they discharged their duty appropriately. One juror reportedly was very emotional during rendering of verdict. They took this seriously and to suggest otherwise is perhaps offensive and hurtful to them.

That's all very interesting. And I certainly have no issue with it or any reason to doubt it. But it has nothing to do with my question(s). Let me help...

YOU: "There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. "

ME: "Isn't it (referring to posit 1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?"

ME: "Since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict?"

By the way, I have already gone on record repeatedly as agreeing that the jury made the right decision so no need to bring up being offensive and hurtful to them.

" I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point."

You would like to believe it? Interesting way to put it. Well, look at the bright side - maybe what you would like to believe is actually the truth. I'm inclined to think so.

Sorry, I'm so dense but where did I prove your point and which point was it?

[F430murci]

??????????? That is exactly my point. I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point.

I have tried many cases in areas such as Memphis, Tennessee, where juries are largely comprised on minorities and in every single case I represented large wealthy corporations, doctors, hospitals or nursing homes.

I have conducted many juror sciences experiments on actual high exposure cases where we did a mock trial and watched multiple juries deliberate on closed circuit camera and then had psychiatrists go in after deliberation and probe deep into the factors of their decisions so we would know how to argue cases before the actual jury.

I have faith in the jury system and have seen first hand how importantly people take this duty even in mock trial scenarios.

The jury in this case deliberating for what, 16 hours. They asked for the exhibits and exhibit list. They asked several clarification questions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. I have nothing but confidence they discharged their duty appropriately. One juror reportedly was very emotional during rendering of verdict. They took this seriously and to suggest otherwise is perhaps offensive and hurtful to them.

That's all very interesting. And I certainly have no issue with it or any reason to doubt it. But it has nothing to do with my question(s). Let me help...

YOU: "There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. "

ME: "Isn't it (referring to posit 1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?"

ME: "Since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict?"

By the way, I have already gone on record repeatedly as agreeing that the jury made the right decision so no need to bring up being offensive and hurtful to them.

" I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point."

You would like to believe it? Interesting way to put it. Well, look at the bright side - maybe what you would like to believe is actually the truth. I'm inclined to think so.

Sorry, I'm so dense but where did I prove your point and which point was it?

Wow, time wasting and resorting to dishonesty.

You cut most of that post out including the ONE SINGLE question those two (2) options you cite relate to or address. Not sure why you feel the need to be so deceptive.

The question (1) and (2) addressed are as follows:

"Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know."

Then my attempt to clarify your initial misconstruction that you also conveniently deleted:

"Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed."

Why be a deceptive time waster? If you have a point or opinion, make it, but don't misquote me in the process,

[SteeleJoe]

??????????? That is exactly my point. I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point.

I have tried many cases in areas such as Memphis, Tennessee, where juries are largely comprised on minorities and in every single case I represented large wealthy corporations, doctors, hospitals or nursing homes.

I have conducted many juror sciences experiments on actual high exposure cases where we did a mock trial and watched multiple juries deliberate on closed circuit camera and then had psychiatrists go in after deliberation and probe deep into the factors of their decisions so we would know how to argue cases before the actual jury.

I have faith in the jury system and have seen first hand how importantly people take this duty even in mock trial scenarios.

The jury in this case deliberating for what, 16 hours. They asked for the exhibits and exhibit list. They asked several clarification questions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. I have nothing but confidence they discharged their duty appropriately. One juror reportedly was very emotional during rendering of verdict. They took this seriously and to suggest otherwise is perhaps offensive and hurtful to them.

That's all very interesting. And I certainly have no issue with it or any reason to doubt it. But it has nothing to do with my question(s). Let me help...

YOU: "There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. "

ME: "Isn't it (referring to posit 1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?"

ME: "Since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict?"

By the way, I have already gone on record repeatedly as agreeing that the jury made the right decision so no need to bring up being offensive and hurtful to them.

" I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point."

You would like to believe it? Interesting way to put it. Well, look at the bright side - maybe what you would like to believe is actually the truth. I'm inclined to think so.

Sorry, I'm so dense but where did I prove your point and which point was it?

Wow, time wasting and resorting to dishonesty.

You cut most of that post out including the ONE SINGLE question those two (2) options you cite relate to or address. Not sure why you feel the need to be so deceptive.

The question (1) and (2) addressed are as follows:

"Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know."

Then my attempt to clarify your initial misconstruction that you also conveniently deleted:

"Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed."

Why be a deceptive time waster? If you have a point or opinion, make it, but don't misquote me in the process,

You won't answer.

Got it.

Oh, and I didn't misquote you and I didn't deceive. It's all right there. But you know that. And my point is implicit in my questions (which you did not answer): simply, it seems you have mischaracterized what the verdict tells us about the jury's conclusion.

Twisting, dishonesty, and time wasting...yes, indeed. Lots of it.

[Baloo22]

The verdict is also a vindication for former Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee, and the Sanford Police Department. The original decision that there was not sufficient evidence to charge and convict Mr. Zimmerman has been confirmed as the correct decision.

[NeverSure]

So you would be satisfied if a professional jury made the same verdict?

I think it would be the same verdict because of the deep flaws in the Florida law, too much leeway for the killers. So in this case, no. I think in general, the peer jury system is OVERRATED and really part of the myth of American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, I think if they had started on a manslaughter charge and focused only on that, they might have won with any jury.

I realize my one anecdotal experience on a jury doesn't count for much, but at the time it was so totally bad that I thought nothing could be worse, even just the judge deciding. I'll give a taste: I didn't agree with the majority and they weren't even considering the judge's instructions. They didn't even want to TALK about the actual evidence or case details. Their main interest was going home really quick. In response, I was verbally harassed and threatened with violence.

Also to note, on the news recently I heard a discussion which said when jurors are later interviewed on why they decided a certain way, quite often their decisions had no grounding in the law at all (and was nothing related to what the lawyers thought was important). Thus an argument for professional juries which at least you know will be grounded in the law.

Wow. One of the things which protects us from government is the "jury of our peers." The last thing I want is a "professional jury" which would be a government entity - more government control over my life. I want to be judged by my neighbors, if you will.

That jury took its job seriously. Those people deliberated for 16 hours after sitting through all of the trial and evidence and arguments from both sides. While deliberating they asked for clarification of some things, and for another look at some exhibits.

BUT before they went to deliberate, they received instructions on the law from the judge. They were told "If this, then that" and vice versa. The judge did a thorough job of instructing them.

Remember, in the US court system, the judge is there to rule on what the law is and to give jury instructions. The jury's job is to listen to all that's said and then declare what the truth is. The jury is the finder of the truth, called the "finder of fact."

If you want to be called before some government tribunal to be judged that's up to you. I'll take a jury of my peers all day long.

[Jingthing]

So you would be satisfied if a professional jury made the same verdict?

I think it would be the same verdict because of the deep flaws in the Florida law, too much leeway for the killers. So in this case, no. I think in general, the peer jury system is OVERRATED and really part of the myth of American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, I think if they had started on a manslaughter charge and focused only on that, they might have won with any jury.

I realize my one anecdotal experience on a jury doesn't count for much, but at the time it was so totally bad that I thought nothing could be worse, even just the judge deciding. I'll give a taste: I didn't agree with the majority and they weren't even considering the judge's instructions. They didn't even want to TALK about the actual evidence or case details. Their main interest was going home really quick. In response, I was verbally harassed and threatened with violence.

Also to note, on the news recently I heard a discussion which said when jurors are later interviewed on why they decided a certain way, quite often their decisions had no grounding in the law at all (and was nothing related to what the lawyers thought was important). Thus an argument for professional juries which at least you know will be grounded in the law.

Wow. One of the things which protects us from government is the "jury of our peers." The last thing I want is a "professional jury" which would be a government entity - more government control over my life. I want to be judged by my neighbors, if you will.

That jury took its job seriously. Those people deliberated for 16 hours after sitting through all of the trial and evidence and arguments from both sides. While deliberating they asked for clarification of some things, and for another look at some exhibits.

BUT before they went to deliberate, they received instructions on the law from the judge. They were told "If this, then that" and vice versa. The judge did a thorough job of instructing them.

Remember, in the US court system, the judge is there to rule on what the law is and to give jury instructions. The jury's job is to listen to all that's said and then declare what the truth is. The jury is the finder of the truth, called the "finder of fact."

If you want to be called before some government tribunal to be judged that's up to you. I'll take a jury of my peers all day long.

I understand the theory. It's just based on my experience the actuality of the current system might be crappier than you idealize.

BTW, in cases of minorities, getting an actual jury of your peers simply doesn't happen.

If I was being judged, I doubt they would find a jury understanding of my life: gay, atheist, non-Christian, expat in Thailand, etc. Peers schmeers. Personally I'd feel better with more objective pros less likely to let personal prejudices impact their reasoning. My case might be more extreme, but these problems happen all the time.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[F430murci]

??????????? That is exactly my point. I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point.

I have tried many cases in areas such as Memphis, Tennessee, where juries are largely comprised on minorities and in every single case I represented large wealthy corporations, doctors, hospitals or nursing homes.

I have conducted many juror sciences experiments on actual high exposure cases where we did a mock trial and watched multiple juries deliberate on closed circuit camera and then had psychiatrists go in after deliberation and probe deep into the factors of their decisions so we would know how to argue cases before the actual jury.

I have faith in the jury system and have seen first hand how importantly people take this duty even in mock trial scenarios.

The jury in this case deliberating for what, 16 hours. They asked for the exhibits and exhibit list. They asked several clarification questions on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. I have nothing but confidence they discharged their duty appropriately. One juror reportedly was very emotional during rendering of verdict. They took this seriously and to suggest otherwise is perhaps offensive and hurtful to them.

That's all very interesting. And I certainly have no issue with it or any reason to doubt it. But it has nothing to do with my question(s). Let me help...

YOU: "There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. "

ME: "Isn't it (referring to posit 1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a crime?"

ME: "Since when is racism the only possible reason a jury can render an inappropriate verdict?"

By the way, I have already gone on record repeatedly as agreeing that the jury made the right decision so no need to bring up being offensive and hurtful to them.

" I would like to believe that most juries do the right thing regardless of racism so I actually answered your question and you proved my point."

You would like to believe it? Interesting way to put it. Well, look at the bright side - maybe what you would like to believe is actually the truth. I'm inclined to think so.

Sorry, I'm so dense but where did I prove your point and which point was it?

Wow, time wasting and resorting to dishonesty.

You cut most of that post out including the ONE SINGLE question those two (2) options you cite relate to or address. Not sure why you feel the need to be so deceptive.

The question (1) and (2) addressed are as follows:

"Candidly, the racist are the NAACP and everyone else bashing this jury. The prosecutors argued in closing that if you reversed the roles, Martin was the shooter and you would convict Martin, then you got to convict Zimmerman. There are two choices: (1) that the jury discredited that argument by finding regardless as to who the shooter was, this was no crime; or (2) you have to conclude that the jury was racially motivated white women. Option two is nothing more than reverse racism itself against jurors we don't know."

Then my attempt to clarify your initial misconstruction that you also conveniently deleted:

"Based on prosecution argument, the jury apparently did not believe that this was a crime regardless as to whether the roles were reserved. The NAACP and all of the above that I just mentioned are clearly reiterating over and over again that the jury would have convicted had the roles been reversed."

Why be a deceptive time waster? If you have a point or opinion, make it, but don't misquote me in the process,

You won't answer.

Got it.

Oh, and I didn't misquote you and I didn't deceive. It's all right there. But you know that. And my point is implicit in my questions (which you did not answer): simply, it seems you have mischaracterized what the verdict tells us about the jury's conclusion.

Twisting, dishonesty, and time wasting...yes, indeed. Lots of it.

Because . . . very simple . . . not sure of disconnect.

One last time. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt obviously because you probably just read bits and pieces of this stuff rather than living it and standing in front of juries either 2 or 3 months so I maybe assume too much is understood.

Premise # 1:

If jury believed or would have convicted Martin for SAME conduct had the roles been reversed, then the jury in this case (Zimmerman the shooter) did not discharge their duty. That is what NAACP et al is arguing. Not me.

Premise # 2 (an extenuation of Premise # 1):

If what NAACP et al says is true, that means jury would not have found self defense or any other defenses inapplicable (not applicable) with roles reversed BECAUSE there would have been a conviction if Martin was shooter.

Applying that analysis to Zimmerman, there would have no other basis for letting him off BECAUSE there would have been a conviction under the NAACP scenario (where defenses were expressly rejected) on same or similar facts when roles reversed.

Accordingly, jury either: (1) rejected that argument; or (2) were indeed racially motivated. YOUR argument gets goofy because you say the jury could have still found him innocent on other grounds when the jury found him guilty under the issue I am addressing (the role reverse argument).

Edited July 15, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

So you would be satisfied if a professional jury made the same verdict?

I think it would be the same verdict because of the deep flaws in the Florida law, too much leeway for the killers. So in this case, no. I think in general, the peer jury system is OVERRATED and really part of the myth of American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, I think if they had started on a manslaughter charge and focused only on that, they might have won with any jury.

I realize my one anecdotal experience on a jury doesn't count for much, but at the time it was so totally bad that I thought nothing could be worse, even just the judge deciding. I'll give a taste: I didn't agree with the majority and they weren't even considering the judge's instructions. They didn't even want to TALK about the actual evidence or case details. Their main interest was going home really quick. In response, I was verbally harassed and threatened with violence.

Also to note, on the news recently I heard a discussion which said when jurors are later interviewed on why they decided a certain way, quite often their decisions had no grounding in the law at all (and was nothing related to what the lawyers thought was important). Thus an argument for professional juries which at least you know will be grounded in the law.

Wow. One of the things which protects us from government is the "jury of our peers." The last thing I want is a "professional jury" which would be a government entity - more government control over my life. I want to be judged by my neighbors, if you will.

That jury took its job seriously. Those people deliberated for 16 hours after sitting through all of the trial and evidence and arguments from both sides. While deliberating they asked for clarification of some things, and for another look at some exhibits.

BUT before they went to deliberate, they received instructions on the law from the judge. They were told "If this, then that" and vice versa. The judge did a thorough job of instructing them.

Remember, in the US court system, the judge is there to rule on what the law is and to give jury instructions. The jury's job is to listen to all that's said and then declare what the truth is. The jury is the finder of the truth, called the "finder of fact."

If you want to be called before some government tribunal to be judged that's up to you. I'll take a jury of my peers all day long.

I understand the theory. It's just based on my experience the actuality of the current system might be crappier than you idealize.

BTW, in cases of minorities, getting an actual jury of your peers simply doesn't happen.

If I was being judged, I doubt they would find a jury understanding of my life: gay, atheist, non-Christian, expat in Thailand, etc. Peers my arse!

But you think a professional jury would be robots?

[Jingthing]

But you think a professional jury would be robots?

Of course not. It's all relative. There could be processes of evaluation and quality control to weed out the bad ones. No human system is perfect.

[F430murci]

But you think a professional jury would be robots?

Of course not. It's all relative. There could be processes of evaluation and quality control to weed out the bad ones. No human system is perfect.

This would not be a jury of our peers (have to look at Venire and not final jury before you say they were all white).

Your suggestion would be replete with even more government influence. You have government paid judge, government paid prosecutors and now government paid juries. Bad, bad idea.

Then the costs would be crazy. The fact is, you just want to rewrite our fundamental concepts of the judiciary because you disagree with this jury verdict.

Edited July 15, 2013 by F430murci

[Ulysses G.]

Why is Trayvon the aggressor?

Because he is the one who attacked Zimmerman, broke his nose and injured his head. There is nothing against the law about watching Trayvon. Trayvon is the only one who broke the law.

He did not break his nose.

At least 3 witneses testified that Zimmerman's nose was broken including an EMT who was on the scene and said that Zimmerman's nose was "very swollen", on both sides and bleeding, and that he had a laceration on the nose as well as swelling of other places on his face. The left-wing blogs are trying to claim it was not broken because there were no X rays done, despite expert testimony and photos that strongly suggest otherwise.

(CNN) -- A medical report by George Zimmerman's family doctor shows the neighborhood watch volunteer was diagnosed with a fractured nose, two black eyes and two lacerations on the back of the head after his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/16/justice/florida-teen-shooting

[NeverSure]

But you think a professional jury would be robots?

Of course not. It's all relative. There could be processes of evaluation and quality control to weed out the bad ones. No human system is perfect.

Oh yes, of course. Let's have the government choose panels of "correct thinkers" (Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?) to judge people. I'm sure everything would be just rosy.

There IS as process of evaluation and elimination in the current system, and both sides get to interview and object to the various candidates who might sit on the jury.

The jury of ordinary citizens is one of my best protections against the government.

[Jingthing]

Oh yes, of course. Let's have the government choose panels of "correct thinkers" (Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?) to judge people. I'm sure everything would be just rosy.

There IS as process of evaluation and elimination in the current system, and both sides get to interview and object to the various candidates who might sit on the jury.

The jury of ordinary citizens is one of my best protections against the government.

Places I've lived in the U.S. my neighbors are MUCH scarier than trained professional jurists. Yes, I am serious.

It's not exactly an original idea. Other countries do it. It's not going to happen in the U.S. because of the people's myths about how great they are as citizens. In reality, I don't think they are good enough to be trusted on juries. American people don't even vote very much. Tells you a lot. It's really true the general feeling in the U.S. is that only suckers get stuck on juries. Some system!

I get the heroic myths. I was taught them too. Then you experience adult reality. Something is rotten.

We’re in the 21st Century, and our legal system uses a method of adjudication that was invented in the Middle Ages. It’s time for a more professional way of resolving legal disputes, one where the decisionmakers are not a bunch of often-unwilling people plucked from the street, forced to upend their lives to resolve the disputes of others, and without the expertise to evaluate the facts and apply the law.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/23/should-we-have-professional-juries/

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing