Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[Publicus]

Trayvon had no history with guns, no history of violence, no history of gang membership or association, no history of being an aggressive personality, was a respectable student in school with a very good attendance record, wanted to be a pilot.

If you completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary on his cell phone.

Zimmerman is the guy who had the gun, which is further proof of the limits if background checks. Certainly in that state, Florida. Mental stability checks too. Zimmerman is cold blooded, an off center character.

[canman]

Another reason I don't buy Martin was this vulnerable child insinuation is because, I have heard and wanted to find some confirmation, is that 17 year olds commit a disproportionately amount of the violents crimes in the US.

Article addressing a reason why 17 year olds should be tried as adults

"is important because offenders aged 16-24 account for 37 percent of arrests for violent crime in the United States and North Carolina. Data show that serious violent crime peaks during the late teenage years and declines steadily as individuals move into their late

20s. Moreover, although 15- to 19-year-olds represent approximately seven percent of the total US population, they account for more than 20 percent of all violent crimes in the United States."

http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_ncfis03c01.pdf

Sorry, but based on what I have heard, and the jury did not hear, Martin was a 6'2" wannabe thug with a bad attitude. He was not some innocent 12 year old child skipping home with a hand full of skittles.

Trayvon had no history with guns, no history of violence, no history of gang membership or association, no history of being an aggressive personality, was a respectable student in school with a very good attendance record, wanted to be a pilot.

Given that you want to impugn the character and the reputation of the deceased, let's get to know the live George Zimmerman better:

"Trayvon had no history with guns, no history of violence, no history of gang membership or association, no history of being an aggressive personality, was a respectable student in school with a very good attendance record, wanted to be a pilot."

Are you sure about your facts, plenty of facts in the puplic record which show he was suspended from school 3 times, was in fact suspended at the time he was shot after he was found with a pipe, and baggie. He was also kicked out of school in October for graffiti, possesion of burglary tools and a bag full of womans jewelry.

You also might want to google his twitter account which has been taken down but not before it was copied for the public record. His twitter account makes it clear that he did have a very close association with guns and that he was a wanna be gangsta.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

Trayvon seriously wanted to be a pilot. He wasn't going to get a police record or a bad reputation in his community or at his schools.

This is about as accurate as most of your posts on this subject.

Much of the new evidence disclosed Thursday in filings by Zimmerman's attorneys comes from Martin's cell phone, including photos showing a semiautomatic pistol and ammunition and small marijuana plants growing in pots. In other pictures, Martin is pictured making obscene gestures in an apparent self-portrait, as well pictures showing him with friends and in other settings.

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."

"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," the person with whom he is texting says.

"Naw, I'm a gangsta," the text message read.

In other messages, text message exchanges appear to be discussing guns.

"U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out)," one text message sent from Martin's phone reads. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

Edited July 16, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

Another reason I don't buy Martin was this vulnerable child insinuation is because, I have heard and wanted to find some confirmation, is that 17 year olds commit a disproportionately amount of the violents crimes in the US.

Article addressing a reason why 17 year olds should be tried as adults

"is important because offenders aged 16-24 account for 37 percent of arrests for violent crime in the United States and North Carolina. Data show that serious violent crime peaks during the late teenage years and declines steadily as individuals move into their late

20s. Moreover, although 15- to 19-year-olds represent approximately seven percent of the total US population, they account for more than 20 percent of all violent crimes in the United States."

http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_ncfis03c01.pdf

Sorry, but based on what I have heard, and the jury did not hear, Martin was a 6'2" wannabe thug with a bad attitude. He was not some innocent 12 year old child skipping home with a hand full of skittles.

Trayvon had no history with guns, no history of violence, no history of gang membership or association, no history of being an aggressive personality, was a respectable student in school with a very good attendance record, wanted to be a pilot.

I stand by what I said.

Show me his police record. Show me the proof he was a member of a gang. Show me he was a troubled youth or adolescent. And why should anyone demand Treyvon be a perfect model of an adolescent? Let's be fair and let's be reasonable, even tho that is not the purpose of the gang of posters here so I suppose I'm talking to the wall on this point.

Did you ever write graffiti? I have. Many people have, in different situations and circumstances. When did scrawling graffiti become a felony crime?

Trevon Martin had a clean record.

These vile attempts to defame the deceased are, moreover, shameless.

The fact remains George Zimmerman should have respected the advice from the 911 advisor and not followed Trayvon. The fact is Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. But he pursued. What's a young black kid supposed to think when he has a strange looking weirdo following him, eyeballing him, suspecting him?

Zimmerman is the gunman.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Scott

[geriatrickid]

I find that post trial interviews with jurors offer revealing insight. One juror has now given an interview to CNN. She states that 1 juror was in favour of a murder finding and 2 others were in favour of a manslaughter finding . After discussion, the votes were not there for a conviction.

I also note that juror B37 has retained a literary agent and will write a book about her experience.

Her literary agent stated that the book will explain, " why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions", That says a lot. I think any rational person can accept the jury finding as the jury applied the law as it was set out for them. This doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, just that there was reasonable doubt sufficient as to find him not guilty of the charges.

I don't think Zimmerman is out of the woods just yet.

[canman]

It's always sad when a parent has to bury their son or daughter. However the BS which was esposed by the main stream media about Trevon Martin as some sort of innocent saint was over the top. He was a dope smoking, gun loving, violent gansta wannabe. Did he deserve to die? I don't think so. But if you jump a man in the good ole USA, break his nose and then start pounding his head into the pavement you better make sure he is unarmed first.

[Ulysses G.]

What's a young black kid supposed to think when he has a strange looking weirdo following him, eyeballing him, suspecting him?

He can think anything he wants. However, he can not viciously attack him.

[watcharacters]

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because of Florida law, they weren't allowed to consider Zimmerman's outrageous arrogance and recklessness in not listening to the 911 operator AND neglecting to openly ANNOUNCE who he was and what he was doing in following the dead boy victim.

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because NONE of those things ARE AGAINST THE LAW and ATTACKING someone IS. Self defense laws are very similar all over the USA. There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida.

Are you sure about that?

"There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida."

[SteeleJoe]

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

[SteeleJoe]

I of course stand with what I said.

Show me his police record. Show me the proof he was a member of a gang. Show me he was a troubled youth or adolescent. And why should anyone demand Treyvon be a perfect model of an adolescent? Let's be fair and let's be reasonable, even tho that is not the purpose of the gang of posters here so I suppose I'm talking to the wall on this point.

Did you ever write graffiti? I have. Many people have, in different situations and circumstances. When did scrawling graffiti become a felony crime?

Trevon Martin had a clean record.

These vile attempts to defame the deceased are, moreover, shameless.

The fact remains George Zimmerman should have respected the advice from the 911 advisor and not followed Trayvon. The fact is Zimmerman should have stayed in the car. But he pursued. What's a young black kid supposed to think when he has a strange looking weirdo following him, eyeballing him, suspecting him?

Zimmerman is the gunman.

Why is Zimmerman a "strange looking weirdo"?

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think Zimmerman is out of the woods just yet.

He is not out of the woods yet. Al Sharpton and Co. will continue to harass him. However, DOJ charges are almost impossible and if they are brought for political purposes they will fail. There is no evidence of him being a racist. That was confirmed by the FBI and even if he was, the chances of winning a civil rights case against a single individual who does not work for the government is infinitesimally small.

As far as a civil case goes, his attorneys have already made it clear that he will invoke stand your ground which give him immunity. People need to accept the verdict of the court. It was a fair one and there is nothing they can do to change it.

[NeverSure]

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because of Florida law, they weren't allowed to consider Zimmerman's outrageous arrogance and recklessness in not listening to the 911 operator AND neglecting to openly ANNOUNCE who he was and what he was doing in following the dead boy victim.

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because NONE of those things ARE AGAINST THE LAW and ATTACKING someone IS. Self defense laws are very similar all over the USA. There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida.

.

are you sure about that?

"There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida."

I'm sure of it.

[Publicus]

Trayvon seriously wanted to be a pilot. He wasn't going to get a police record or a bad reputation in his community or at his schools.

This is about as accurate as most of your posts on this subject.

Much of the new evidence disclosed Thursday in filings by Zimmerman's attorneys comes from Martin's cell phone, including photos showing a semiautomatic pistol and ammunition and small marijuana plants growing in pots. In other pictures, Martin is pictured making obscene gestures in an apparent self-portrait, as well pictures showing him with friends and in other settings.

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."

"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," the person with whom he is texting says.

"Naw, I'm a gangsta," the text message read.

In other messages, text message exchanges appear to be discussing guns.

"U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out)," one text message sent from Martin's phone reads. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

Haha, I know. Airlines are just bending over backwards to hire wanna be ganstas, high on dope that punch out their bus drivers as pilots of commercial airliners. Grades and even a masters degree along with impeccable record and quality flight time are a necessity in a very competitive industry now a day. He was already toast as far as ever flying a commercial jet based on his record. No airlines would touch that.

If the Martin family paid you enough money you'd be defending Trayvon.

And I'd suspect fifty bucks and hour would be a rate you'd jump at.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, you're civil law for doctors, corporate hospitals and big bucks medical corporations that rob us blind while providing no services.)

Edit To Mods: I have several of the same post appearing on this page and possibly a previous page. (I also notice a few other double posts.) Kindly straighten out the matter, thx.I regret the inconvenience, but I think there are some TVF technical problems involved too.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Publicus

[F430murci]

I find that post trial interviews with jurors offer revealing insight. One juror has now given an interview to CNN. She states that 1 juror was in favour of a murder finding and 2 others were in favour of a manslaughter finding . After discussion, the votes were not there for a conviction.

I also note that juror B37 has retained a literary agent and will write a book about her experience.

Her literary agent stated that the book will explain, " why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions", That says a lot. I think any rational person can accept the jury finding as the jury applied the law as it was set out for them. This doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, just that there was reasonable doubt sufficient as to find him not guilty of the charges.

I don't think Zimmerman is out of the woods just yet.

Not surprising. The media circus thing and book deals makes me sick and is a mockery of the system. Press is the problem here. They are vultures.

I have polled many juries and one of my largest clients has a JD/PHD in psychology on retainer that does our jury sciences and travels around the country and polls juries after trials. He can give me a list a questions based in the facts of a case that will be a solid predictor of how a juror will likely vote on a case.

Long story short, and we know this from experience and a litany of interviews, is that jurors can very defensive and may be very insecure about their decisions. Human nature. One side is always getting the shaft and it is usually a very sad situation regardless as to which way it goes.

jurors will almost always or invariably say they had to follow law as instructed rather than seem insensitive or bad. That, however, is what they are supposed to do.

That three started leaning toward conviction is no surprise with 16 hours in deliberation. This is also a good sign showing that there was little not complete bias on front end and that the system worked as it should.

The judge never had to give a dynamite charge so for whatever reason they were pretty easy swayed to vote the other way or they could have easily hung the jury. They were about 1/2 to the time necessary to hang.

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

[JLCrab]

This an actual photo of the neighborhood watch sign outside the apartment complex in question. I would place a good deal of the blame on Trayvon Martin's Father and his father's girlfriend for not telling the young Mr. Martin: Look .. there have been multiple robberies here and there are guys out a night looking for suspicious behavior. if you DO go out, stay on the paved walkways and lighted areas and don't go behind buildings in the unlit areas.

BTW I have lived in Seminole County where this all took place but not near where these events took place.

[Ulysses G.]

This an actual photo of the neighborhood watch sign outside the apartment complex in question. I would place a good deal of the blame on Trayvon Martin's Father and his father's girlfriend for not telling the young Mr. Martin: Look .. there have been multiple robberies here and there are guys out a night looking for suspicious behavior. if you DO go out, stay on the paved walkways and lighted areas and don't go behind buildings in the unlit areas.

That sign makes it pretty clear why George Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Trayvon Martin and it is not in cursive writing either.

[Baloo22]

Have you no humanity?

Zimmerman did nothing to try to save Trayvon Martin's life. Zimmerman instead shot Martin to kill him, i.e., shot him in or in the immediate area of the heart, the same area of the chest John Lenon was fatally shot. If Zimmerman had any humanity, he would do all he could to save the life of Trayvon.

Military doctors work to repair the captured enemy wounded and try to save their lives. Zimmerman couldn't try to save a life?! Try?!

It's clear Zimmerman hasn't any humanity for certain people. Yet a good number of posters have great human sympathy and support of Zimmerman, a guy with a gun who set out after a guy without a gun.

I'd like to think you could search hard and dig deep inside you to find some human aspect to this crime, this death, this killing - to think about saving a life. To give it a thought. To give a thought to the possibility of trying to save a human life.

Oh please, cut the bleeding heart routine.

They train you to fire center mass. That's the chest area. Zimmerman may have sucked in his MMA training but he obviously took his firearm training seriously.

Zimmerman defended himself against someone attacking him. The jury has acquitted. That's that.

The army infantry teaches highly effectively how to shoot to kill the enemy, thank you, and the many ways and means by which to do it. So be more careful about patronizing people you don't know.

Zimmerman was the initiator. He had a gun. He got out of the car contrary to instructions from the 911 advisor. Zimmerman targeted a guy, Trayvon, who was engaged only in innocent behavior. Trayvon was provoked by Zimmerman. Zimmerman is the gunman in this travesty.

Trayvon was unarmed and had no history involving firearms, no police record of violence., no record of martial training, i.e., a person who'd just turned 17.

This verdict is something white America needs to understand, if it doesn't understand or comprehend it already. What's clear is that it's open season against young black males engaged only in innocent behavior. I think white Americans know that's what this verdict says and means, and likes it.

Actually, this is not correct based on the only evidence presented.

The only version anyone has or only evidence is that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin (corroborated by how 911 call went down). Martin could have fled a short distance to Brandy's or wherever, but Martin apparently turned around, approached and confronted Zimmerman. He punched Zimmerman in the nose. Knocked him to the ground. Pounded his head into the cement and even told him Zimmerman he was about to die before they both struggled for the gun and Zimmerman shot him.

Now you are entitled to not believe that, but your version is based purely on fantasy and emotion.

Open season on black youths, seriously, Dude you get problems if that is how you see it.

This quote' "...your version is based purely on fantasy and emotion" clearly states the main problem of those that are still trying to tell us that Zimmerman is guilty. They form their view out of emotion and reject the evidence (facts). Opposite of that unreasoning position is the jury that listened to the evidence, applied the law, and found Mr. Zimmerman not guilty.

[watcharacters]

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because of Florida law, they weren't allowed to consider Zimmerman's outrageous arrogance and recklessness in not listening to the 911 operator AND neglecting to openly ANNOUNCE who he was and what he was doing in following the dead boy victim.

The reason they couldn't find him guilty is because NONE of those things ARE AGAINST THE LAW and ATTACKING someone IS. Self defense laws are very similar all over the USA. There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida.

are you sure about that?

"There is nothing special about invoking self defense in Florida."

I'm sure of it.

Excellent.

Please provide any supporting evidence you can find for your allegation or statement.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Scott

[pmarlin]

Interesting piece of misreporting. A headline that says "US Justice Department to open new case against Zimmerman who shot dead black teenager"

followed by narrative that says "The US Justice Department can open a civil rights case against George Zimmerman".

Shoddy.

Excuse the fonts, TV's editor ain't so hot...

I agree and besides the latest from real news sources say that the FBI has cleared him of racial profiling . This other crap is just noise.

[Publicus]

I find that post trial interviews with jurors offer revealing insight. One juror has now given an interview to CNN. She states that 1 juror was in favour of a murder finding and 2 others were in favour of a manslaughter finding . After discussion, the votes were not there for a conviction.

I also note that juror B37 has retained a literary agent and will write a book about her experience.

Her literary agent stated that the book will explain, " why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions", That says a lot. I think any rational person can accept the jury finding as the jury applied the law as it was set out for them. This doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, just that there was reasonable doubt sufficient as to find him not guilty of the charges.

I don't think Zimmerman is out of the woods just yet.

Not surprising. The media circus thing and book deals makes me sick and is a mockery of the system. Press is the problem here. They are vultures.

I have polled many juries and one of my largest clients has a JD/PHD in psychology on retainer that does our jury sciences and travels around the country and polls juries after trials. He can give me a list a questions based in the facts of a case that will be a solid predictor of how a juror will likely vote on a case.

Long story short, and we know this from experience and a litany of interviews, is that jurors can very defensive and may be very insecure about their decisions. Human nature. One side is always getting the shaft and it is usually a very sad situation regardless as to which way it goes.

jurors will almost always or invariably say they had to follow law as instructed rather than seem insensitive or bad. That, however, is what they are supposed to do.

That three started leaning toward conviction is no surprise with 16 hours in deliberation. This is also a good sign showing that there was little not complete bias on front end and that the system worked as it should.

The judge never had to give a dynamite charge so for whatever reason they were pretty easy swayed to vote the other way or they could have easily hung the jury. They were about 1/2 to the time necessary to hang.

This isn't quite having professional juries, but it does involve professionals manipulating jury selection and how to present a case to a loaded jury, or to a jury of unsuspecting innocents who are lambs at the hands of the lawyers and their slick professional "advisors" or consultants..

Edited July 16, 2013 by Publicus

[Scott]

A lot of posts and replies have been deleted for various violations of the rules. Duplicate posts have also been deleted. Where possible, posts have been edited to keep the posters content.

Please stay on topic.

[jamhar]

I'm sure of it.

Just the irony makes me smile

[mania]

But if you jump a man in the good ole USA, break his nose and then start pounding his head into the pavement you better make sure he is unarmed first.

[F430murci]

I find that post trial interviews with jurors offer revealing insight. One juror has now given an interview to CNN. She states that 1 juror was in favour of a murder finding and 2 others were in favour of a manslaughter finding . After discussion, the votes were not there for a conviction.

I also note that juror B37 has retained a literary agent and will write a book about her experience.

Her literary agent stated that the book will explain, " why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions", That says a lot. I think any rational person can accept the jury finding as the jury applied the law as it was set out for them. This doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, just that there was reasonable doubt sufficient as to find him not guilty of the charges.

I don't think Zimmerman is out of the woods just yet.

Not surprising. The media circus thing and book deals makes me sick and is a mockery of the system. Press is the problem here. They are vultures.

I have polled many juries and one of my largest clients has a JD/PHD in psychology on retainer that does our jury sciences and travels around the country and polls juries after trials. He can give me a list a questions based in the facts of a case that will be a solid predictor of how a juror will likely vote on a case.

Long story short, and we know this from experience and a litany of interviews, is that jurors can very defensive and may be very insecure about their decisions. Human nature. One side is always getting the shaft and it is usually a very sad situation regardless as to which way it goes.

jurors will almost always or invariably say they had to follow law as instructed rather than seem insensitive or bad. That, however, is what they are supposed to do.

That three started leaning toward conviction is no surprise with 16 hours in deliberation. This is also a good sign showing that there was little not complete bias on front end and that the system worked as it should.

The judge never had to give a dynamite charge so for whatever reason they were pretty easy swayed to vote the other way or they could have easily hung the jury. They were about 1/2 to the time necessary to hang.

This isn't quite having professional juries, but it does involve professionals manipulating jury selection and how to present a case to a loaded jury, or to a jury of unsuspecting innocents who are lambs at the hands of the lawyers and their slick professional "advisors" or consultants..

Dude, seriously. You are mental and need medication. This is doing my job and my job is to pick the best jury I can for my client. A loaded jury. Unsuspected innocents! Haha, you are loaded! Put the bottle down!

Tell you what, since you like polls so much . . . Lets have a poll about your mental stability.

Edited July 16, 2013 by F430murci

[SteeleJoe]

I find that post trial interviews with jurors offer revealing insight. One juror has now given an interview to CNN. She states that 1 juror was in favour of a murder finding and 2 others were in favour of a manslaughter finding . After discussion, the votes were not there for a conviction.

I also note that juror B37 has retained a literary agent and will write a book about her experience.

Her literary agent stated that the book will explain, " why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions", That says a lot. I think any rational person can accept the jury finding as the jury applied the law as it was set out for them. This doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, just that there was reasonable doubt sufficient as to find him not guilty of the charges.

I don't think Zimmerman is out of the woods just yet.

Not surprising. The media circus thing and book deals makes me sick and is a mockery of the system. Press is the problem here. They are vultures.

I have polled many juries and one of my largest clients has a JD/PHD in psychology on retainer that does our jury sciences and travels around the country and polls juries after trials. He can give me a list a questions based in the facts of a case that will be a solid predictor of how a juror will likely vote on a case.

Long story short, and we know this from experience and a litany of interviews, is that jurors can very defensive and may be very insecure about their decisions. Human nature. One side is always getting the shaft and it is usually a very sad situation regardless as to which way it goes.

jurors will almost always or invariably say they had to follow law as instructed rather than seem insensitive or bad. That, however, is what they are supposed to do.

That three started leaning toward conviction is no surprise with 16 hours in deliberation. This is also a good sign showing that there was little not complete bias on front end and that the system worked as it should.

The judge never had to give a dynamite charge so for whatever reason they were pretty easy swayed to vote the other way or they could have easily hung the jury. They were about 1/2 to the time necessary to hang.

This isn't quite having professional juries, but it does involve professionals manipulating jury selection and how to present a case to a loaded jury, or to a jury of unsuspecting innocents who are lambs at the hands of the lawyers and their slick professional "advisors" or consultants..

Unsuspecting innocents who are lambs at the hands of the lawyers? You do love the melodramatic (and occasionally clumsy) rhetorical flourishes, don't ya?

If the unsuspecting innocent/lambs on this jury - which supposedly was composed in a way inclined to be preferred by the prosecution (ie possibly more likely to CONVICT ZImmerman) - had found the defendant guilty, I'm betting you'd not be mentioning any problems with the selection process - that instead you'd defend it.

[Publicus]

The problem with people like you is the fact that, in your little minds, the jury is always wrong when the verdict doesn't go your way. How sad.

Have you no humanity?

Zimmerman did nothing to try to save Trayvon Martin's life. Zimmerman instead shot Martin to kill him, i.e., shot him in or in the immediate area of the heart, the same area of the chest John Lenon was fatally shot. If Zimmerman had any humanity, he would do all he could to save the life of Trayvon.

Military doctors work to repair the captured enemy wounded and try to save their lives. Zimmerman couldn't try to save a life?! Try?!

It's clear Zimmerman hasn't any humanity for certain people. Yet a good number of posters have great human sympathy and support of Zimmerman, a guy with a gun who set out after a guy without a gun.

I'd like to think you could search hard and dig deep inside you to find some human aspect to this crime, this death, this killing - to think about saving a life. To give it a thought. To give a thought to the possibility of trying to save a human life.

Oh please, cut the bleeding heart routine.

They train you to fire center mass. That's the chest area. Zimmerman may have sucked in his MMA training but he obviously took his firearm training seriously.

Zimmerman defended himself against someone attacking him. The jury has acquitted. That's that.

So there absolutely is no possibility a jury anywhere in the United States, at any time, in any case, could conclude an erroneous verdict.

It's common knowledge that the opposite is a normal part of the jury system, i.e., an innocent person is found guilty by a conscientious jury of peers. The Innocence Project, to cite one high profile organization, has documentation of this from here to the moon. Worse, innocents have been executed by the state.

However, it is extraordinarily difficult to produce instances in which a guilty defendant was set free by a conscientious jury of peers. There is no "Guilty Project" or an equivalent I can think of or find in research.

Yet any reasonable person will know that this has occurred, i.e., a guilty defendant has been found innocent by a conscientious jury of peers - or in a bench trial.

Philosophically, it is generally agreed that it's better that one guilty person go free than an innocent one be wrongly found guilty. Worse, found guilty then executed.

Concretely, however, it is difficult to accept that a jury can be wrong, that juries have been wrong. In the reality of the moment, it is difficult to accept that an innocent unarmed boy can be targeted by an armed character who is on the margin of society and be killed by the person in a gross instance of the excessive use of force.

You evade the core matter. The fact is juries do deliver erroneous verdicts. The list is very long, as the Innocence Project has documented and continues to document on an continuing basis.

A reasonable person can conclude that juries in delivering wrong verdicts do set free guilty defendants. That's the issue you are evading and prevaricating over, that you won't address, that you refuse to recognize, admit, deal with.

It's your weak point in the Zimmerman verdict and you don't know how to deal with it. You're helpless and lost so you must avoid the matter.

[F430murci]

But if you jump a man in the good ole USA, break his nose and then start pounding his head into the pavement you better make sure he is unarmed first.

Okay, that is funny.

[Publicus]

I find that post trial interviews with jurors offer revealing insight. One juror has now given an interview to CNN. She states that 1 juror was in favour of a murder finding and 2 others were in favour of a manslaughter finding . After discussion, the votes were not there for a conviction.

I also note that juror B37 has retained a literary agent and will write a book about her experience.

Her literary agent stated that the book will explain, " why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions", That says a lot. I think any rational person can accept the jury finding as the jury applied the law as it was set out for them. This doesn't mean that Zimmerman was innocent, just that there was reasonable doubt sufficient as to find him not guilty of the charges.

I don't think Zimmerman is out of the woods just yet.

Not surprising. The media circus thing and book deals makes me sick and is a mockery of the system. Press is the problem here. They are vultures.

I have polled many juries and one of my largest clients has a JD/PHD in psychology on retainer that does our jury sciences and travels around the country and polls juries after trials. He can give me a list a questions based in the facts of a case that will be a solid predictor of how a juror will likely vote on a case.

Long story short, and we know this from experience and a litany of interviews, is that jurors can very defensive and may be very insecure about their decisions. Human nature. One side is always getting the shaft and it is usually a very sad situation regardless as to which way it goes.

jurors will almost always or invariably say they had to follow law as instructed rather than seem insensitive or bad. That, however, is what they are supposed to do.

That three started leaning toward conviction is no surprise with 16 hours in deliberation. This is also a good sign showing that there was little not complete bias on front end and that the system worked as it should.

The judge never had to give a dynamite charge so for whatever reason they were pretty easy swayed to vote the other way or they could have easily hung the jury. They were about 1/2 to the time necessary to hang.

This isn't quite having professional juries, but it does involve professionals manipulating jury selection and how to present a case to a loaded jury, or to a jury of unsuspecting innocents who are lambs at the hands of the lawyers and their slick professional "advisors" or consultants..

Unsuspecting innocents who are lambs at the hands of the lawyers? You do love the melodramatic (and occasionally clumsy) rhetorical flourishes, don't ya?

If the unsuspecting innocent/lambs on this jury - which supposedly was composed in a way inclined to be preferred by the prosecution (ie possibly more likely to CONVICT ZImmerman) - had found the defendant guilty, I'm betting you'd not be mentioning any problems with the selection process - that instead you'd defend it.

When and where did I say it applied to the Zimmerman jury? I spoke only in general terms.

You make that leap of a conclusion, which means you are wrong in your assumption. Try learning to read better in the future. And thinking more clearly too.

[Ulysses G.]

It's your weak point in the Zimmerman verdict and you don't know how to deal with it. You're helpless and lost so you must avoid the matter.

Pretty much everyone who knows anything about the law agrees that the jury followed the law and made the right decision under the circumstances. Your weak point in the Zimmerman verdict is that you refuse to accept it.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

People seriously need to get a grip.

The fact that Trayvon Martin wanted to be a pilot or was shot in the same part of his body as John Lennon was, is so irrelevant as to be laughable.

The fact that he smoked weed and painted graffiti is very nearly as absurdly without pertinence.

The efforts to smear Zimmerman with allegations - true or not - about his cousin or smear Martin with allegations about being an aspiring criminal are not only irrelevant but rather than funny, truly disgraceful. People should be embarrassed both for the way it maligns and for the way it highlights the paucity of their argument for their position.

1) NONE of you knows for sure what happened and why. People keep claiming they do and that they have sufficient facts to do so, but that is simply not true.

2) Evidence suggests that Zimmerman's story could be true or largely so.

3) Evidence does NOT prove that it is true - and doesn't have to - nor does it disprove another scenario in which Zimmerman's actions are illegal and/or immoral. (Or at best, that Martin attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life - justified or not - and it was HE who was acting in self defense - in such a case, with an armed man, one would be justified in trying to beat that person as badly as possible - even to death: in which case it was a matter of poor judgement on both sides rather than either one out to do wrong).

4) The prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of what he was charged with.

5) The jury has not, with their verdict, told us that they believe Zimmerman did no wrong, merely that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

I look forward to the day - well into the future I'm afraid - when the Supreme Court rules that in litigation involving criminal murder or manslaughter, the defendant(s) are liable to testify, due to the fact that the deceased who was killed cannot present any evidence or information. That kind of decision actually might not be in the distant future.

The Supreme Court can interpret the 5th and any other amendments as they see fit. That's always been the case. This absolute exemption of the defendant testifying on Constitutional grounds needs to be limited due to the fact that the deceased is unable to present the other side. That's the major reason Zimmerman got off on both the murder 2 charge and the manslaughter charge. He should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge at the minimum, but could not be as matters presently stand.

If the prosecution had had the option to call Zimmerman to testify, then Z would have been cooked. The only change the Supreme Court would need to make is that the prosecution can have the right to call the defendant. The defendant could still have the right to decline to testify. But the defendant declining to testify when the prosecution is Constitutionally empowered to call him to testify would significantly affect the law, the judge's instructions to the jury, and the deliberations of a jury.