Posted on 07/21/2017 8:35:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Three jurors from the George Zimmerman trial are going on national television to defend their controversial verdict one that sparked protests across the country and legal analysts say they could perform a public service.
People dont understand you have to follow the law, juror Madelin Rivera said in an interview. They give directions to the jury, and you follow that.
Rivera (known as juror B-29 during the trial), Amy Tronolone (D-40) and Christine Barry (B-51) appear in The Jury Speaks: George Zimmerman at 9 p.m. Monday on Oxygen. The series also talks to jurors in the trials of Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson and Robert Durst.
The Zimmerman jurors names were made public in April 2014, but the Orlando Sentinel typically does not identify jury members unless they have agreed to be interviewed.
A Seminole County jury in 2013 acquitted Neighborhood Watch volunteer Zimmerman of murder in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, black 17-year-old. The not-guility verdict in Sanford helped spur the Black Lives Matter movement.
The issue for jurors came down to self-defense.....
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
> I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate the situation and a charge of manslaughter or negligent homicide could have been argued for. <
A guy I know is a lawyer. And he’s passionate about the Second Amendment. Very passionate. He’s taken on cases on behalf of the NRA.
And he agrees with you.
Perhaps I should expand on my comments in post #21 a bit.
At a gathering, a lawyer acquaintance of mine was asked about the Zimmerman trial. This guy is very, very pro-2A. Life Member of the NRA.
And I know for a fact that he carries whenever it’s legal to do so.
He said Zimmerman should have been found guilty. I almost fell over when I heard him say that! But then he explained.
He said that by Florida law you can only use lethal force when it’s probable that you will be killed by your assailant, or be badly injured by your assailant.
The old “I was in fear for my life” will not work, at least for civilians. More than just fear is needed. There must be a likelihood of death, or of severe injury.
And the lawyer said that even though Zimmerman was injured, there was no probability of death, or severe injury.
Don’t yell at me over this. I’m not sure I buy everything that the lawyer said. I’m just the messenger here.
So youre saying the victim, as hes being beaten, must accurately determine the probability of death or bad injury, and that his fear of such, as hes being beaten, doesnt matter?
I think your lawyer friend is full of it. Feed him to the gators.
Oh, really? Getting your head bashed in by some negro thug is not excuse enough to defend yourself? Self defense is not valid in your world?
> So youre saying the victim, as hes being beaten, must accurately determine the probability of death or bad injury, and that his fear of such, as hes being beaten, doesnt matter? <
That’s a great question. As he was being beaten, Zimmerman almost certainly felt that it was probable that he would be badly injured, or worse.
But the lawyer says it doesn’t matter what Zimmerman felt. What matters is that Zimmerman would probably NOT have been killed or maimed by Martin. Just beaten up.
So by Florida law, Zimmerman should have been found guilty of at least manslaughter. So said this NRA lawyer.
I’m uncomfortable with that, as you obviously are. But the lawyer was applying the law as he saw it. What I should have asked him is this: Do you agree with that law? Doesn’t it expect too much clarity from the citizen in a time of great stress?
Did the lawyer (who has likely never faced a threat) bother to explain how Zimmerman, getting his head bashed in, would know all this minutiae?
Kindly check out posts #22 and #26.
It’s semantics or not whether the ground can be considered a “weapon”, but it doesn’t matter. If someone is bashing your head into the ground, you have the right to defend yourself. The 5 year old picture of the baby faced kid they kept showing, from when he was like 12 years old, as though that was the person Zimmerman was confronting and “murdered” speaks volumes about media bias. You can be sure they never wanted to show the “No Limit N****” picture from his Twitter account that was taken shortly before the incident.
And you are peddling BS. Ask your lawyer friend, how should Zimmerman have reacted, wait until his higher level brain functions were impaired then shoot? How would anyone have a clue where the boundary was from injury to death/brain damage?
I think your lawyer friend should meet up with a thug in an alley and reassess.
Zimmerman had every right to self defense under the conditions that occurred.
The only question that could garner him a manslaughter charge might have been some of the actions prior to the confrontation.
But, practically speaking, no. Zimmerman engaged in lawful self defense, and he shouldn't have been convicted of anything lesser, including manslaughter. There are centuries of legal precedence which establish the principle: Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life. End of story. Trayvon Martin, in initiating the assault—even if Martin somehow feared for his life—made a fatal error which resulted in his own death.
Ghetto culture killed Trayvon Martin. He assaulted Zimmerman basically because he felt "disrespected", and that's not a legitimate reason to initiate an assault.
Absent Trayvon Martin's testimony that he (Martin) was in fear for his life, the case hinged on Zimmerman's credibility, which was more that adequate...
> Florida lawand self-defense legal theory in generalis all about what a reasonable person would think under the same circumstances. <
I certainly agree with that.
>There are centuries of legal precedence which establish the principle: Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life. <
But that’s the point the lawyer was trying to make: A fear is not good enough. There must be a probability of death of severe injury.
The lawyer did not see that probability as being present. A possibility, yes. But not a probability.
Side note:
I knew I was going to catch some (maybe well-deserved) flak for posting that lawyer’s opinion. But the guy is solid 2A, and he volunteers his time to defend folks against bogus gun charges. He could well be wrong here. But I think he has credentials enough that it’s worth the conversation.
I said that one could have argued for manslaughter not that he committed manslaughter.
> so getting your head banged on the pavement only represents a possibility of severe injury? <
That’s what the NRA lawyer said. And it does seem a bit off. Since that day I have often wondered about his explanation of the Zimmerman case. I think he was honestly trying to apply the law as he saw it.
But I now think he was also trying to give us some legal advice. If you are involved in a citizen shoot, be careful of your wording when you give your statement to the police.
(Also note: rape is always put in the category of lethal harm)
It is sort of like the Charles Bronson, Death Wish situation. Can a person put himself into a dangerous situation and then use deadly force even for the public good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.