Wise decision.
Priorities correctly aligned for the time being.
Try to opt for a non-urban setting tho, just in case ?
bon apetit
Posted on 07/13/2013 6:07:06 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
I pray for a fair and just verdict. My support and thoughts go out to the Zimmerman family and the defense team as we wait.
Links to Live Streams (Thanks Carole):
WAT~ http://wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/watch-the-george-zimmerman-hearing-live/
Local WFTV~ http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream//
Click Orlando~ http://www.clickorlando.com/news/-/1637132/19533480/-/fm5b93z/-/index.html
(Excerpt) Read more at annettekblog.wordpress.com ...
That is my guess/hope...... and my prayers continue.
Too nervous to listen to the talking heads. I hate them all, even the ones on FOX, quit watching even that network.
Judge Alex Ferror (THE SANE ONE) is on now. “They have looked at Murder 2 and now have moved on to manslaughter. Is it manslaughter by self defense? They will either find the shooting to be justifiable or not. There has not been any evidence that GZ was the aggressor.”
Wise decision.
Priorities correctly aligned for the time being.
Try to opt for a non-urban setting tho, just in case ?
bon apetit
EXACTLY!! Which is why the question about manslaughter makes NO SENSE..if they feel like Zimmerman had no regard for Trayvon’s life why not just give him 2nd degree murder..why even bother with manslaughter..Im thinking one buffoon on the jury wants manslaughter to appease the race baiters while the others want to acquit
The Fox legal “analyst” is wrong. He lacks any information upon which to base anything.
The jury had an undisclosed question. That is all.
The Judge is working with counsel to figure out how to respond.
Bookmark
Because the sentences show a blatant disregard for the 8th amendment, and because judges & prosecutors want to rein in juries, keeping them from realizing that they are the true power in the courtroom. (Esp. Grand Juries.)
My thoughts exactly.
Several attorneys. One female said, this manslaughter charge was a terrible and shouldn’t have happened.
Thanks for the info
I wouldn't have been. I would have insisted that, at minimum, the jury be allowed to read--and closing arguments be allowed to reference--the entire statute describing when self-defense may be claimed. To really be fair, the instructions should--like the others--explain things in terms of the parties involved: "If by the time of the shooting, George Zimmerman had exercised all reasonable options to retreat or otherwise escape from a confrontation with Trayvon Martin without use of deadly force, and if, despite such attempts, he was still in danger of death or severe bodily injury from Trayvon Martin, then his use of deadly force against Trayvon Martin was lawfully justified and you must acquit without regard for how the confrontation began."
If the jury isn't informed that self-defense statutes explicitly allow self-defense even by an initial aggressor provided the above conditions are met, they might figure that George played some role in the initial confrontation and should be punished for that.
“The one hold out for manslaughter needs to be convinced that the other 5 jury members are correct, but wants to hear from authority outside the jury room for clarification.”
That is exactly what happened in a trial I was on. One juror wanted further convincing. A big lib woman by the way who was all into feelings. When asked questions to back up her thoughts she could not. She came around to our side but took some doing by the other women on the jury. I kept my mouth shut and let the other women do the talking.
Exactly. It can't be stressed enough...
Race is not the only issue here. Race is the reason there's a trial at all, but what's on trial is reasonable self-defense and reasonable carrying of a weapon and the right to investigate a suspicious person in one's neighborhood. The whole 'wannabe cop' and 'he should've stayed in his truck' nonsense is truly depressing. Nothing that Zimmerman did breaks any Florida law, unless there was more to the case that the prosecution was going to reveal at trial. They did not. They are trying to convict a man of any charges that a group of six women will fall for based on emotional appeals. Sickening.
About a decade ago, I was visiting my parents for a Sunday dinner. My mother went to let their cat out and yelled for my father - there was a man just outside the door who ducked into the bushes when she spotted him. My father and I went outside and canvassed the area with flashlights and weapons. We spotted the guy running into the woods and called off pursuit. It never occurred to us to call the police... I think about that night all the time in light of the Zimmerman trial. The man was black, and if he'd engaged us we would have shot him. And we probably would've ended up screwed for life.
The State does not like citizens who believe in self-reliance and self-defense, particularly when they are white. (Or can be called 'white'.)
>>>when they added in the manslaughter charge. <<<
HELP. ME!!!!! LOL
That was already covered in the instructions. I heard it read that as to either charge if they find for self defense they can’t convict.
I’m just saying, if that is the question being asked - not saying it is, I don’t know just like nobody knows - that the answer to that was already read in the instructions.
A reasonable and very possible scenerio.
You have no idea if the 2nd degree charge was an NG from all of them or they could not come to an agreement on the higher charge so they have moved along to the lesser charge to see if there can be an agreement on that.
This is my guess. If they found NG on 2nd degree they’d have to apply the same to manslaughter.
My guess is there was a deadlock on 2nd degree because a couple of even most thought it was too strong a charge, so they moved onto manslaughter to see if they can all agree on that charge.
Either way GZ is screwed because I don’t see a full acquittal. They’ll either compromise and convict on manslaughter or hang and mistrial.
Not if the killing is justified - meaning in self-defense.
a local orlando attorney named sherry dewitt said it. heard it on the radio yesterday and it pissed me off because I just KNEW that idiot judge did it on purpose.
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.