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 ...
The prosecution proved that innocent people can and will be prosecuted.
I can top that, if he intended on killing Trayvon and not getting caught the second he shot him he would have bolted, he wouldnt have stayed there and waited for the cops to arrive..Also, the cops tried tricking him by saying that someone had gotten the entire confrontation on video and Zimmerman responded “Thank God” doesn’t sound like someone who had something to hide
good point. also why didn’t Trayon just ask GZ why are you following me instead of violence?
Z pulled his gub first? Was that even alleged in court?! Insanity!
Are these the actual instructions they got??
One is hispanic.
Six women are guided by their emotions and officers of a court controlled by favored constituents to decide the near future in favor of efforts to resume a lawful nation or to intensify a regime of revenge.
>>>>As a Southerner, let me point out that you have been hoisted on your petard. A Southern girl would never say “you all.” “Y’all” perhaps...but never “you all.”<<<<
Hmmmm. I took it as a...how to say it...a diss on the morals of Southern girls.
But, then again, I’m losing it tonite, so what do I know?
yep, although you misspelled persecuted.
And juries may determine based upon examining the facts of the cases, that one particular crime was sufficiently heinous as to justify a 20-year prison term, while another was sufficiently minor as that anything beyond a $500 civil penalty would be excessive, even if there was no statutory distinction between the two crimes.
Since judgment of whether a crime was particularly heinous may depend in large measure upon assessments of witness credibility, who else but a jury is really qualified to make such determinations?
If knowing that a particular crime would carry a 20-year prison term would cause a jury to acquit, but the jury would have convicted had the maximum sentence been six months, what that means is that the jury determined that a 20-year prison term would constitute cruel and unusual punishment for the particular criminal act the defendant committed, and applying such a sentence would be illegitimate. Those who seek to keep such information from jurors do so because they want to be able to impose illegitimate sentences.
I should also note, btw, that even from a "factual guilt" standpoint, many crimes do not expressly specify an a minimum level of criminal intent, but in general a major felony conviction should be require a stronger showing of criminal intent than a $200 traffic ticket. If a juror knows that a person committed an action, but did so without significant criminal intent, how should the juror know whether the level of intent is sufficient to justify conviction if the juror doesn't know the magnitude of the charged offense? Sometimes it's obvious, but suppose you were on a jury of someone charged with "Obstruction of an Emergency Vehicle". Is that a $200 traffic ticket or a 20-year felony? One could imagine possible "crimes" meeting such description where the former could be appropriate, and others where the latter would be. If the statute doesn't specify a level of criminal intent, how should a juror know whether an appropriate level has been shown?
Goes to presence of mind. Most likely GZ was in shock.
Yes, I thought that, too. All that is needed for a hung jury is ONE juror who will "stand her ground" and "stick to her guns" on self-defense.
Hopefully all six realize it's obviously self-defense, of course.
One juror might be wanting that, we can’t tell. But in that, pulling the trigger was his self defense. Also we have to remember the state has burden of proof to prove it wasn’t. They don’t have that, at all. The presumption of innocence is with Z. So that approach has to ignore everything else, if that’s what at least one of them is doing.
The same point I have tried to tell the wife in much more PC terms on multiple occasions about multiple issues. She blows a gasket every time, at least she votes Conservative.
perhaps for all death cases a jury of 12 should now be required in addition to making self defense law STRONGER.
Two of the witnesses in this case, both young males, could have intervened and prevented the need for Zimmerman to shoot Martin.
Zimmerman, screaming, begged eyewitness John Good to come help him. Good, watching from only 17 feet away, replied to Zimmerman that he was calling the police instead. Zimmerman screamed that the police were already on the way—that he needed Good’s help. Good could have knocked Martin off Zimmerman and stopped the deadly confrontation just by putting himself a bit at risk, but no, he didn’t want to get that involved, just like Kitty Genovese’s neighbors didn’t want to get involved.
There was another young male witness in this case, who told his wife, “stay away from the window, don’t look out, we don’t want to make this our problem.”
You get my point.
They usually do re-try, especially this rabid of a full-court press from Bambi on down.
But first they would ask the jurors how the vote went, why did they hang etc. Only if it was 5-1 for acquittal would they consider dropping it
LOL....unarguable logic there.
Sorry to single you out - I have a sick dh and cannot possibly read all 2000 messages so just pop in and out and read the last few pages of posts..... I did see someone discussing this a day or so ago....so you *honestly* believe that his very experienced, very professional attorney would just allow him to continually address the judge as "yes sir"? ...........ok...........
could be only one juror who needs clarification, or who is not leaning toward facts, not the entire jury. could be one wanting to convict, 5 wanting to acquit?
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.