The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Well the defense rested and closing arguments will be tomorrow.
What do you think the verdict will be and how long till the jury reaches a verdict?

Depends on the "jury instructions", i.e. are there lesser-charges that the jury may consider - or is it "murder" or nothing.

reply to post by AlexG141989

Well the defense rested and closing arguments will be tomorrow.

What do you think the verdict will be and how long till the jury reaches a verdict?

6 hours at most -not guilty

This trial has been quite a rollercoaster ride, hasn't it? I started out thinking it was Murder II, but now think there is quite a bit of evidence for self-defense.

I still think GZ became engaged in a fight, and should have stood up on his hind legs like a man, and slugged it out. Instead, he killed the kid.

He was armed and the kid wasn't. Nothing can change that. I don't believe there should be a complete acquittal. He needs to be charged with voluntary manslaughter, or something equally as serious, although perhaps not murder.

There will no doubt be a "wrongful death" civil litigation, and I can see the Martin family winning it easily.

Any thoughts on how long it will take the jury to reach a verdict? I don't think it will take more than 4-6 hours.

Ah, just saw the person before me asked and answered the same question as me. We were even close on our guesstimation of deliberation time. : )

I don't think Zimmerman will be found guilty of 2nd degree murder, but I think he definitely will be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

The judge seems to really dislike Zimmerman and his lawyers...so she may give him the max of 30 years for voluntary manslaughter with a firearm.

I don't see him walking, they didn't prove enough that his life was in danger...but the prosecutors didn't prove it was 2nd degree murder either.

Oh, and I think the jury will be out for at least a day if not more...I predict the judge may want to even delay it until next Monday just because you don't want a questionable decision made on a Friday.

You guys crack me up, stand up and fight, you must be no older than a twenty something for sure. You grow out of that.

GZ did not have to prove anything, the prosecution was the one to prove he did not use self defense, remember innocent until proven guilty, and they didnt prove jack squat. Those guys will be looking for another job after this.

Logic says its a full acquittal if the jury is honest and does the right thing. Anything other than that, emotion ruled the day and maybe even they are told to give some ghetto lower verdict to appease the riot threat. My money is on not guilty and end of case as it should be.

Also they already got their money from the suit, that is over as well. George will go into hiding after this, only thing he will have is the knowledge of a not guilty decision, but will end up living in Omaha with a new name....

I don't see enough to say it wasn't self-defense. The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

For all the future pissed of bad guys if he is found not guilty, how many of them beat their crime due to lack of evidence and witnesses. Just check out murders in New Orleans.

george very well could walk away with a not guilty verdict and to be perfectly honest with you, i wouldn't see a problem with it, i also wouldn't see a problem with him being found guilty of a lesser charge. this trial has been like a very close boxing match that could go either way, a split decision for either side.

Straw grasp denied.

Originally posted by Wiz4769
You guys crack me up, stand up and fight, you must be no older than a twenty something for sure. You grow out of that.

GZ did not have to prove anything, the prosecution was the one to prove he did not use self defense, remember innocent until proven guilty, and they didnt prove jack squat. Those guys will be looking for another job after this.

Logic says its a full acquittal if the jury is honest and does the right thing. Anything other than that, emotion ruled the day and maybe even they are told to give some ghetto lower verdict to appease the riot threat. My money is on not guilty and end of case as it should be.

Also they already got their money from the suit, that is over as well. George will go into hiding after this, only thing he will have is the knowledge of a not guilty decision, but will end up living in Omaha with a new name....

edit on 10-7-2013 by Wiz4769 because: (no reason given)

Yep! That's why Lady Justice wears a blind fold and holds the scales of balance. Just judged on evidence only! (by your peers).

As far as re-locating. Z should move to Guam. I liked it there when I was a kid and didn't want to leave. Nice place..swim, snorkel etc...

Originally posted by roadgravel
I don't see enough to say it wasn't self-defense. The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I don't know what you mean, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove self-defense...they only have to prove the killing...that isn't in doubt. It is up to the defense to prove that it was in self-defense...I don't think they did that.

The facts are:
1. Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
2. Zimmerman brought the gun to the situation.
3. Zimmerman was following Trayvon.

Those are really the only "facts" we have...everything else is fuzzy. We don't know who started the fight, we don't know if Trayvon was reaching for the gun (only Zimmerman says he was...and he didn't testify), we don't know anything else besides the "facts" above.

Zimmerman's injuries grave or even threatening...they were injuries anyone would get in a fight...I don't believe, and I don't think the jury will believe, that his life was in danger to the point that he had to kill Trayvon in "self defense".

EDit: oops, she was talking about GZ.

reply to post by firemonkey


Self defense is a defense to murder.

Edit:

Once again the defense doesn't prove, it is the prosecution that proves it is not.

Originally posted by firemonkey
I don't know what you mean, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove self-defense...they only have to prove the killing...that isn't in doubt. It is up to the defense to prove that it was in self-defense...I don't think they did that.

I respectfully disagree. It's called "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason. The onus is always on the prosecution. Since there were no direct witnesses to a total combined series of events - especially lack of witnesses to (presumed) confrontation, most of the struggle and gun-firing itself; it will IMH(f)O work in the defenses favor to cast "reasonable doubt" over whether or not it was an act of "murder".

I am really surprised they didn't move to have manslaughter taken off completely.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by firemonkey

 

Self defense is a defense to murder.

Edit:

Once again the defense doesn't prove, it is the prosecution that proves it is not.

edit on 7/10/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

Ummm...no.

You can't just say "Self defense...prove me wrong".

The defense has to convince the jury that it was self-defense...the prosecutors role in this is to poke holes in that defense. There are no rules here, it is all up to the jury...so the defense has the burden on their shoulders to prove it was self defense or Zimmerman is found guilty.

There are two charges against him, 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter...I don't think the prosecution made a good case for 2nd degree murder, but they did for voluntary manslaughter. I don't think the defense made a great case for self-defense. Hence...I think Zimmerman will be found not guilty on 2nd degree murder and guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

reply to post by firemonkey


They provided plenty of evidence and witness testimony to cast the shadow of a doubt IMO, he should be found innocent due to deficient evidence, so self defense really doesn't even have to come into play. Self defense would be considered if there was sufficient evidence to convict.

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator

Originally posted by firemonkey
I don't know what you mean, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove self-defense...they only have to prove the killing...that isn't in doubt. It is up to the defense to prove that it was in self-defense...I don't think they did that.

I respectfully disagree. It's called "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason. The onus is always on the prosecution. Since there were no direct witnesses to a total combined series of events - especially lack of witnesses to (presumed) confrontation, most of the struggle and gun-firing itself; it will IMH(f)O work in the defenses favor to cast "reasonable doubt" over whether or not it was an act of "murder".

There is zero doubt Zimmerman killed Trayvon...that isn't even part of the argument...everyone agrees on this.

It is now the job of the defense to try to argue that the killing was in self-defense, that would make the killing justified...this is the job of the defense.

You can disagree all you want, but the jury will make the decision...and if the defense didn't convince them of their case of self-defense...then Zimmerman will be guilty....end of story.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by firemonkey

 

Self defense is a defense to murder.

Edit:

Once again the defense doesn't prove, it is the prosecution that proves it is not.

edit on 7/10/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

Ummm...no.

You can't just say "Self defense...prove me wrong".

The defense has to convince the jury that it was self-defense...the prosecutors role in this is to poke holes in that defense. There are no rules here, it is all up to the jury...so the defense has the burden on their shoulders to prove it was self defense or Zimmerman is found guilty.

There are two charges against him, 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter...I don't think the prosecution made a good case for 2nd degree murder, but they did for voluntary manslaughter. I don't think the defense made a great case for self-defense. Hence...I think Zimmerman will be found not guilty on 2nd degree murder and guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

The prosecution beings in evidence, witnesses, etc to disprove it. To show it was not self defense, that is does not meets the points of law for self defense.

WTF was that? Sounded like someone said "they slammed my head down"
Anyone else catch that?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by firemonkey

 

They provided plenty of evidence and witness testimony to cast the shadow of a doubt IMO, he should be found innocent due to deficient evidence, so self defense really doesn't even have to come into play. Self defense would be considered if there was sufficient evidence to convict.

You think there is doubt that Zimmerman killed Trayvon?