The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by Phoenix267


Absolutely!!

Yea, I'm just hoping that they are simply wanting to rule it out, rather than apply it.

reply to post by GrantedBail


No way. I would bet there is a covert juror they are trying to turn. All this means is 2nd degree is off the table, now they are discovering what manslaughter means.

Trust me, that's what is happening. They haven't ruled out self defense.

Nothing against women, but 6 women discussing this.. thre should have been a mix. It is undeniable that women do toend to be more meotional than men.

reply to post by GrantedBail

It could be, and I am not stating a fact, just a speculation: The jury has disregarded any self-defense, defense.

Could be and could be(my speculation) that the jury is basing it on emotions because the prosecution did not prove anything.

Peace

I wish juries understood the law. Someone previously said something about having 'professional juries'. The more I think about it, the more I'm wondering if that might be a good idea. It's painfully obvious that the average person on the street doesn't understand the law ....

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Omara should have been clear that manslaughter doesn't apply in this case.

O'Mara was VERY clear. His charts in closing were VERY clear. THey were excellent charts. Obviously there are at least a few of the jurors who are voting emotional rather than how the law works. If there is even a smidgen of 'reasonable doubt', then they have to vote 'not guilty'.

Originally ... 3 weeks ago ... I was thinking Manslaughter would be appropriate.
After the trial .... I switched to not guilty.
The reason ... we do not know who started the fight.
If we knew that, then we'd know if it was self defense for Zimmerman or if he was attacking.

I am of the opinion that it has to be 'not guilty' unless we can figure out who did the attacking.

Yes, his chart was very clear.

Reminder

reply to post by FlyersFan


O'Mara used his chart and a good portion of his closing argument to school the jury on reasonable doubt. Not self-defense, not manslaughter.

It kills me, the little people know about the criminal justice system that have participated in this thread.

reply to post by FlyersFan
If they had found him not guilty, this wouldn't have taken this long.

At least manslaughter for him.

reply to post by ugie1028


Perhaps, "reasonable" people think your boy is a liar. And perhaps that doubt is beyond anything that would be reasonable.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I wish juries understood the law. Someone previously said something about having 'professional juries'. The more I think about it, the more I'm wondering if that might be a good idea. It's painfully obvious that the average person on the street doesn't understand the law ....

Yep..I said it

I really really feel that jurys shold be professionals who are trained to leave emotion out if it and base judgments on facts, law, and evidence.

Then a court is not having to wait 13 plus hours on simple questions....

reply to post by ugie1028


Those were awesome charts. They should be required reading for every jury in the country.
Assumed 'NOT GUILTY' unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
This case is so full of reasonable doubt .... it's ooooooozing with it.


It took the jury 11 hours to ditch Murder 2.
They don't even understand Manslaughter and are only now asking about it.
This is going to go on for a long while yet. IMHO.

reply to post by Jaellma

If they had found him not guilty, this wouldn't have taken this long.

Or they are taking their time to show the world that they did look over the evidence before coming up with their decision.

Peace

reply to post by Jaellma


That is not true. No reason to celebrate yet. They could still come back with a not-guilty verdict. We really are not sure what the exact question was yet. Hopefully we get brought up to speed when court resumes.

reply to post by Jaellma

I agree with you. I think they have probably dismissed Murder and Not Guilty.
It looks like they are focusing on Manslaughter. But who knows.

Judge just ruled in favor of the defense on the clarification of manslaughter.

The critical point here has to do with intention. There is by NO MEANS any indication of a verdict for manslaughter - if anything it'll be just the opposite. NOT GUILTY...............

reply to post by GrantedBail
No celebration for me either way the verdict swings. No one wins in this outcome.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by ugie1028

 

Perhaps, "reasonable" people think your boy is a liar.

I don't know about that.

First time I saw this chart. Looks like he spelled it out for anyone to understand it. At least those who can read English.

reply to post by Lysistrata

Judge just ruled in favor of the defense on the clarification of manslaughter.

more info please.

Thanks

Peace

reply to post by sonnny1


Maybe their doubts are reasonable. Can they disagree with you and still be thoughtful and intelligent individuals??

The jury may not as of yet gone over the self defense law.