Do you think the jury got it right or wrong?

[hrmjustin]

I think they got it wrong, but what do you think?

48 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Jury got it wrong and he is guilty.
	30 (63%)
	Jury got it right and he is innocent.
	12 (25%)
	Other and please explain.
	6 (13%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Shrek]

1. He's not innocent

But i agree with the jury about reasonable doubt.

[pipoman]

2. Uh, how about "the jury got it right and he might be guilty?"

[hrmjustin]

3. That is why I put other.

[pipoman]

23. The fact of our justice system

is that some guilty go free because of rules, laws and rights designed to keep innocent people from being wrongly convicted..happens every day..I prefer the system as it is now over a system which would convict based on the evidence presented by the prosecution in this case..you needed a couple more responses for your poll to not be silly..

[Nye Bevan]

4. Other: he is probably guilty, but the jury got it right

because guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[premium]

6. What you said. nt.

[nebenaube]

7. What this guy said...

Doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.

[Aerows]

17. That's what I think, too

I also think the prosecution could have made a better case. The truth is, also, that the Sanford police did such a crappy job at even documenting any of the facts in the case, that it might not have mattered who argued it.

[ohheckyeah]

26. And therein lies the differences of

opinion - what is or isn't reasonable? What constitutes reasonable doubt is not definitive, and purposely so, in the law:

reasonable doubt n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubt

[liberal_at_heart]

29. There is no reason they couldn't have found him guilty of manslaughter.

Maybe not murder 2nd degree, but they should have found him guilty of manslaughter.

[cthulu2016]

32. If they found self defense they cannot convict of manslaughter

And if they did not find self defense, then why not convict of murder?

[liberal_at_heart]

37. Just because you pick a fight with someone doesn't necessarily mean you intend to kill them.

But kill him he did.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. Picking a fight armed only with fists

is a lot different than picking a fight armed with a gun.

[morningfog]

79. There is "imperfect self defense."

I am not familiar with FL laws, though.

[onenote]

63. self defense applies to manslaughter as well as to second degree

What is unclear from what I've read is whether the jury based its decision on self defense or on a failure by the prosecution to persuade them beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of either second degree or manslaughter had been proven.

[magellan]

31. Sadly, yes

I had a feeling it was going to go bad when our local legal analyst Bill Sheaffer explained that the requirements for 2nd degree murder and manslaughter are the same in self defense, and since they were asking about manslaughter it must mean they'd given up on 2nd degree. He then said if they follow the letter of the law they must also find him not guilty of manslaughter.

I admit I started hoping they'd find him guilty anyway at that point...but it seemed over. And it was.

[liberal_at_heart]

43. I disagree that Zimmerman was the one defending himself, but that does not mean that Zimmerman

intended to murder Trayvon.

[magellan]

48. And that's where it got tough for the jury, I guess

I don't believe GZ was defending himself either, I believe he escalated on TM and TM was the one defending himself. I'd like to think the jury asked about manslaughter because they were headed in that direction, but when faced with the law they had to acquit. The prosecution just didn't make the case for intent.

[NoOneMan]

61. Why is the bar so high that every second has to be absolutely accurately reconstructed?

We still do not know the exact moment by moment details of many gruesome murders that put people behind bars. Motive, being at the place and time is generally enough. And in this circumstance, both of those are not even in dispute.

The only thing we are disputing is not whether he felt imminent bodily harm before murdering that boy, but if the average person should have felt imminent harm in that situation (this paranoid racist freak is not average). If someone was relentlessly pounding on the average person, reigning down blows, and suffering no real harm after a purported 20+ blows, I would think the average person would be more amused than scared. Honestly, its like a Saturday Night Live fight as he claims.

So either Trayvon Martin was sissy fighting in a hilarious manner, or Zimmerman was not in any type of situation that he claimed he was which could produce the fear of death in the average person.

He is a murderer.

[burnodo]

74. the jury got it right as far as the system is concerned

Justice? Ehhh, not so much.

[Tx4obama]

5. There WAS enough evidence to find him guilty of manslaughter. n/t

[Rex]

10. You and I agree on something.

IMO there was enough evidence for manslaughter.

[Tx4obama]

12. I think the jury didn't understand 'manslaughter'. They should have asked Judge more questions.

Also, I really wish the jury had been allowed to ask the witnesses questions like the jury was able to in the Jodi Arias case out in Arizona.

[Aerows]

22. I think we also can't overlook

the farce of an investigation into the scene by the Sanford Police. That certainly didn't help things.

[HiPointDem]

27. +1

[Rex]

8. 'Not innocent but not guilty' is not justice.

That is weasel words.

[BainsBane]

9. manslaughter was the appropriate verdict

but the fact is the prosecution sucked. A better lawyer could have gotten Zimmerman convicted.

[bobduca]

11. How was he picked/selected?

Was he secured by the family or provided by the state?

[BainsBane]

13. I think he's the DA of Seminole County

but I'm not sure. Others watched this trial closely. I only caught some of the evening coverage of it and a bit of the closing arguments.

[Tx4obama]

21. State Prosecutors represent the state - families/victims do not get to pick them. n/t

[bobduca]

40. Right, I was confusing civil cases where the victim/victim's family can pick

So, from the analysis I've seen, consensus was that the prosecutor was inept. Their witnesses helped the defense, and the cross examination of the expert witnesses was feeble at best.

I believe the prosecution was suspiciously inept.

[meow2u3]

15. Remember, the police initially covered up for Zimmie

They bought his entire pack of lies, as did the jury.

[BainsBane]

18. and the police deliberately threw the case in court

by testifying as character witnesses for Zimmerman. Unreal.

[CokeMachine]

34. I finally agree with you on something.

Good for you -- good for me --not sure --but it's different.

[BainsBane]

38. That's nice.

Off topic: You know that poll about which presidency people were born in? I was surprised by your response. I would have sworn you were in your early twenties.

[CokeMachine]

49. Thanks for showing an interest in me!!

I've been around the block a few times. Now that I'm older, once around the block is enough. Are you stalking me? If so, thanks!!

[BainsBane]

50. Not at all

I just looked at the poll results and you stood out to me. We have images of posters that are often wrong. I pictured you as very young.

[CokeMachine]

53. Have a great weekend!!

[BainsBane]

47. So why did you vote other?

[CokeMachine]

52. Just to get your attention!!

Why else would I vote other when you are following me around. Sorry, but I'm not at all interested in you. Again, I'm sorry but your infatuation with me is not reciprocal.

[BainsBane]

59. I'm heart broken

I don't know how I'll carry on.

My dream in life has always been to snag a gun nut born under: what was it, Eisenhower, Truman, Coolidge?

[CokeMachine]

62. You'll get over me.

As bad as it seems right now, tomorrow will be better!!

[treestar]

54. though as pointed out, one factor hampering the prosecution

was the police not taking it seriously at the scene. They did not do such a great job either.

[Avalux]

64. And a police force who handled the evidence appropriately.

Many questions with them....surrounding how Trayvon's body was handled, the medical examiner's sub-par report, no examination of Zimmerman's injuries.

[hack89]

72. You are right. nt

[cthulu2016]

14. Other: The poll options are not very useful vis-a-vis American law

The jury did their job well with the evidence and law they were handed.

That does not mean that anyone is innocent.

GZ could have straight-up murdered TM without it being right to convict... it depends on what evidence there is of that guilt.

It was a very bad case... people really should not make judgments about the jurors or the law or race relations or much of anything from it because it was just a very bad case.

In American law it is expected and understood that sometimes the system will work perfectly, yet a guilty man go free. The alternative would be a system that was comfortable with convicting a lot of innocent people.

[Agschmid]

16. This was bullshit.

[hrmjustin]

20. I agree 100%

[petronius]

19. Regardless of the jury, I believe he is morally and ethically

guilty of murder (using that word in a colloquial rather than legal sense)...

[pipoman]

24. There is a very distinct legal difference between

"not guilty" and "innocent"..he was found "not guilty" by the court, not "innocent"..huge difference..

[hrmjustin]

25. do you think he is innocent?

[pipoman]

42. don't know beyond a reasonable doubt..he's "not guilty" (in the legal sense)

[hrmjustin]

44. Ok an honest answer I believe.

I believe he is guilty.

[DirkGently]

28. These facts, with this evidence, gets this result.

I thought manslaughter might have worked, but don't think the state tried enough for that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. "Other"

I think that the jury rendered the only verdict it could under Florida law...and I also think that this is a travesty of justice. The law needs to be changed to reflect the fact that it's not necessary to be the one to throw the first physical blow in order to be considered the instigator of a conflict...and thus the person who bears the responsibility for the outcome. The fact remains that Zimmerman brought this situation about.

[BlueJazz]

33. Yes

[enigmatic]

35. An armed George Zimmerman follows, engages and shoots and kills an unarmed Trayvon Martin

Zimmerman is guilty.

[rollin74]

36. other. jury got it right. He is not guilty

[Azathoth]

39. There's a reason the form says "not guilty" rather than "innocent"

This case had mountains of reasonable doubt. For that reason, Zimmerman was unquestionably not guilty.

On the other hand, did he prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? No. I tend to think he was innocent, but if someone suddenly produced a video tape proving otherwise, I wouldn't fall off my chair in shock.

[LittleBlue]

41. The jury got it right

I don't know whether he's innocent, I wasn't there that night.

The decision was correct, the state got nowhere close to beyond a reasonable doubt. DU became an echo chamber of insulation against a weak case.

It's a shame, though. Travyon's killing was unjust, in a perfect world he would receive some punishment. But our justice system doesn't allow for it.

[Skip Intro]

45. No way to know 100%. n/t

[ForgoTheConsequence]

46. We "know"

Zimmerman had a gun.
Trayvon didn't have a gun.
Zimmerman stalked Trayvon.


Zimmerman's choices led to Trayvons death, no way around it. If you think otherwise you are using some sort mental gymnastics to justify your own racism (consciously or subconsciously).

[bobclark86]

77. Well, that's one hell of a strawman...

Instead of going after people who think he was "not guilty," because the prosecution screwed up proving if Zimmerman started the physical fight or was planning on shooting the kid, you throw up "Zimmerman's choices led to Trayvons death," and if anyone disagrees with you, they're racist.

Well, nobody (as in NOBODY) is disagreeing with you. Everyone knows Zimmerman shot Martin (notice you are using Zimmerman instead of George and Trayvon instead of Martin... implying a more familiar air to one than the other). That's something even the defense admitted. We all know had Zimmerman not gotten out of his car that night, none of this would have happened.

Here's what we don't know:
Was Zimmerman pissed off about break-in around his neighborhood, or was he hunting black people?
Did Zimmerman get out of the car thinking he was going to shoot someone?
Did Zimmerman shove Martin before Martin knocked him down, or did Martin hit Zimmerman first when the two started mouthing off (as the guy was pretty out of shape (his gym owner even said he sucked), I think the fight involved two hits -- Martin hitting Zimmerman and Zimmerman hitting the ground like a sack of fresh fertilizer)?

THAT is the doubt part. You can't prove the first two, so there goes Murder-2. You can't prove the third, so there goes manslaughter (If Zimmerman hit first, he started the actual physical fight. If Martin hit first because some guy was standing there yelling at him, and Zimmerman then got his ass kicked, there's self defense). The prosecution didn't prove one way or the other (as only two people knew, and one is dead), so unlike wearing latex gloves under tight-fitting leather gloves meaning I must acquit, the prosecution can't prove who started the physical fight (as both had a legal right to be where they were), the jury chose to acquit.

Now, should Zimmerman have followed Martin? That's the "FUCK NO!!!!!" winning the No-Shit-Sherlock of the Day Award. That doesn't mean it's murder under the law. Had Zimmerman walked up, pulled his gun while 20 feet away and shot Martin, THAT would have been flat-out murder. But the real world is more complex than that (as usual).

Besides, Zimmerman will never have a normal life again (never holding a career, never finding a peaceful home, probably not keeping his marriage, etc.). Those that believe in karma will understand when the guy's life is ruined. Should it be? Well, it doesn't take a real genius to figure out you should not follow someone around at night with a loaded gun when the cops tell you not to do so.

I know, now I'm to be labeled a gun-humping neo-Nazi racists like others here for pointing all this out and not jumping on the "Zimmerman is an evil racist child hunter!" bandwagon. Well, if someone said I'm a Nazi on the internet, it MUST be true... apparently... or something...

[treestar]

51. The jury is always "right" but

that doesn't mean we can't think they were a bunch of dumbasses. I'm wondering if the instructions influenced them and they thought there was reasonable doubt that GZ was not entitled to use deadly force.

[Whisp]

56. I feel absolutely sick to my stomach. I cannot believe this.

I had the misfortune of hearing the news in the company of an asshole racist, which she will of course totally deny. I was so fucking angry at what she said:

a black guy with a knife coming at you, what would you do?

what fucking knife?

you ignorant asshole you. I had to walk away because I wanted to punch her.

I feel numb now.

[hrmjustin]

57. I feel really empty after this verdict!

[mick063]

58. An armed man stalked and killed an unarmed teenager because of his race.

That about sums it up.

You can't rationalize it. You can't defend it. You can't make a case for it.

GUILTY

As a jurist, I don't give a crap if a definition of manslaughter was read to me or not. I don't give a crap if some legal definition was not met.

A young unarmed man was stalked, provoked, and killed. I don't let Zimmerman walk.

[hrmjustin]

60. +1,000,000

[Orrex]

73. You would be a very poor jurist, then

When you serve that duty, it's not up to you to apply your own definition of the law. Your job is to determine if the prosecution's case establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if you personally believe that he's guilty, you are obliged to find the defendant not guilty if the prosecutor fails to overcome that reasonable doubt.

[mick063]

81. If I believed in our justice system, you would be correct.

Bankers are untouchable.
ALEC writes our laws.
NRA rationalizes child massacre
Unarmed people can be stalked, provoked, and murdered.

Jury nullification. I will use it.

I call it "non violent" vigilantism.

I defy your insistence of correctly fitting into this travesty of a justice system.

[Orrex]

82. If you're willing to risk contempt of court, I say go for it

Bankers are untouchable.
ALEC writes our laws.
NRA rationalizes child massacre
Unarmed people can be stalked, provoked, and murdered.

None of that is untrue.
None of that justifies your intent to subvert the jury system.

Feel free to carry out your non violent vigilantism, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. If it gets you tossed out of a jury pool, great. If it places you at odds with the court, then good luck to you.

[Decoy of Fenris]

65. Jury got it right: Z's guilty, but reasonable doubt was there.

There are too many scenarios that may or may not have been in play. Z, while in his legal right to follow Martin, was displaying incredibly poor judgment. Having no evidence that Z had ill-intention, and having no evidence regarding who initiated physical conflict, and lacking evidence of motive, the jury, in my mind, rightfully found a lack of evidence and therefore reasonable doubt that Z acted "Recklessly", given the lack of knowledge of critical variables.


TL;DR version: Too much unknown, not enough evidence against Z.


Z got away with murder, no doubt, but our system of law operates to prevent convictions of people who -may be- innocent. Zimmerman just got lucky that there was no evidence against him, otherwise he'd be locked away by now.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Some of these people are just new arrivals, others, not so much.

Jury got it right and he is innocent.
13 (7%)
1KansasDem, Taitertots, hooptie, tableturner, NaturalHigh, Rabon, Mojo Electro, backwoodsbob, Nunliebekinder, HolyMoley, lynne, COLGATE4, Hempologist

[Blue_Tires]

68. Makes my ignore list easier...

[Lurks Often]

67. The prosecution failed to make a case

strong enough to overcome the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold.

[DearAbby]

69. All things being equal

I was deeply disappointed with the verdict. I thought about it, trying to make sense of it. I came to this phrase. All things being equal...

I too went into the case with a preconceived stereotype. That of Zimmerman. This case was all about Assumptions, ones Zimmerman made, ones that Trayvon made. All things being equal.

Is it possible Zimmerman was afraid for his life as much as Trayvon? Both had the right to stand their ground. Take the faces out, take the stereotypes out. You have two human beings equally frightened for their lives. But one has a gun, the other is unarmed. Would the person holding the gun be frightened enough to use it? The unarmed person is already using everything in his arsenal...the armed person has more. The outcome is inevitable.

But all things being equal? Problem, Trayvon was not in an equal fight. The Stand your ground laws are a danger to some Americans. We should not abide any law allowing the killing of Americans. We must get rid of all Stand your Ground laws. That would be justice.

[Decoy of Fenris]

71. Righteous, Abby. A very rare sight, your post.

Nothing to contribute here, just want to say that your post is a breath of fresh air in a toxic atmosphere.

[pipi_k]

76. Your last

two sentences...

I agree. We have to do away with Stand Your Ground laws

except for in the case of being able to defend oneself in one's own home.

[hack89]

70. Guilty but inadequate evidence due to the lack of eye witnesses. nt

[pipi_k]

75. Other...

I still don't know what actually happened that night.

However, based on the evidence presented by the State, I think they did the only thing that made sense to them at the time.

I'm sure that the State went into this thinking that the all-female jury would be swayed by emotion. The State tried its damnedest to do that, and I have to ask why...

Was there such a lack of real evidence that they felt using emotion was all they had?

If the State intended to win on emotion, they made a huge mistake.

If the case against Zimmerman was so cut and dried and easy, why couldn't the State get it done...even when a charge of Manslaughter was added...

[Demo_Chris]

78. The state presented a good deal of evidence showing Zimmerman was a liar...

This should cast doubt on everything he has had to say.

This jury either missed this stuff or didn't care.

[The Second Stone]

80. Voluntary manslaughter in that Zimmerman was looking to start a

confrontation with an attitude and a gun. And that is being generous. I can see second degree murder too. I disagree with this verdict.

[hrmjustin]

83. Kick