I believe that Zimmerman is guilty as sin but I would have voted to acquit given the instructions

[dsc]

that jury was given and the case the prosecution put on. First, I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. I think he saw a black boy that he felt was suspicious, followed him, approached him, probably pushed him, and then Trayvon hit him back and he started losing the fight, and he panicked and shot him. I think that adds up to manslaughter in my mind, but not under those jury instructions. The jury had to ignore everything I wrote before and he started losing the fight and then, on top of that, they had to be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman didn't fear that he might be harmed, before pulling the trigger. I have to admit, I do have some doubt on that score. Self defense is an affirmative defense and should have to be proven by the defendant, not disproven by the state. I think it is more likely than not, that Zimmerman wasn't in fear of serious harm when he shot Treyvon but I don't know that beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman should have had to at least move the needle to it being more likely than not that he was in fear of his life.

My point is those of us who want a different outcome next time need to focus not on changing the jury but on changing the law. The law and those instructions were the problem.

[Skittles]

1. so the fact that Trayvon was the one fighting for his life just did not matter

[dsc]

6. under the law apparently not

that what the jury instructions said, I didn't write them, nor did I write the law, nor did I vote for or have opportunity to vote for those who did.

[Skittles]

9. that is not justice

[dsc]

11. I didn't say it was but if you want a different verdict

then you need a different law.

[Skittles]

16. ...

"Had a gun-toting Trayvon Martin stalked an unarmed George Zimmerman,
and then shot him to death... DO I EVEN NEED TO COMPLETE
THIS SENTENCE?" – Michael Moore

[dsc]

18. sadly that is likely correct

though I think the cops would have been somewhat instrumental. Had they sided with the armed Martin I think the result would have likely been the same, but the likelihood of them doing so is far less.

[Quixote1818]

7. Exactly, so this makes me wonder if we at DU should push to have the laws

changed to protect people like Trayvon who are only protecting themselves and minding their own business.

[Quixote1818]

2. My post said exactly the same thing.

In fact I was reading the jury instructions on manslaughter just a few minutes before the verdict and as I did I knew for sure he was going to get off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023247773

[Shivering Jemmy]

3. that's nice.

[Kali]

4. pretty much how I saw it

ultimately and morally guilty, but not legally

such a horrible tragedy

[shraby]

5. Juries can ignore instructions and come up with any verdict they want to..they are the jury.

It happens from time to time but not often enough. It's called a run away jury and there's not much they can do about it besides keep it quiet that they can do that.
For many it's their first foray into the courtroom so they don't know about it.
Grand juries have been known to jump out of the box too.

[dsc]

8. they could have

but is that what we really want? Do you want jurors convicting people simply because they can? Also, the judge might well have thrown out the verdict if they had.

[Skittles]

13. that gutless, paranoid coward is a THREAT TO SOCIETY

HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL - instead they will be handing his gun back to him

[dsc]

17. and I am sure the jurors who ignored the law in the 60's were sure of themselves too

they were protecting society from outside agitators and communists. The fact is jurors should be apply the law as it is.

[Skittles]

24. fuck this, done here

[dsc]

29. sorry but like it or not

you are advocating the exact same thing but apparently only for defendants you don't like.

[CTyankee]

62. then what you are saying is that the system is in fact RE-INFORCING RACISM and

IGNORING JUSTICE.

This is what has been played out here, IMO. Justification for the racism inspired fears of black teenaged boys by whites.

So let's be clear. This is the problem that must be addressed.

We sure haven't come very far in parts of this country, have we?

[shraby]

15. By the same token, a jury's hands shouldn't be tied so they can't render a just verdict.

[CTyankee]

64. Maybe so, but so what? dsc, how do you think we get to justice and progress beyond our

outright racism system of "justice." That isn't "justice," is it? Let's call it what it is: a mockery of justice.

Always, in spearheading change, there must be those who simply stand up for what is right. It is the subject of countless books, plays and movies. You've seen them in literature and you've seen it in real life.

And yes, so what if the jury had one lone holdout or maybe two. What would happen then?

I think what would happen is the story of the courageous holdout(s) would be told and it would play out as a morality tale and help the cause of true justice by opening a few eyes to what it means to speak out, even when you are a voice of one, for what is right.

And that is how change is effected. NOT by re-inforcing INJUSTICE.

[Quixote1818]

10. Interesting

Well, we know there are run away judges ALL the fucking time!

[liberal_at_heart]

12. There are lots of people who ignore the law when they know it is bad law. Look at all the

medical marijuana patients in this country. I would have voted guilty on manslaughter.

[onpatrol98]

14. Of course you would have...

"I believe that Zimmerman is guilty as sin but I would have voted to acquit given the instructions."

Yep. I'm not surprised at all. I mean...those instructions were crucial.

After all, when you look to balance the scales...there's nothing but a dead child on the other side.

I'm all out of tears for tonight. Or, this post would've gotten to me. It would have started up the water works. But, I'm all out. I'm exhausted.

You know what. No worries. You were on the jury. There were six of you there.

I also believe Zimmerman is guilty. I believe guilty people should go to jail. So, I wouldn't have voted to acquit him. But, lucky for Zimmy...there are more like you in the US than me.

Oh, well...Congratulations!

[dsc]

25. yeah they are

because they are the difference between us living in a country of law and us living in a country of the whim of the majority. Supervisor White got 5 years for a double assassination because jurors decided that hating gays was more important that following the law. Mr. Evers killer got away for several years because most of the jurors in the first two trials believed that the law wasn't as important as hating blacks. But no the law doesn't matter, it is better for us to have mob justice instead.

[onpatrol98]

33. Whatever, dsc...

You think Zimmerman was guilty, so you would be honor bound to vote for acquittal???

Rationalize that however you wish.

Okay. Congratulations. He was acquitted. This case wasn't about Mr. Evers, Supervisor White, or anyone else. It was about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

But, reality be damned...there's a point to be made by you, I guess.

A dead child's killer just went free. But, you see a great opportunity to make a point.

You want to educate us on the law. You want us to understand that it was good and proper that this child's killer to go free.

Because, God forbid...had the murderer of Trayvon actually gone to jail for killing Trayvon (no dispute on that particular fact)...well, it would have been the equivalent of mob justice.

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. No dispute. But, wanting him to go to jail and expecting him to go to jail for the killing Trayvon Martin is the equivalent of mob justice. Is this what you're telling me?

[dsc]

35. yes if you think it should happen despite what the law clearly says

Again, I didn't write the law, I think it is a badly written law which will lead to many acquitals of clearly guilty people. But the law is, what the law is, and if we don't apply the law then we are left with, I like this defendant but I don't like that one so the first one we will will acquit despite what the laws says and the second one we will convict despite what the law says. If that isn't mob justice, I frankly don't know what is.

[onpatrol98]

45. It's not about liking a defendant or not liking a defendant...

I mean...I get the idea of having some existential discussion of how humanity is well-served if a guilty man goes free, but the justice process was pure. But, at the moment, that's a bunch of crap. Although, it does explain how criminals go free because of technicalities.

I do not believe for one minute that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

I believe he stalked and killed an unarmed teenager with a loaded and chambered weapon that he had in his possession. And, I believe he had it in his possession because he was hoping he just might get the opportunity to use it one day. George was playing make-believe. He was a wanna be police officer.

And, I believe this incident will spawn more Georges.

[dsc]

56. I think people should have to live with the laws they made

including the bad ones. It isn't juries' jobs to correct legislative mistakes (at least not to convict people who haven't broken laws). Frankly, the way this law is written, I can't see how one could convict a person who shot a swat officer who came into his house without announcing who he was. Any reasonable person who lived in a drug house and had an armed man come barging in would be in fear of his life and certainly I can't see any earthly way to disprove that fear beyond a reasonable doubt. I would bet large sums of money that the first verdict like that which happens and we will see a new law the very next day.

[CTyankee]

65. I hope you are not saying that those that break an unjust law are always part of a "mob."

That would make Gandhi part of a mob. It would make MLK, Jr. and all of the brave civil rights demonstrators breaking the law and sitting at the lunch counters in defiance of a racist law, part of a mob. Would we have been better off as a nation if they had not stood up for what is right?

[dsc]

68. No

but those who would convict people when the law says they aren't guilty are.

[CTyankee]

71. It was a matter of interpretation of the law.

And also simply ignoring evidence to the contrary on the part of the jury.

[dsc]

73. No the law was pretty clear, given the instructions

I don't see any reading of the facts which removes reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in self defense given that one also had to only consider the moment when the fight turned bad for Zimmerman. I think both of those are horrible law, but that is what the law said. Given that, and the fact we have at best mixed evidence of who was on top, I don't see how you can do anything but acquit.

[CTyankee]

74. Your points can and have been rebutted.

What you see as clear ain't so clear to LOTS of folks...

[Skittles]

28. can you believe this shit? I'm putting them on IGNORE

they absolutely DISGUST me

[2ndAmForComputers]

19. The President of the United States is STILL a black man.

Choke on that.

[dsc]

30. you can call me racist till the cows come home and give birth to aliens

but I did none of the following, I didn't write the jury instructions, I didn't write the law, I didn't vote for or even have opportunity to vote for, the people who wrote the law. In short, I have 0 percent responsibility for what the law and those instructions said. The fact is the law is very poorly written, again I didn't write it, I didn't vote for those who did. If you want a different result then I would suggest you set about changing the law.

[tblue]

49. Maybe now is not the time

to school us on the law or the need to change the law or that the law allows a child killer to go free and we should be glad because the system worked and we'd be worse off tonight if it didn't. No. Now is not the time.

I don't doubt your good intentions, sweetie. But unless you want to spend the evening on the defensive, maybe stop pouring salt into fresh wounds. It's not welcome. Maybe go work on changing that bad law and then let us know how we can help you. I'm sure you'll get a better reception, if that matters to you. Peace.

[Pelican]

50. Do you really have that little to say?

[2ndAmForComputers]

52. No, I have lots more. But sometimes I'm lazy and it's faster to cut-n-paste.

Or, alternatively, to give links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023250487#post18

Best. Leave. Alone. Vote. Ever.

[Egalitariat]

66. I'm watching Doc McStuffens on Disney Junior with my daughter

And my dog likes peanut butter.

[ThePhilosopher04]

20. If the jury wanted to find him guilty ...

they had plenty of evidence to do so. The self-defense bullshit was easily discredited by Zimmerman's gross inconsistencies and lies, highlighted by the fact there was no way Zimmerman could have pulled his gun when he said he did, not to mention Trayvon Martin could not have seen or touched it. He also lied about having previous knowledge of "stand your ground" and showed no remorse or regret during the Hannity interview. Apparently the jury completely glossed over those "minor" details.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. I agree.

[penultimate]

21. Based on what I understand of the case, I figured he would have got it on manslaughter...

I heard someone today say that Zimmerman retreated and Treyvon followed him. It was the first time I ever heard that, so I wrote it off as an untruth, but now I'm wondering if that's why he didn't get manslaughter....

[Skittles]

31. if Zimmerman had retreated he would have been back in his car

he pulled a gun and tried to detain Travyon, who fought back in a failed effort to save his own life

[dsc]

32. there is zero evidence of that

I fully believed that he followed Marvin when he had no business doing so, I also believed he might well have been the first to put his hands on Marvin, but there is no evidence at all and a lot of evidence against, the idea that the gun was out before the fight started.

[anomiep]

39. Rachel Jeantel

Rachel Jeantel was the only person who gave any evidence whatsoever about what happened when Zimmerman and Martin came face to face.

She said, on the stand and under oath, that she did not know who swung on who.

Zimmerman knows what happened - but he's the guy who was on trial.

Nobody can truthfully state, based on the evidence given in the trial, that they know how the fight went down. Nobody. That includes the guy you're arguing with, as well as anyone else who claims to know what happened after her phone disconnected.

From the time that phone disconnected, to the time John Goode saw them. Any claim that this or that had to have happened - nobody testified to anything for that.

[orleans]

22. sometimes, regardless of what we are told, we just need to DO THE RIGHT THING

these jurors did NOT do the right thing

[liberal_at_heart]

26. exactly. If we follow all the rules that the rich and powerful set up for themselves how will we

ever get control of our country back? Sometimes you have to go against a bad law. Look at how many bad laws the protesters during the civil rights movement broke.

[orleans]

57. i remember this "story" that posed a moral dilemma (back in my teen years)

(and it was told in various ways) but the gist of it was:
a loved one was deathly ill
the only way to save them was to give them a medicine that was not legally obtainable (either they had no money or the store with the medicine was closed) but the caretaker managed to get the medicine (by either stealing it or breaking into the store and stealing it)
did the caretaker do the right thing?

a version of the story asked if the caretaker SHOULD steal the medicine

was the caretaker in the wrong if they did NOT steal the medicine

committing a wrong for a higher/greater good sort of story

[Taverner]

27. It was second degree, pure and simple

[treestar]

34. Yeah, maybe there was a good reason at common law that

self defense was an affirmative defense. The defendant has to prove it by a preponderance. That makes sense, in that the defendant admits in such cases to having killed someone.

It's confusing to think of having to prove the use of deadly force not justified by a reasonable doubt. That standard lets anyone who simply says they were in fear of their life get away with it.

[dsc]

36. pretty much

I don't see how under that instruction you can ever convict without eye witness or very strong blood spatter evidence.

[Drunken Irishman]

37. A jury can do whatever the hell they want...

And many men have been found guilty on far less evidence. I get your point that the law is the law - but the jury is put in the position where it gets to decide what that law says. Ideally, your point would work. But the legal system is not ideal. It's not even fair. It's rigged against a certain level of our population and I would have no problem righting that wrong if I was on the jury.

The fact remains, you believe Zimmerman is guilty. That's all that is required of you to vote guilty. Everything else is window dressing. It's done to either give the juror an out or to make 'em feel good. But at the end of the day, they get to decide and what they decide is what they believe.

George Zimmerman killed Travyon Martin. Did he deserve the murder charge? Maybe not - but he should have at least received manslaughter, which I think the evidence suggests was probable in this case.

Moreover, I'm not convinced the jury even debated much. They had their minds made up the second the trial began.

There was no 'thought' put into the verdict, unfortunately. If they truly wanted to debate over the nuances of the law, they would have taken more than just a couple days. The way I see it, they saw their weekend being wasted away and just wanted to go home.

I mean, really, what's one less black kid on the street anyway? Isn't that what drives that mentality?

When will Zimmerman get his justice?

[dsc]

38. 11 hours of deliberation suggests thought to me

Neither of us were in the room so we can't know what they did or didn't do, but I think 11 hours speaks to thought. I always thought the second degree charge was needless over reach. I think manslaughter fits the facts as they appear likely to have been. I feel his is guilty of manslaughter regardless of if he threw the first punch or not, but again, I am not sure enough to overcome reasonable doubt on self defense. I think that should be an affirmative defense and should have to be proven and this case is a perfect illustration as to why.

[Drunken Irishman]

40. The problem with reasonable doubt...

Is that it exists in almost every trial that doesn't have damning DNA evidence or footage of the crime being committed. It's also subjective. What is reasonable doubt?

I just think if I sat on that jury, and I was convinced Zimmerman had killed Martin, I would vote guilty and I would have no problem doing it.

It happens all the time in our justice system. Like I said, many have been convicted on far less.

[dsc]

46. reasonable isn't just any

If you take the self defense angle out of it, I think Zimmerman may well have been guilty of second degree murder here but even without self defense would likely have had a hard time voting for guilt there as I do have some doubt as to his exact state of mind on the issue of hate in his heart. On the other hand, I would have voted without hesitation to convict for manslaughter if self defense had been left as an affirmative defense and not this disproven beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

[Drunken Irishman]

47. I still think the self defense claim is very flimsy...

Hell, there isn't even enough evidence that proved Martin was on top of him. What we know is that Zimmerman fired the shot. There have been many self defense claims that just don't hold up and I think this was one of 'em. I would happily, and easily, vote guilty if I was on the jury.

[Cha]

41. Mahalo, DI

[Drunken Irishman]

42. How's it going, Cha?

Sad day, eh?

[Cha]

44. Very sorrowful

thanks for pouring your heart out.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. I don't understand why it was allowed that they are instructed to ignore who started the fight...

I agree that Zimmerman most likely was the one who made the confrontation physical, and hence manslaughter would have been the right verdict, who started it was key, and Zimmerman exasperated and provoked the situation in the first place, that is fact. I would have voted to convict, despite the instructions, because I would have viewed them as too restrictive of the facts. Basically the judge instructed the jury to disregard Martin as a human being who has a right to self defense, and that is wrong.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

48. I just read the jury instructions....

For manslaughter, it seems pretty cut and dry.....

They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following items:

1.Trayvon Martin is dead.
2.George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

To me, and this is my opinion only, but the moment that George Zimmerman made his gun appear and shoot it in the vicinity of Trayvon Martin, he was intentionally committing an act that killed him.

[dsc]

51. you are leaving out the self defense part

which is a pretty big thing to leave out, enough that I might be tempted to consider your post dishonest.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

54. Well, is lethal self defense warranted...

When the person you are fighting never produces a weapon that would match the power of a gun, and based on the testimony of the one medical examiner, the injuries you sustain do not indicate that your head was being bashed into concrete, and to illustrate that point, minutes later when the police are there, you are coherent, able to stand, and reject medical help.

[dsc]

55. I agree with you on much of that if not all of that

but the fact is the law states differently. Like it or not, the state had to disprove self defense against reasonable doubt. Plus we couldn't consider any of his behavior before he started losing the fight, again both in the instructions.

[Blackford]

53. I would have held out for second degree murder until hell froze over

given the instructions.

[great white snark]

59. Even if there was a hung jury the NRA would push for continual trials until a favorable ruling.

This "not guilty" is a better boon for the NRA than any advertising they could do.

[dsc]

69. actually a hung jury that was 1 to 5 in favor of acquital

would mean that the prosecution would likely not refile.

[Yo_Mama]

58. And negligence not a basis for manslaughter in FL.

I have to admit the first time I felt doubt about the outcome was when I followed a link here on DU and read the jury instructions. I still thought they probably would go for manslaughter.

I expected a manslaughter conviction after the forensic evidence, because I think everyone agrees that there was a proven element of wrongful death. But the PROVEN part is based on negligence.

I didn't watch the trial, so I can't criticize the jury for how they analyzed the rest of the evidence, nor do I believe that just watching the trial would make me as knowledgeable as the jury.

I think their acquittal was based on reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman was in fear for his life when he shot the kid, and Florida law re the basis of manslaughter.

[davidpdx]

60. It was a tough case

I agree that we need to focus on changing the laws. I also agree with you about self-defense being affirmative. The way the law is written the prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman intended to cause harm, leaving the defense only to prove reasonable doubt. It is obvious which of the two was easier to prove.

As to the instructions I didn't hear them. I think someone asked you to post a link to them, so maybe you can respond to that.

As to how I would have voted on the jury, I don't know. I believe he was guilty, but didn't see the evidence.

I had been sitting here all day working on a paper for my doctoral class and had not checked the news until about 6 hours after the verdict (I'm outside the US) and only found out when I saw and email and switched over and checked it. My response was that my mouth just fell open. Utter shock. I had so hoped the jury would take several days to decide and that maybe the evidence was there.

[DCBob]

61. In hindsight it appears they did not have a clear case for murder.

If they would have focused on manslaughter then I think we would have had a different outcome.

[Wabbajack_]

63. I agree with 100% that it was manslaugter

That's what they should have charged him with, 2nd degree was an overreach and having a lesser included charge is clearly confusing to 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

[MNBrewer]

67. I agree that the jury probably did reach the "legally correct" decision based on their instructions

a legally correct and (in my opinion) an unjust verdict. This happens all the time when the laws themselves are unjust.

[dsc]

70. Link to instructions and relevant parts

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/document-instructions-george-zimmerman-jury/nYnqZ/
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

snip
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

end of quote