I accept the jury's decision

[cleveramerican]

a few of my thoughts:
I was not there that dark night and have no idea what truly happened
I didn't watch every minute of every day of the trial.
I caught up with evening news coverage.
I missed a lot, I am sure.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high hurdle to get over, with good reason.
I think most people on juries take their responsibilities seriously.
I am hesitant to put much faith in "man in the street" reactions to jury verdicts.
" Not Guilty" and Innocent are not the same thing
I wish more folks prefaced their opinions with a touch of "I could be wrong,but here's what I think..." humility.


We, as a nation, have got to stop turning trials into TV shows.
Every time we do,
it turns into a shitstorm.

[dem in texas]

1. He is not guilty of the charges, but he guilty of killing martin.

the prosecution did a bad job, they over-reached and did not back up the charges. What the jury did is to say that he was not guilty of the charges as presented to them by the state, but they did not say he was innocent.

It sad day when some nut can kill an innocent kid, but then the political ambitions get in the way and the prosecution has big dreams of being famous so they bring charges that get headlines, but do not fit the actual crime. This is the same situation as the OJ Simpson trial, the prosecution was too focused on getting publicity and did not pay attention to who they called as witnesses.

[lame54]

54. Manslauter would have been a gift...

he's a fucking murderer

[mzmolly]

2. Key word "reasonable".

I don't accept it. I am appalled.

[KarenS]

8. I agree with the Key word being "reasonable".

I don't accept it either.

[ohheckyeah]

17. Reasonable is left up to each juror to decide for themselves.

That's the way the system works whether we accept it or not.

[mzmolly]

26. I think it should have been defined.

Murderers don't often leave witnesses.

[ohheckyeah]

29. "Reasonable doubt" is never defined in

a court case.

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

I think Zimmerman is guilty as hell of initiating the whole thing and thus for the murder of Trayvon, but I wasn't on the jury. They are given specific instructions and we aren't privy to all of the instructions and evidence they were given. It sucks, but it's the system.

[mzmolly]

38. I would disagree with that.

O'Mawa defined it, according to his interpretation. The prosecution did a great job, appealing to common sense, and emotion. But the jury took notes and seemed to want 'information'.

[ohheckyeah]

39. You can disagree with that all you want,

but legally the definition of reasonable doubt leaves each juror to decide for themselves what reasonable doubt actually is. It is subjective, and by that very fact cannot be definitively defined. The prosecution and defense can give their interpretation and suggest what it means, but nobody can control how a juror defines it internally.

In the United States, juries must be instructed to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, but there is much disagreement as to whether the jury should be given a definition of "reasonable doubt."[10] In Victor v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unclear reasonable doubt instructions at issue, but stopped short of setting forth an exemplary jury instruction.[/blockquote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not capable of precise definition, but it doesn't require absolute certainty. It is sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty".

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/

[mzmolly]

41. Tell that to O'Mawa.

There was no reason the prosecution couldn't address what is considered 'reasonable'. Especially given O'Mara cautioned against using common sense, which is in fact, reasonable.

[ohheckyeah]

42. There's no definition of reasonable doubt there. n/t

[mzmolly]

46. The entire presentation

deals with 'reasonable doubt'. He deemed that if something is "highly unlikely" self defense, it's not reasonable doubt. My rear. Did you read the list?

[ohheckyeah]

47. But, it doesn't define it.

Your opinion and the lawyer's opinion doesn't trump the fact that the law does not define reasonable doubt in a definitive manner.

[mzmolly]

48. The heck it doesn't.

eom

[ohheckyeah]

49. Well, if you think the lawyer's hand out

trumps the actual legal definition, which says you can't definitively define reasonable doubt, have at it.

Have a good night.

[mzmolly]

50. I think a lawyers hand out, sadly informed

the jury given they had no alternate definition.

[ohheckyeah]

59. That's because there is no real alternate or definitive definition. n/t

[mzmolly]

61. Too bad O'Mara pretended he got to define that

for others, isn't it? Especially given he wasn't refuted.

[lame54]

55. That's the way it's set up...

I wouldn't use the word works

[RC]

3. I do not accept the jury's decision

George Zimmerman meted out vigilante justice and got away with it.
The jury wasn't there either. Maybe that is why they got it wrong, huh?
The facts fit that Zimmerman went after Martin, after being directed to stay in his vehicle.
Martin noticed Zimmerman following him and tried to get away, the running. Zimmerman caught up to Martin. A confrontation ensued. Zimmerman shot Martin. How is this death justified? Martin's 'crime' was walking at night while Black, wearing a hoodie, with the hood up, in the rain.

[cleveramerican]

6. were you there sitting in the jury box?

Did you attend every moment of every day of the trial?

If no,t I'll trust those that did a bit more than you.

I am not unsympathetic to your point of view
I just can't share it.

[RC]

9. The facts of the trial are public.

Every moment, every day of the trial? The jury wasn't even there that much.

[cleveramerican]

11. You know better than the jury does?

I doubt it.

I am gonna guess that your predispositions are playing a bigger role in your view than you are willing to accept

[mzmolly]

13. Do you feel the same about the OJ

decision?

[cleveramerican]

32. I do

I think I arrived at this view as a result Of OJ and the fallout of his trial.

[RC]

14. I this case, probably I do.

Juries have been known to be wrong.

[PA Democrat]

16. Do you truly think juries always reach the right decision;

that jurors don't bring their own personal fears, prejudices, and beliefs into the jury room? Guess what? Sometimes juries are WRONG.

[cleveramerican]

28. They always reach THEIR decision

and what else can one expect.

You can't please everyone.
Pleasing the crowd outside the courtroom door is about the last thing I want a jury to consider.

[PA Democrat]

33. True justice demands that they leave their prejudices and ideology at the courtroom door.

That's what we should expect but that does not always happen. My husband is a trial lawyer and has been around the block a few times and he's seen it all, including a juror who admitted that she voted to convict because of the defendant's race.

The sad truth is that many people who would make good jurors do everything they can to get out of jury duty and some of the ones who are eager to serve have an agenda.

[Punkingal]

52. I watched every second of the trial...

And I would have voted guilty because he got out of his truck and followed Trayvon. If he had stayed in his truck, no one would have died. He is a murderer.

[Cleita]

4. There was a pundit on TV who said that unfortunately there were only two witnesses and one

of them is dead. However, I think there was enough evidence here for at least a guilty of manslaughter charge although to me it was second degree murder. The victim was unarmed and there was no way fat boy was in danger of his life even if Trayvon had beat him up, which I doubt. Justice was not served here. What the Florida justice system showed us was that they serve up dog and pony shows when the victim is African American. It's time for Floridians to clean up their judicial system and purge it of the racism that seems to permeate it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. You caught up with the case on the evening news. That's the problem right there.

The Corporate Media was in the tank for the defense from Day 1.

You say stop turning trials in TV shows and yet you admit that that's how you kept up with the case.

Trashing thread.

[cleveramerican]

7. How did you follow it?

I'd bet it involved TV.

[RC]

12. All I saw was one short blurb on the local news.

Everything else I read. Like most everything else, this episode is like a jig saw puzzle. The pieces have to fit together properly. Some of the earlier pieces may seem to fit at first, but must later be discarded entirely, or put in a different part of the puzzle, when newer pieces are discovered, till the correct picture of what happened becomes clear.
How do you think law enforcement figures out what happened? The general public is not capable of doing the same thing when presented with enough facts? Or only when they agree with you?

[cleveramerican]

20. Written reports are devoid of biases and emotional baggage?

Your opinion is somehow "purer" than mine because of it?
I doubt it.


I actually agree with your jigsaw puzzle comparison.
The prosecution didn't point out the picture adequately to those 12 people.

[MattBaggins]

58. 12 people?

you really don't know squat about this case do you?

Let me guess you are an independent voter right?

[Cooley Hurd]

10. Facts. There are facts.

You can pull your opinion from the sources you've outlined in your OP, but, as Pat Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinions but you're NOT entitled to your own FACTS.

FACT: Unarmed teenager was walking home at 7:30 pm.

FACT: He was "profiled" (i.e. he was BLACK) by someone NOT TRAINED as a Law Enforcement Officer.

FACT: the "profiler" started a confrontation with this unarmed teenager - they were, now, an ANTAGONIST.

FACT: The unarmed teenager is dead and the ANTAGONIST is free.

I mean... wtf????

[cleveramerican]

15. The verdict is a fact too

Fact: Both sides presented their cases, to the best of their abilities.
Fact: The jury,the 12 charged with deciding, did their job and decided reasonable doubt existed.

Fact: You MIGHT be exactly correct
Fact: You MIGHT be completely wrong

This is my point

[rgbecker]

18. You haven't been paying attention.

You say the jury must be right and full of doubt. I doubt the jury, of 6 in this case, were any better informed than a typical DUer. Nothing could justify shooting dead an unarmed anybody.

[cleveramerican]

24. I did not say" they must be right"

I said I accept their decision.

Any doubts I may have must be put in their proper perspective.

I seriously doubt many here were as unbiased,or interested in being, as the jurors were.

Sorry about getting the 6/12 number wrong

[Travis_0004]

35. Self defense could justifty the shooting.

Martin may or may not have attacked zimmerman, which is why there was enough reasonable doubt for a not guilty verdict.

[premium]

19. Uh, just a slight correction,

there were only 6 jurors and 4 alternates.

[Cooley Hurd]

23. The verdict is not a fact. It's a mal-interpretation of the facts.

The FACTS, as outlined by me, are actual FACTS.

[NaturalHigh]

21. "(S)top turning trials into TV shows"

Good idea, but that's not gonna happen. It started with Court TV and Betty Broderick, and people have loved it ever since. It's like watching Jerry Springer, but it's considered more seemly.

[cleveramerican]

25. there was a bit of "who's getting thrown off the island" tone to waiting for the verdict.

it was striking to me anyway.

[NaturalHigh]

36. No doubt.

I completely understood that I was not welcome on the island.

[mstinamotorcity2]

22. What is accepted

and what is real for people of color usually is the same. It has been accepted that people of color will never have their children safe in America.

[elleng]

27. Thanks, I agree,

and also didn't watch much.

I suspect the prosecution could have helped the jury reach a different conclusion by presenting its case differently, but that's just my 'suspicion.'

[Blackford]

30. Zimmerman is just another responsible gun owner murderer who got away with it.n/t

[Ikonoklast]

31. Oh, it's you. Not surprised.

[cleveramerican]

37. wish I knew what you mean

but Hello anyway

[Booster]

34. 20 yrs ago I sat on a jury of a young man in his 20's charged with having a joint in his car.

This was a 3rd strike case, which I will never do again. His 1st 2 strikes were in my mind stupid things but felonies none the less. The joint wasn't his but his girlfriend's, but the charge was having a joint in HIS car. Under the law we had no real choice but to convict him. That young man has haunted me ever since and I can still hear the wailing of his family when the verdict was read. We sent him to prison for 25 yrs, and I can only hope he got out long ago and has since turned his life around. I'll never know, but I can hope. I can't blame Z's jury for their decision, but I can certainly blame the stupid laws of Florida for this travesty. I have no doubt that, like O.J., George will eventually end up in prison and I hope he rots in there.

[Catherina]

40. +1. It's the laws of the system, not the jury

If Trayvon had been some poor White kid, the outcome would have been just as obscene.

[RetroLounge]

43. of course you do

RL

[Walter-White]

44. I accept the Jury's desision. I do not agree but it is what it is.

I dont agree with the outcome but I was not in the Jury room during deliberations. I dont know why the Jury came to that conclusion.

I would hope The Jury was not Bias when making the decision. I hope in Due time The Jury does some Interviews and what not.

IMO I dont think the State Proved 2nd Degree but I thought they had a really good chance at Manslaughter. But it is what it is.

[NaturalHigh]

45. Welcome to DU.

None of us can know what went on in the jury room. I've only been on one jury (civil), and I can tell you from experience that somebody will always disagree with the verdict.

[Walter-White]

53. Thanks. Been lurking for awhile figured it was a good time to start posting.

I hope at least one member of the Jury will do an interview. Maybe do an anonymous interview or something. I wanna know what went down in the Jury room.

The state overcharged George Z. They should of had Manslaughter as the main charge. The fact that the Jury had to ask about Manslaughter is very concerning. Both the State or Defence argued about it.

[NaturalHigh]

57. I don' think you'll get your wish, not for a while.

I think the jurors will take all the anonymity they can get for the near future. Emotions are too raw, and they have reason to be concerned for their safety, IMO.

[aka-chmeee]

51. In total agreement

There sure seems to be a lot of people with the idea that the definition of justice belongs to whoever can gin up the most noise and outrage before, during and even after a trial. Am tired of these trials dominating thought and discussion and think they're really just distractors.

[Initech]

56. I accept the jury's decision but I'll stand by my claim that it's a stupid ass decision.

[Rex]

60. Really you have no way of changing their decision any more

then you can revers the hands of time so ya, you kinda have to accept the decision based on it happened. That does not mean you cannot try and find other avenues to address your grievances - a civil suit.