The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[sb123]

We have a couple of Association Nazis who walk around here looking for problems to report making assumptions based on anything. Hope they aren't packing. Tweakers dart around every now and then in wee hours of morning looking for anything to steal that isn't locked up. Far as I know, no one intends to shoot them. We just lock all doors and windows at night and never leave anything out unattended. No one dies though.

 

[Lakhota]

With her identity kept secret, the juror, designated B-37, gave an interview to CNN on Monday that stirred further debate in the case that captivated the U.S. public and triggered lengthy discussions about race, guns and self-defense laws.

After receiving a torrent of criticism, including a statement to CNN from four other jurors who said she did not speak for them, the juror issued a statement further stressing her position that Florida's self-defense law, commonly known as Stand Your Ground, forced the jury to vote not guilty.

"My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions," juror B-37 said in the statement. "No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured."

According to the instructions given to the jury, Zimmerman had "no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force" if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.

More: Zimmerman Juror: Self-Defense Laws Should Be Changed After Trayvon Martin Killing

 

[Oldstyle]

have we all noticed how now this has turned in to a a repeal the stand your ground law???? Even though stand your ground had nothing to do with this case???? So the true agenda is shown....The KKK Democrats dont care about Trayvon they just want to use his death to get rid of a law that gives everyone more freedom.

Stand your ground was covered in the jury instructions. So I think it played a part in the deliberations of the jury.

How? Was the jury supposed to believe that Zimmerman should have "retreated" when he was sucker punched in the face...knocked to the ground...mounted MMA style and was having his head slammed into the ground? What difference does having a legal requirement to retreat before using lethal force make when someone is obviously preventing that from happening? Stand Your Ground was a moot point in this case which is why the Defense didn't argue it.

 

[Rinata]

Why didn't the gated community hire a couple of security officers to walk the streets at night?

Also, why was it so damn dark?? There should be lights out there at night. It was ridiculously dark .

 

[Oldstyle]

And now a Huff Po piece calling for repeal of Stand Your Ground? Gee, Lakhota...you're trotting out the usual propaganda pieces from Think Progress and the Huffington Post. Don't you EVER get your information from an unbiased source?

 

[Lakhota]

Here's part of page 12 of the Zimmerman jury instructions:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony.

Zimmerman Jury Instructions (27 Pages)

 

[Oldstyle]

That juror wouldn't have found Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter...she made that quite clear. She was simply stating that the jury might have found him guilty of a lesser charge if he'd been charged with one...but since Angela Corey overcharged this case to an ABSURD level...going for Murder II when she didn't have a Manslaughter case...that didn't happen. This has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. It's all about a Special Prosecutor with a political agenda and not enough intelligence to charge something she could prove!

 

[Oldstyle]

Here's part of page 12 of the Zimmerman jury instructions:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony.

Zimmerman Jury Instructions (27 Pages)

By law that HAS to be read to the jury. I repeat however that since Zimmerman was on his back getting his ass kicked he was hardly able to "retreat" whether he wanted to or not. It's why the Defense didn't argue Stand Your Ground. They argued Self Defense. Zimmerman's "duty" to either retreat or not retreat was a moot point. He was being attacked by Trayvon Martin who was sitting atop him.

 

[Politico]

That's weird. According to the left here, Zimmerman was out hunting blacks to kill.....go figure.

They also think the LA Times fact checks too.

 

[Lakhota]

It doesn't matter that the defense didn't argue "Stand Your Ground" - what matters is that the jury considered "Stand Your Ground" in the final verdict - as per the jury instructions. Juror B37 confirmed that in her interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN.

 

[bripat9643]

A quick clarification... who is likely to be the target of the civil suit?

Sanford police. City of Sanford. Perhaps GZ.

Remember, OJ was found not guilty yet was found in the civil suit to be responsible for the deaths. No reason to think GZ is off the hook.

Much different set of circumstances. While it is easier to get a decision that goes against Zimmerman in civil court, I don't see it happening. In fact, I see things getting very ugly for the parents of Trayvon Martin and their son will be exposed for the thug he was rather than this sweet boy the media tried to sell us on. Last of all, Zimmerman might even counter sue. As it is, Zimmerman is likely to have many lawsuits going on. I'm just waiting for the lawsuit against Angela Corey and the state of Florida for malicious prosecution.

I would donate money to see that lawsuit happen, and so would a lot of other people.

 

[Boss]

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused's conduct.
More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from other locations. "Stand Your Ground", "Line in the Sand" or "No Duty to Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[1] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying firearms in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a nuance between plain old "self defense" and "stand your ground" but you seem to be missing it. For the statute to be relevant to the Zimmerman case, Zimmerman would have needed to shoot Trayvon before the first punch was landed. At the moment he realized Trayvon was going to attack him, he could have shot him, and claimed defense under SYG. That's not what happened in this case. He WAS attacked, seriously assaulted, and he acted in plain old self defense, no need for SYG.

The fact that SYG law exists in Florida, and the jury was informed of what it says, has nothing to do with the case itself, or the defense of Zimmerman. NOTHING!!

 

[Lakhota]

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused's conduct.
More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from other locations. "Stand Your Ground", "Line in the Sand" or "No Duty to Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[1] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying firearms in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[4]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a nuance between plain old "self defense" and "stand your ground" but you seem to be missing it. For the statute to be relevant to the Zimmerman case, Zimmerman would have needed to shoot Trayvon before the first punch was landed. At the moment he realized Trayvon was going to attack him, he could have shot him, and claimed defense under SYG. That's not what happened in this case. He WAS attacked, seriously assaulted, and he acted in plain old self defense, no need for SYG.

The fact that SYG law exists in Florida, and the jury was informed of what it says, has nothing to do with the case itself, or the defense of Zimmerman. NOTHING!!

NOTHING? They forgot to tell that to the jury. Jurors thought it was relevant during deliberations and the final verdict. Juror B37's husband is an attorney - so I'm sure they understood Stand Your Ground.

 

[ABikerSailor]

"Followed Trayvon...for quite a while.."? 30 seconds and no more than 100 yards? Get real. If you think that's a crime, anywhere, you are totally delusional as to what the law is (What you WISH it is, doesn't matter) !

As for that idea you have about hitting someone just for following you, without any clear verbal or physical threat...good luck with that. Try it, and I hope ALL you get is an assault charge and a night in jail! If you're lucky, that's all that WILL happen; it's not all that CAN happen, though! A number of people who have thought that way, are no longer around to discuss the matter. Trayvon Martin at least had the excuse of being an adolescent with adolescent emotions and judgement; you're an adult, and should know better.

If I don't get shot and killed, that person is going to jail.

Hopefully, before they shoot and kill me.

But.........................if you follow me like Zimmerman did, I hope that your ass is beaten down before you shoot me.

Zimmerman was wrong, knew he was wrong, and kept trying to change his story to prove him right.

Where are you getting that he changed his story? There were numerous testimony's on tape that didn't contradict one another. 2nd, had Martin not been killed he'd have been charged with felony assault and battery. Possibly attempted murder because he told Martin that he was "going to die tonight motherfucker." Where you getting you information from?

Apparently, you've watched neither the trial nor have you watched the news.

There were several places where Zimmerman lied.

As a matter of fact, he said he'd never heard of SYG, yet he'd also had a witness (who was his weapons teacher) who said Zimmerman scored an "A" in that course.

Sorry..................but that's only one lie he was caught in. And..................there were several more.

 

[eots]

So What Should A Young Black Male/Female In A Hoodie Or Not Do?

they should not do much of anything in a hoodie...but I would most caution against door to door sales,jogging,driving, walking and sitting...oh ya and never wear it in your own home.. someone looking through the window might think you broke in

 

[eots]

and remember to never walk with any kind of object or food item in your hand ..it just makes people think you have a gun ,drugs or stolen goods...and for god sake don't put your hands in your pockets always keep them in plain veiw

 

[Boss]

NOTHING? They forgot to tell that to the jury. Jurors thought it was relevant during deliberations and the final verdict. Juror B37's husband is an attorney - so I'm sure they understood Stand Your Ground.

Again, it is only relevant that it does exist in the State of Florida. As far as this particular case, it simply didn't apply. Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground" he was defending himself in an assault. It's two entirely different things. I don't know how else to get you to understand this, it simply didn't apply in this case. It may have applied, if the jury thought that Martin didn't attack Zimmerman, and perhaps that was why they were informed of the law as it stands in Florida. However, the defense declined to use SYG immunity, because this would have indicated Zimmerman was not attacked by Martin, but merely threatened, and reacted according to that threat. Under SYG, Zimmerman didn't have to wait to be assaulted to use deadly force. Zimmerman, however, did not elect to shoot Martin before being attacked, therefore, SYG never came into play. It's irrelevant, and his defense of "self defense" is valid, even if SYG law didn't exist.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I find it odd that if someone was pinned to the ground, getting pummeled, fearing for their life, how do they have the coordination and chance to reach into their pants, jacket or shirt pocket and yank out a gun. How would their hands get a chance to do that if they are being beaten to death. Unless it was already in his hand. If so, moot issue.

How much "coordination" does it take to take a gun out of it's holster? You reach for it and you pull it. Does it become harder when someone is sitting on top of you beating your head against the ground? Without question but it's amazing what people can do when they fear for their lives.

You can't seem to make up your mind, Sb...one moment Zimmerman's injuries are minor...then you're making the case that because he's being "beaten to death" he wouldn't physically be able to get his gun out? And then you wonder why the jury didn't buy the Prosecution's version of events? They were almost as confused as yours.

during the trial the state did the same thing

thus assisting in laying the foundation of reasonable doubt

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why didn't the gated community hire a couple of security officers to walk the streets at night?

Also, why was it so damn dark?? There should be lights out there at night. It was ridiculously dark .

perhaps George will be able to sue the HOA over that issue

 

[jon_berzerk]

So, juror B37 cancelled her book dead.

more bad news

an alternate juror did an interview

he too would have found George Zimmerman not guilty