You are the Juror. George Zimmerman trial

[billvon 2,427]

>Easier to keep an eye on him when he's dead, though.

True dat.

[devildog 0]

Darius11

***
Maybe I don’t know the facts to this case; did he see TM commit a crime? Why would the police show up? Last I checked this was America and I could walk on any street I wanted. What would the police do tell you not to walk here because you’re a stranger? Or did he see him commit a crime?

You can walk down any street you want. And someone is allowed to walk behind you too. You aren't allowed to sucker punch a guy, climb on top of him, "ground and pound" and then tell that person he's going to die.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Guess TM shouldn't have doubled back and attacked Z without provocation.

Ah, so you were there. What else did you see? And why haven't you contacted the police with your information?

He is assuming JUST as much as you are. You just go about it in a different way.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

billvon

>Or should he figure 'I can at least keep an eye on the guy to tell the cops where he went...'

Nothing wrong with keeping an eye on him.

Glad we all agree on that.

Quote

Shooting him dead is a bit of a problem though.

That depends entirely on what TM did in response to GZ following him. If TM attacked GZ for following him and GZ shot TM because he was in fear
For his life while being beaten ad bashed, not so much of a problem. If TM did nothing wrong and GZ turned things violent and then shot because he was loosing, that's a problem. It is the Starr's burden to prove the latter, and they have failed miserably during this trial.

Like I've said, GZ may be violent, racist, sociopathic, and worse. He may be the devil incarnate. None of this (or any other criminal act) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way Zimmerman goes to prison is if Treyon's mother is too much of a sympathetic victim to the jury. Nobody wants to tell mom "Hey, sorry your boy is dead, but we won't blame the guy who killed him." Really, who wants to explain the difference between homicide and murder to a relative of the deceased?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[normiss 622]

Yea, we wouldn't want to paint a bad light on a thug.

[billvon 2,427]

>He is assuming JUST as much as you are.

Actually I'm content to let the jury decide. They have more information than we do.

[billvon 2,427]

>That depends entirely on what TM did in response to GZ following him. If TM attacked
>GZ for following him and GZ shot TM because he was in fear for his life while being
>beaten ad bashed, not so much of a problem. If TM did nothing wrong and GZ turned
>things violent and then shot because he was loosing, that's a problem.

Exactly. And there's the whole issue in a nutshell.

[Kennedy 0]

billvon

>That depends entirely on what TM did in response to GZ following him. If TM attacked
>GZ for following him and GZ shot TM because he was in fear for his life while being
>beaten ad bashed, not so much of a problem. If TM did nothing wrong and GZ turned
>things violent and then shot because he was loosing, that's a problem.

Exactly. And there's the whole issue in a nutshell.

Yep, I thought so as well. I'm not willing to give GZ a clean slate because I don't know what happened (suspicions aplenty, but who knows?). But since the prosecutor doesn't know what happened (let alone be able to prove it) there's is no way I'm ok with sentencing GZ to prison. If the prosecutor doesn't have a serious bombshell to drop on Friday before they rest (I give that 0.01% probability), then the jury needs to come back with a not guilty verdict. I'm not saying GZ is innocent, but in court I just can't get to guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[RonD1120 58]

I don't think I've ever seen such an adequate defense by the prosecution.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 2,427]

>Yep, I thought so as well.

>there's is no way I'm ok with sentencing GZ to prison.

Interesting that you went from "it depends entirely upon something we don't know yet" to "there is no way he should be found guilty" in three sentences. Perhaps the jury would be a better body to make that call.

[Kennedy 0]

billvon

***Yep, I thought so as well. I'm not willing to give GZ a clean slate because I don't know what happened (suspicions aplenty, but who knows?). But since the prosecutor doesn't know what happened (let alone be able to prove it) there's is no way I'm ok with sentencing GZ to prison. If the prosecutor doesn't have a serious bombshell to drop on Friday before they rest (I give that 0.01% probability), then the jury needs to come back with a not guilty verdict. I'm not saying GZ is innocent, but in court I just can't get to guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

>Yep, I thought so as well.

>there's is no way I'm ok with sentencing GZ to prison.

Interesting that you went from "it depends entirely upon something we don't know yet" to "there is no way he should be found guilty" in three sentences. Perhaps the jury would be a better body to make that call.

A slight mischaracterization, I'd say. I thought I was pretty clear. We don't know. The prosecution doesn't know, so they're not even sure what they're trying to prove. They're going on supposition and guesses. To me, that doesn't come even remotely close to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Since there are no witnesses to the events leading up and at the start of the violence, how can they say they've met their burden?
Forget what you think happened and any conclusions you've reached. Ignore that he may be solely responsible. Do you think the prosecution has (or can) prove criminal guilt in this case?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,427]

>We don't know.

Right, I agree, but then you go on to say:

"The prosecution. . . is going on supposition and guesses."

It's like someone saying "we don't know what really happened, but after Zimmerman killed an innocent teenager in cold blood while he was running away, you can't really expect an innocent verdict."

No doubt you've kept up on the story, but you weren't there and you're not in the courtroom. Thus you might think that the prosecution is all supposition and guesses - but a juror, hearing more from the prosecution than you did, may decide differently. That doesn't make you wrong, it just makes them more informed than you.

[Anvilbrother 0]

How can both medical examiners be allowed to act the way they did. The first female one would not answer yes or no questions, and was biased to the point of almost not acknowledging that zimmermans injuries could have occurred by more than one impact. Now dr bao was found to have pre prepared notes to go by, wouldn't acknowledge notes of the case in his own files. He also did not follow the chain of custody when removing the clothing or had any notes of that, and said that the wet clothing would never be put into a plastic bag, and if it was the person would be fired the next day. Well we all know that the clothing was wet and molded in plastic bags when inspected by the other experts.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Kennedy 0]

billvon

>We don't know.

Right, I agree, but then you go on to say:

"The prosecution. . . is going on supposition and guesses."

It's like someone saying "we don't know what really happened, but after Zimmerman killed an innocent teenager in cold blood while he was running away, you can't really expect an innocent verdict."

It's not at all like saying that. Your version makes several assumptions and ignores that the burden of proof is on the state. It also claims "shooting while running away" which is just plain wrong. TM was at less than arms length and according to GZ and another witness on top of GZ. I gave a dispassionate explanation. You gave a one sided, biased, and inaccurate version and called it the same. It's not. More importantly, there's no burden on GZ. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying GZ is innocent. I'm saying the verdict should be not guilty.

Quote

No doubt you've kept up on the story, but you weren't there and you're not in the courtroom. Thus you might think that the prosecution is all supposition and guesses - but a juror, hearing more from the prosecution than you did, may decide differently. That doesn't make you wrong, it just makes them more informed than you.

The state seems to be saying X happened, without any evidence, and saying its up to GZ to prove otherwise. That's not how our system is set up. Everyone agrees TM was walking through the neighborhood, that GZ saw him, called 9-1-1, and followed TM. Everyone agrees there was a violent confrontation and GZ shot TM. Every reasonable person agrees TM was on top of GZ. What no one knows, and what the state has offered no witness or testimony to establish, is what happened between ending the 9-1-1 call and the two of them fighting on the sidewalk. Without that, how can you prove murder over self defense?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Anvilbrother

How can both medical examiners be allowed to act the way they did. The first female one would not answer yes or no questions, and was biased to the point of almost not acknowledging that zimmermans injuries could have occurred by more than one impact. Now dr bao was found to have pre prepared notes to go by, wouldn't acknowledge notes of the case in his own files. He also did not follow the chain of custody when removing the clothing or had any notes of that, and said that the wet clothing would never be put into a plastic bag, and if it was the person would be fired the next day. Well we all know that the clothing was wet and molded in plastic bags when inspected by the other experts.

I don't understand why the first was out on the stand at all. She didn't conduct the autopsy or examine Zimmerman. She was also unnecessarily hostile towards the defense, leading some to think she was biased and not a neutral witness.

The second seemed to be more worried about covering his ass and his facility. He or his people fucked up. If not, then the testimony of other state's witnesses has to be called into question.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,427]

>The state seems to be saying X happened, without any evidence, and saying its up to
>GZ to prove otherwise.

Right - that's your opinion.

The jury may feel "the state is saying X happened and has a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up. GZ's lawyer now has to refute it." That may be their opinion.

[jclalor 12]

Watching Dr. Shiping Bao's comical testimony, the assistant medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Martin, is perhaps the worst "professional" witness ever.

[normiss 622]

Yet you make a huge jump to "innocent".
How do you know he was?
How do you explain the slim jim?
I don't see where it's been mentioned much less proven he was a locksmith.
He was known as a thief and a drug dealer in Miami.

[FreeFallFiend 0]

jclalor

Watching Dr. Shiping Bao's comical testimony, the assistant medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Martin, is perhaps the worst "professional" witness ever.

I agree, i think it all boils down to he doesnt understand as an expert witness his opinion is valued as testimony on the stand. He seems to want to only state things he feel can be verified as scientific facts.

Very reminiscent of trying to get my engineers to sign off on my marketing collateral

Fiend

I am about to take my last voyage, a great leap in the dark. - Thomas Hobbes.

[billvon 2,427]

>Yet you make a huge jump to "innocent".
>How do you know he was?

I am not making any such assumptions; that's why it was in quotes.

>He was known as a thief and a drug dealer in Miami.

Just as GZ was known as a convicted criminal, a violent thug who beat up cops and women.

[davjohns 1]

billvon

>The state seems to be saying X happened, without any evidence, and saying its up to
>GZ to prove otherwise.

Right - that's your opinion.

The jury may feel "the state is saying X happened and has a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up. GZ's lawyer now has to refute it." That may be their opinion.

If all they have is a reasonable amount of evidence, he walks. They must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt without the defense presenting a case at all.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 622]

He is not a convicted criminal.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Yet you make a huge jump to "innocent".
>How do you know he was?

I am not making any such assumptions; that's why it was in quotes.

>He was known as a thief and a drug dealer in Miami.

Just as GZ was known as a convicted criminal, a violent thug who beat up cops and women.

. . . and the slim jim?

Or - in case some people are thinking it is a tasty meaty like snack . . .

This is a Slim Jim.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,427]

>He is not a convicted criminal.

And TM's not a drug dealer. Your point?

[normiss 622]

Proven.