Skip to main content

Yahoo! News just put up an article, as another juror has spoken about the Zimmerman murder trial, and it is incredible!

The juror, a Puerto Rican woman, had just moved to Florida from Chicago. The article states:

When the jury of six women—five of them mothers—began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge.

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

Then she adds:
"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."
The woman says she is having problems sleeping and eating.
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."
You can read the article at this link.

Originally posted to varii on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM PDT.

Also republished by Trial Watch and Barriers and Bridges.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (165+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zerelda, linkage, ferg, MRA NY, jayden, earicicle, kevinpdx, TomP, joelgp, JBL55, second gen, sebastianguy99, NormAl1792, Statusquomustgo, Achillios0311, denig, davespicer, Meteor Blades, ask, prishannah, psnyder, Via Chicago, jeff in nyc, trumpeter, True North, jadt65, quill, ScienceMom, CS in AZ, micsimov, Chaddiwicker, Siri, AuntieRa, Lujane, miracle11, dewtx, greengemini, Batya the Toon, Joe Bob, this just in, JosephK74, Texnance, antooo, Tonedevil, Mary Mike, Mother Mags, ord avg guy, S F Hippie, wader, sunbro, sleipner, Cassandra Waites, JDWolverton, Jay C, rantsposition, Chi, poco, twigg, fumie, flumptytail, Catte Nappe, cececville, Aspe4, mconvente, Steveningen, gramofsam1, chimene, Debby, just another vet, Shippo1776, Keone Michaels, BlueOak, anodnhajo, weatherdude, Lost Left Coaster, rapala, petulans, AnnetteK, susakinovember, ShowMeMoBlue, pixxer, Tony Situ, Yoshimi, Buckeye Nut Schell, Hillbilly Dem, missLotus, hester, MartyM, rubyr, dmhlt 66, Imhotepsings, Sylv, nomandates, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, collardgreens, Elizaveta, Puddytat, TomFromNJ, hubcap, LordMike, dotdash2u, Mentatmark, blueoasis, mikejay611, left my heart, OldSoldier99, Joy of Fishes, Its a New Day, BarackStarObama, SouthernLiberalinMD, 2thanks, Yasuragi, sephius1, Brecht, dsb, exNYinTX, imicon, cyberpuggy, harrylimelives, JClarkPDX, Ishmaelbychoice, a2nite, SaintC, Mol, Matt Z, Opinionated Ed, Haf2Read, texasmom, pgm 01, Paul Ferguson, I give in to sin, Denise Oliver Velez, tuesdayschilde, fhcec, VPofKarma, edsbrooklyn, Tommy Aces, JoanMar, Brooke In Seattle, kharma, vahana, Chitown Kev, smoothnmellow, doroma, emeraldmaiden, oldpotsmuggler, willisnewton, howabout, HCKAD, MarkInSanFran, janmtairy, Lordcaradoc, Larsstephens, sodalis, Nulwee, rasbobbo, leonard145b, SoCalSal, Kristina40, Involuntary Exile, WakeUpNeo, Munchkn, DarthMeow504, worldlotus, political mutt
  •  Why Not Manslaughter? - N/T (22+ / 0-)

    "Upward, not Northward" - Flatland, by EA Abbott

    by linkage on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:49:19 AM PDT

    •  presumably the same (20+ / 0-)

      Enough evidence to personally believe Zimmerman was responsible, but not enough to convict under Florida law.

      •  Except as I write below (31+ / 0-)

        it actually indicates she doesn't understand the law because of two other pieces of information that we know. THat they didn't understand manslaughter per their question an hour and half before the verdict and the statements of Jurob b37 who admitted they didn;'t understand it

        Now this jurors over reliance on a document they claimed not to fully understand in which she seems to substitute it for weighing evidence

        •  If the juror didn't understand (9+ / 0-)

          what standard to apply, that's the lawyer's fault.

        •  The judge told them they could NOT consider (4+ / 0-)

          that Z was the aggressor for initally following Trayvon, so that WAS the verdict, they could not find him guilty after that

          •  That's no relevant to the discussion. (4+ / 0-)

            The issue is whether his fear was something he could reasonably believe

            Juror B37 said she thought his force excessive, which means she though it unreasonable

            If they didn't understand  manslaughter, they wouldn't have understood this.

            •  B37 CNN Interview (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coffeetalk, VClib
              Juror B37 said she thought his force excessive, which means she though it unreasonable
              Please provide a link to where B37 said that Zimmerman used "excessive force".

              Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

              by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  She didn't use the legal term (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tommy Aces, doroma, costello7, a2nite

                She said he went to far or words like that

                I am not going to continue to exchange wih tyou, Coffee Talk or others like you

                •  She didn't use the term because she never said it (7+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coffeetalk, taffers, bevenro, El Mito, lost, andalusi, VClib
                  Hidden by:
                  HappyinNM

                  And this is just the latest example of the misinformation you've spread around here about this case. In fact, pretty much everything you've said about this case from a legal perspective has been demonstrably wrong. EVERY. SINGLE. THING.

                  You can deny it, or all those things can be easily linked to if you'd like.

                  Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                  by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:27:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Here is a transcript (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  Please cite which part of it you are referring to.

                  Are you referring to the part where Juror B37 says:

                  I think the roles changed. I think, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn’t going to let him scare him and get the one-over, up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.
                  •  Her full text for others (0+ / 0-)

                    JUROR: Exactly, exactly. We looked through pretty much everything. That’s why it took us so long. We’re looking through the evidence, and then at the end we just — we got done, and then we just started looking at the law. What exactly we could find, and how we should vote for this case. And the law became very confusing.

                    COOPER: Tell me about that.

                    JUROR: It became very confusing. We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self-defense, stand your ground, and I think there was one other one. But the manslaughter case — we actually had gotten it down to manslaughter, because the second degree, it wasn’t at second degree anymore.

                    COOPER: So the person who felt it was second degree going into it, you had convinced them, OK, it’s manslaughter?

                    JUROR: Through going through the law. And then we had sent a question to the judge, and it was not a question that they could answer yes or no. So they sent it back saying that if we could narrow it down to a question asking us if — what exactly — not what about the law and how to handle it, but if they could just have — I guess — I don’t know.

                    COOPER: You sent a question out to the judge about manslaughter?

                    JUROR: Yes.

                    COOPER: And about –

                    JUROR: What could be applied to the manslaughter. We were looking at the self-defense. One of the girls said that — asked if you can put all the leading things into that one moment where he feels it’s a matter of life or death to shoot this boy, or if it was just at the heat of passion at that moment.

                    The question there is whether his fear was reasonable.

                    •  Rule of Completeness (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coffeetalk, VClib

                      I'm sure Bruh1 wasn't trying to misleading anyone here by providing an incomplete representation of what B37 actually said. For anyone insterested, here's the full transcript, including the relevant section below:

                      COOPER: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager, none of that in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

                      JUROR: Exactly. That's exactly what happened.

                      COOPER: And you have no -- do you have any doubt that George Zimmerman feared for his life?

                      JUROR: I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.

                      Whether it was murder or manslaughter, if the jury believe Zimmerman was in fear for his life when he shot Martin, the killing was justified under the law. Here'swhat the law actually says, so people can see and judge for themselves:
                      776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
                      (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
                      That's what the law says...unless Bruh1 would like to say it says something else, in which case he'll ask you to believe his "analysis" rather than what you just read.  Judge attorneys here by what they can demonstrate to you. See, if Bruh1 is able to reply, what he can provide to contradict what you see here. Then judge for yourself.

                      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                      by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:02:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You continue to be dishonest (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        a2nite, Tommy Aces, doroma, costello7

                        The context was me responding to someone who specified the link already

                        It was uncecessary for me to once again link to it or expllain what i mean  other than pointing out the statements that were confusing about her understanding manslaughter

                        •  That's what I thought. ;) (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          coffeetalk, lost, SoCalSal, VClib

                          Also, people reviewing this thread, please note the lawyers discussing the law, providing you with the law and facts, and those engaging in personal attacks (e.g. search this thread for the words "dishonest" "lying" "bullshit" "bad faith" "unprincipled" and "pathetic" and see who's using them).

                          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                          by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:15:28 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You do realize (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tommy Aces, bruh1, Chitown Kev, costello7, emal

                            that you have to include yourself in the second category... even when you've done it claiming to be "discussing the law, providing you with the law and facts"

                            Your words here are not to discuss the law; they are to attack Bruh1...but you didn't need me to tell you; you are fully aware of what you are doing and the end you are trying to attain in doing it.

                            Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

                            by awesumtenor on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:12:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Obviously you haven't been following along (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SoCalSal, VClib

                            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                            by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:27:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wrong again... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bruh1

                            if I ever need a lawyer... don't worry; I wont call you... because I'd like to win... and having a lawyer spewing bullshit that boils down to " I know you are but what am I" isn't the way to get there...

                            Maybe you can still get a refund on all that law school tuition...

                            Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

                            by awesumtenor on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:30:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            More personal insults. Just like your buddy. :)

                            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                            by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:48:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know him (0+ / 0-)

                            from a container of semi-gloss latex and wouldn't know him if i bumped into him on the street...

                            Ockham's razor provides a simpler explanation than your buddy theory... you're being an asshole in public and people are calling you on it...

                            I hope none of your paying customers see the arguments you are making here; they will probably want their money back...

                            Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

                            by awesumtenor on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:22:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  (sigh) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            Which legal argument I am making do you disagree with? And why?

                            This should be good. Don't worry, I'm not expecting a real reply, just more insults.

                            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                            by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:30:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That'll be 150 dollars please (0+ / 0-)

                            or you can take your questions to the ambulance chaser of your choice...

                            Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

                            by awesumtenor on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:59:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't waste your time (0+ / 0-)

                            to place PiLi and Coffee Talk into context

                            I at one point said I don't read just statutes I look at case law that includes the statute

                            Coffee talk stated after I made that statement that I said I don' t read the statutes

                            PiLi above uprated the comment dispite the fact it was an obvious  lie and when i pointed that out to PiLi above later, she claimed it wasn't that big a deal that coffee had lied

                            These are the people that others are relying on to provide them with an undersgtanding of the legal issues in this case

                          •  From what I've read... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pi Li

                            Pi Li has been on defense while Bruh1 is on attack mode because Bruh1 doesn't like what Pi Li and some other attorneys are writing about the law.

                            “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

                            by SoCalSal on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:15:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Neither Armando, nor FogJohn (0+ / 0-)

                            (and for that matter most other lawyers who speak up) feel that PiLi or Coffee talk are speaking objectively about this case or the law.

                            For example, Armando below having to correct Coffee talk for continiously claiming the jury understood the law.

                             Fogjohn, who has 27 years of criminal and civil litigation experience, got into an argument with PiLi in a separate diary about PiLi's misleading and incorrect statements about the place of circumstantial evidence in trials.

                            Ultimately, you are going to have to spin a little harder to explain away why other lawyers, not just me, have a problem with their statements on the Zimmmerman case other than trying to single me out.

                            If I had to guess, from my experience in the comments sections on this subject, when other lawyers chimed in who weren't familiar names claiming to be lawyers like Adam b, they mostly disagreed with the statements put forth by PiLi and Coffee, but the non lawyers who want to think they are right, eat what the they say up  as the truth about what is or is not the requirements of the law

                          •  Neither Armando or FogCityJohn (0+ / 0-)

                            have been as insulting as you have been to Pi Li and coffeetalk. Some of your comments have been HR worthy for their personal attacks over nothing more than differences of opinion.

                            I rec those comments from attorneys (and others) that are clearly stated and contribute to civil conversation even in disagreement. Sometimes I'll rec a well-stated comment even though I disagree with its premise.

                            So your comment that I will "have to spin a little harder"...? That's offensive.

                            “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

                            by SoCalSal on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:32:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  FogJohn has directly questioned (0+ / 0-)

                            Coffee about her issues with race (point blank calling her delusional), and has directly questioned the veracity of claims by PiLi about her claims of expertise in Florida law.

                            Armando below direclty questions Coffee Talk's issues with admitting the truth about the juror after he keeps asking multile times

                            These aer only two lawyers and others have said to me (for what it worth, in my exchanged with them, I agree with you)

                            The real problem here is when you don't have an argument you hide behind civility rather than providing a good reason to support them

                            LEt's also be clear- you want me to be civil, and mean while Coffee has directly lied, (which doesn't seem to bother you) about statements I made. To me, this civillity you want has more to do with who you like.

                            You don't need to like me, but don't pretend I am doing something unique by pointing out the deficiencies in their arguments or questioning them personally

                          •  by the way, fog john, given PiLi's bizzare (0+ / 0-)

                            statements about circumstantial evidence even questioned whether she practices American law since these things are not even a question mark for practicing lawyers

                            Other lawyers, again, have chimed in with similar views and criticisim. THe problem isyou like the two posters because they comfort you.

                          •  Your problem, Bruh1 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pi Li

                            is that you haven't yet learned the difference between civil argument and personal attack.

                            Case in point:

                            THe problem isyou like the two posters because they comfort you.
                            Ok, I'm not taking the bait on that one.

                            “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

                            by SoCalSal on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:34:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And yours is that you really are what I describe (0+ / 0-)

                            this is all about your personal comfort, not whether I am really doing anything different than others (which  my examples illustrate I am not although you attempted to claim I am) or whether my arguments are valid as to either the  history of the posters you are defending or their legal arguments being valid.

                            There's no substance to this exchange. How do I know this? Because I have discussed all the substantive arguments that you have made (e.g., you were okay with Fogjohn and other lawyers because they were different than me, but I pointed out that in fact they have said similar things as me), and you are still saying the same thing

                            Here's the deal,a nd it s pervasive problem in politics in general: You aren't worried about whether I am right. You aren't worried about whether others have done the same as me. You are simply worried about trying to prove me wrong. That's not substantive. No matter how much you think its bait

                          •  *you* are incoherent. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pi Li

                            “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

                            by SoCalSal on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:23:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The only thing incoherent here is your (0+ / 0-)

                            inconsistent positions that you hold based on who you seem to like.

                            The fact days later PiLi  is still here to recommend comment sums up the point that this is about me hurting the feelings of your buddy.

                        •  Are you an attorney, bruh1? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                          “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

                          by SoCalSal on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:10:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, like Armando, and FogJohn and others (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            a2nite

                            I am a lawyer

                            When I described the odds of this case it was 50/50 or 60/40 depending on how the case was  tried, the nature of the jury, etc. Those odds went down with the prosecution. that's not the issue here. the issue is whether there was enough evidence? Throughout PiLi for months now have said no, that this case was easy, and that the laws made it per se easy.

                            PiLi, unlike myself, is likely blowing smoke up your ass. As I stated above, when others have caught them making unfounded claims about the law, such as the role of circumstantial evidence that FogJohn argued was a problem with PiLi's claims in another diary (PiLi down playing the role of circumstantial evidence as I remember because others had said in trials such evidence is the usual means of conviction), the reaction was pretty much to claim greater expertise at the law than others.

                            As i told another person who choose to believe them, unless they are experts in Florida criminal law, they are no more right than I am (and if even they are reasonable lawyers can differ), but they act liek they are the final authority, which I suppose is helpful for those who don't want to deal with the racial angle of this case. that the law is some kind of math equation where someone just plugs in variables and out pops an answer.

                            Where we have come to blows is their need to (1) manipulate (2) act in bad faith (such as here about the jury's understanding of the law) or (3) lie such as when they claimed a statement by me that I use case law to interpret statute meant i didn't use statute.

                            These are not the behavior of someone seeking to discuss the issue rationally. They are the behavior of partisans trying to win at all costs.

                            You see the same here with Armando below having repeatedly ask them to admit that the jury likely didn't understand the law given  what happened at trial and what two jurors have said siince the trial.

                            I don't expect any of this to change your mind. Its too easy to listen to people who tell you comforting thoughts rather than someone who tells you the law, here, for example is more complicated and subject to bias than you might like. The above example with cofffee talk denying racial issues even after vyan posted a diary stating that a black defendant with similar facts was nevertheless convicted for having shot a white victim in Florida. Even there, the same analysis was offered by Coffee, which understand the circdumstances made little sense.

                             

                •  If you are only going to have discourse with (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite, SoCalSal, VClib

                  people that agree with you will eventually just be talking to yourself.

                  The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

                  by TiredOfGOPLies on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:28:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  For clarification for others (5+ / 0-)

                the fact she thought zimmmerman went to far, or her word choice, means excessive, and at the very least, that it was a question she , the juror didn't understand if she beliieved what she said

                •  Perhaps this is the part of the transcript you're (0+ / 0-)

                  referring to:

                  COOPER: So you think based on the testimony you heard, you believe that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor?

                  JUROR B37: I think the roles changed. I think -- I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there, but Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him and get the one over up on him or something, and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.

                  •  Nowhere is the words "excessive force" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    Or even that sentiment.

                    And completely uncalled for HR, BTW. Especially considering the very personal and profane insults this guy has thrown at me and others. But I guess you don't care about those because you agree with him.

                    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                    by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:02:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It wasn't personal. (0+ / 0-)

                      In my opinion, setting aside history, your statement was excessively rude. The advantage of a blog is the time it takes to type an answer, giving the commenter a moment to cool off.

                      •  Yeah, whatever (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        VClib

                        Forget history. Take a look at his other comments about me and others in this thread, and ask yourself why you're not HR'ng those.

                        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                        by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:06:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  it was part of it, but it was also (0+ / 0-)

                        how she dealt with the issue of self defense versus heat of passion, which said she (1) didn't understand the law and (2) along with the above comment glossed over the issue of what her own statement about George meant if they had understood heat of passion in the context of what she was saying.

                        To me, how does one conclude George went too far , and then conclude without understanding the law, his force wasn't excessive. She tries to explain  but it ends up making little sense.

                         What she does is the same trick done in the Rodney King case- she zeros in ont he last few seconds not asking herself what does her statement mean about whether we can tell whether the defendant was in reasonable fear  or not under the circumstances, even the last moments, she's describing.

                        The best that one can argue is that she was confused about the law, the worst is that as I have said those comments together adds up to excessive force, which is my view and that she likely didn't understand it. Instead, we have people arguing the best  under their interpretation is that  (a) the  jury did in fact understand, and (b) they used the reasoning of the person making a comment. Both (a) and (b) are false statements.

                        We know that she made statements that corraborate what happened on Saturday was that the jury was confused and we know that her reasons for her verdict don't match many of the claims being made here. I don't mean the assertions s uch as Trayvon started it. I mean the evidence she gives as to why she thought that.

                      •  by the way, what PiLi is doing (0+ / 0-)

                        abouve is why i don't like her

                        Clearly I am using the legal term "excessive force' as a short hand for the things gthe juror said, and clearly she wouldn't be using legal terms like excessive force

                        But its the kind of 'gotcha" that works on the ignorance of the audience. it makes it seem like she's right although all she's done is complain ove a short hand.

                        •  I know this case has made you really angry, (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          worldlotus, VClib, SoCalSal

                          and listening to what the jurors say only adds to it. I have felt much of the same frustration and anger. However, personal attacks accomplish nothing. If you know a particular commenter is going to annoy you, skip over it. You lose your edge in the argument when you resort to personal attacks. State the facts as you see them and move on. Your blood pressure will appreciate it. And after all is said, Trayvon Martin will still be dead, and Z will still be his murderer, walking around with that same sick brain. And it sucks! Our only hope is for people to snap out of this sick, paranoid, vindictive atmosphere, and it can start with us. Peace.

                          •  The problem with that argumen there (0+ / 0-)

                            is there are a lot of bad faith actors and they don't end up avoiding writing comments about comments i write. The whole pretend people aren't there hasn't worked out all that well for the Democrats when it came to conservatives, has it?

          •  and just how weird was that? (0+ / 0-)

            thanks

          •  You are misstating what happened. (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            taffers, roundhead, Pi Li, MGross, El Mito, VClib

            What happened is that the prosecution asked for an instruction on when an aggressor can claim self-defense.  The defense argued that, based on the law in Gibbs v. State, Zimmerman was not legally the aggressor unless there was evidence that he was the first one to use or threaten actual force, that following someone does not make a person an aggressor.  You can see the argument in 3 videos starting about three minutes into this one.   The judge decided not to give the instruction, based on that argument.  

            In the end, the jury did not hear about whether Zimmerman was, or was not, the aggressor.  See the final jury instructions here.

            As a practical matter, giving that instruction on when an aggressor can claim self-defense would not have made a difference.  As the Court stated in that Gibbs case I linked to, if a Court gives that instruction, it must ALSO tell the jury that "mere words or conduct without force" does not make someone an aggressor.  In other words, the judge would have also had to tell the jury that merely following Martin without also using force did not make Zimmerman an aggressor.  

            •  And there we have it (17+ / 0-)

              Armed, grown men can follow teens in their cars, then get out of their cars and track them down between buildings. If the frightened teen tries to defend himself when confronted, they can be shot dead.

              I would think any reasonable person would say that being followed by a strange man on a dark and stormy night would put someone in fear of their life. That's exactly the situation Trayvon was in. Zimmerman defenders here repeatedly state that Zimmerman didn't even have to be injured to claim self-defense, he just had to be in fear to justify the use the force. Doesn't the same hold true for Trayvon?

              In the end Zimmerman killed a scared kid, because the scared kid punched him in the nose. That use of force was justified by Trayvon's fear. Remember you keep telling us that someone doesn't have to be injured at all to justify the use of force. They just have to have a reasonable fear. Zimmerman didn't meet force with equal force. He escalated to the use of weapon and shot the kid dead.

              Zimmerman knew he had a gun the whole time and he had it ready to fire. He never had his skull bashed into a sidewalk, he only had a couple of tiny scrapes. He wasn't in fear of getting his skull bashed again, he killed Trayvon on the grass AND he knew the police were on their way. And now he's free to do it again. And all his defenders here seem to think that's just exactly the way this should be.

              "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

              by Siri on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:49:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agree with most of your comment -- (16+ / 0-)

                but we don't even have solid evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman.  He could have sustained that injury in any number of ways.  Part of what infuriated me during the trial is that Defense introduced the idea that Martin used or initiated physical force.  And the damned State went along with it.

                Otherwise you're right on target.

                "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

                by Yasuragi on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:59:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's the law in every state. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li, Jon Says, andalusi, VClib

                If I believe I am being followed on a dark, rainy night in a public area -- an area where we both legally have an equal right to be -- neither of us is allowed to use force against the other because we don't like the way they look or because we perceive that the other person is a threat.  

                If the other person DOES SOMETHING that demonstrates a threat of force -- point a gun at you, take a swing at you -- then he has done something that violates the law an assault -- and you can respond with force.  There is nowhere in this country that the law allows you to hit someone who has not provoked that by the use or threat of force himself.  

                In other words, it really, really mattered what happened when the two came together.  Who was the first to use or threaten force -- that is the question that mattered in determining who was the aggressor.

                Here's the evidence problem the prosecution faced:  It may very well have happened that Zimmerman walked up to Martin with a gun pointed at him.   That's what BDLR said, after the verdict, that he thought is what happened.  THAT absolutely would have been the threat of force, and if that is what happened, Martin absolutely would have been justified in hitting Zimmerman.   The problem the prosecution had is that they did not have evidence to give to the jury demonstrating that Zimmerman pointed the gun at Martin when the two first came in direct contact with each other.  

                •  The jury should have been given... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Neon Mama

                  instruction on initial aggressor.  The Gibbs case involved words and gestures, not a stalking.  Stalking could have been perceived by some jurors as a threat of force.

                  •  No. This was not legally stalking. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pi Li, Jon Says, andalusi, VClib

                    Florida stalking law, like the law of every state, requires the you follow the same person "repeatedly" (on different occasions) for the legal activity (following someone) to turn into an illegal activity (stalking).  In other words, if an ex-spouse who is angry with you follows you home from work but does not leave the public street or sidewalk (and does not make a verbal or physical threat while he/she is following you) that is bad behavior, but perfectly legal behavior.  If that ex-spouse does it day after day, THEN it becomes stalking, because the repeated nature turns it into harassing behavior.  

                    I know that people say "stalking" in the colloquial sense, but it was not "stalking" in the criminal sense.  

                    And there are instances in the law where an aggressor can claim self-defense.   However, if the judge had given an instruction on that law about self-defense by an aggressor, she ALSO would have had to make clear that getting out of o the car, and following Martin, does NOT make Zimmerman the initial aggressor.  That's the holding of Gibbs v. State -- that she would have to instruct the jury that "mere words or conduct without force" does not make someone an "aggressor" under the law.  

                    I do not think it would have helped the prosecution for her to give the instruction on self-defense by an aggressor, and also tell the jury that following Martin did not make Zimmerman an aggressor.  

                    •  Stalked; Chased; Followed... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... that's beside the point.  Any of those could be seen as a threat to use force.

                      Gibbs was overturned because the instruction didn't include the "force or threat of force" language.

                      The Judge couldn't say that Zimmerman was not initial aggressor because that would be something for the jury to decide once given the proper instruction with the "force or threat of force" language.  Saying you're going to kill someone is a threat of force and it could make you the initial aggressor.  Likewise, someone following someone else could make them the initial aggressor.

                •  The testimony of Rachel Jeantel (4+ / 0-)

                  was that Zimmerman initiated the contact and assault.  That's evidence.  You can only get to Not Guilty if you toss out the testimony of the only witness whose testimony was actually independently corroborated.  And, for all the pretense that is offered on the subject, I submit that anyone who dismisses Rachel's testimony does so because it does not match up with the conclusion they reached in advance.  Well, that and racism.

                  "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

                  by costello7 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:47:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  she also spoke to the car to pedestrian chase (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, worldlotus

                    And still the prosecution failed to pick up on it.

                    I feel the prosecution failed due to never connecting the dots - because their investigation never compared the false statements of GZ to the NEN call recording.  Had they done this they would have known about the car-to-pedesrian chase.

        •  I think the document was probably the (0+ / 0-)

          instructions to the jury.

          Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:48:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "...indicates she doesn't understand lawe... (0+ / 0-)

          ..that THEY didn't understand manslaughter..."

          Actually, all we know is that THIS juror does not now remember or understand the law. It does not indicate necessarily what you say.

          1. She speaks for herself. It is not necessarily true that others didn't understand the law. Many MANY people THINK they understand, but don't, and say nothing in these kinds of situations. Or don't understand but are embarrassed to say something, and think they understand well enough. Finally, she could have understood it in the moment but has forgotten. It was a very detailed,very draining experience- psychologically emotionally and physically. I myself have subconsciously let go of the details of difficult and burdensome experiences right after they are over and the details are no longer necessary. This Could be the case with this juror. Surely she gets it wrong when mentioning it NOW and I agree it is disconcerting to say the least.
          '
          2. We don' t know what their manslaughter question was but iirc the first interviewed juror said they wondered if they could consider what happened BEFORE the physical fight (ie Zimmerman in his vehicle on phone, TM running, GZ getting out of car and giving chase). They never got an answer to that.

          I agree it's worry some that around the topic of manslaughter that they asked a question that never got an answer. It's disappointing they didn't try harder

    •  She didn't understand the law (34+ / 0-)

      Her comments about the jury instructions (which seems almost mechanical as far as her understanding its purpose) reinforces everything else we know. She wasn't required to believe the defendant, and yet here she's acting like she was.

      The question is why?

      I don't question her sincerity, but that question is critical.

      We know now three things:

      1. They didn't understand manslaughter, and came back with a verdict an  hour and half after being asked to provide more specific questions

      2. B37 thought the force excessive, but admitted to not understanding manslauther

      3. This juror dependence on the instructions as if they are to replace her weighing of the evidence is not a good sign she understand the instructions either.

    •  Because the Jury was not given (5+ / 0-)

      the "Aggressor Instruction".

      Had they been they might have felt more able to consider the lead up to the "confrontation", and reject the "self-defense" argument.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:04:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If theyy had been instructed on (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MGross, Pi Li, sordiddetails, VClib

        self-defense by an aggressor under this law, they would ALSO have to have been instructed that following someone without using force does not make a person an aggressor -- that "mere words and conduct without force" does not make someone an aggressor.  That instruction would have had to make clear that you don't become the aggressor until you use or threaten force.  

        That was the holding of Gibbs v. State, the case that figured prominently in the argument over whether to give that instruction.  You can see that in three videos starting about three minutes into this one.

        •  Not the point (5+ / 0-)

          The Jury felt constrained. It would be a matter for them who was the aggressor, but they didn't consider it because they thought that they could not.

          The point is that Trayvon Martin would be perfectly justified in using force to defend himself from what he perceived to be the aggressor, and if the jury agreed they could have ignored Zimmerman's defense on the basis that he was told not to pursue Martin.

          Zimmerman's frame of mind in this whole episode is really beyond doubt, other than a judgement between manslaughter and 2nd Degree Murder.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:30:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is not the law and that is not (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li, VClib

            what they would have been instructed.  

            Please read the links, especially Gibbs v. State.

            The point is that Trayvon Martin would be perfectly justified in using force to defend himself from what he perceived to be the aggressor, and if the jury agreed they could have ignored Zimmerman's defense on the basis that he was told not to pursue Martin.
            The law is NOT that Martin would be justified in using force against "what he perceived to be the aggressor" -- unless that perception was based on Zimmerman's use or threat of actual force -- pointing a gun at Martin, for example, or punching Martin.  In order for the jury to conclude that Zimmerman was the "aggressor," they had to have evidence that he was the first to use or threaten force.  And if the judge talked about an "aggressor at all,, she HAD to instruct the jury that Zimmerman could not be considered the aggressor UNLESS they had evidence he was the first to use or threaten force.  The jury could not conclude that Martin was justified in using force UNLESS the jury had evidence that Zimmerman had previously used or threatened force.-- and if the judge had talked about that at all to the jury, she had to make clear to the jury that only the use or threat of force justified a response of force.  That's exactly what the Gibbs case says.

            I do not think it would have helped the prosecution for the judge to instruct the jury on the standard for a claim of  self-defense by an aggressor,  and ALSO (as she would have had to) tell the jury that getting out of the car and following Martin did not make Zimmerman an aggressor.  

            •  This is not the Judges call (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bruh1, Tommy Aces, costello7
              ALSO (as she would have had to) tell the jury that getting out of the car and following Martin did not make Zimmerman an aggressor.  
              The facts of the case are a matter solely for the jury. It is for them to decide if, in fact, Zimmerman's actions made him the aggressor.

              The defense opposed the inclusion of that instruction, and the prosecutor wanted it in.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:58:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are wrong. Please read the Gibbs case. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pi Li, VClib

                She would have had no choice.  Gibbs says that if she gave the instruction about self-defense by an aggressor, and she did NOT ALSO tell the jury that simply following someone, without using force, did NOT make Zimmerman the aggressor, that would have been reversible error.  

                She had no choice.  If she gave the "aggressor" instruction, she also had to make clear that you are only the "aggressor" under the law if you use or threaten force.  If she did not expressly say that in the jury instructions, any conviction would have been reversed.  That's what the Gibbs case expressly says.  

                •  We only have Zimmerman's word (6+ / 0-)

                  that "all he did was follow".

                  His word isn't good for much, again demonstrably, so the jury were perfectly entitled to simply not believe him.

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  Who is twigg?

                  by twigg on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:42:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually ... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tommy Aces, costello7, gramofsam1

                    It is pretty easily argued that he did not simply "follow", he pursued. His comments about "They always get away" is pretty clear about that .... So he was something less than passive.

                    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                    Who is twigg?

                    by twigg on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:43:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The question is, what evidence do you (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pi Li, VClib

                      have that he was the FIRST to use some kind of force -- like do you have evidence that he pointed a gun at Martin BEFORE there was any physical contact?  

                      You can infer that he was the kind of person who would have pointed the gun, or threw the first punch.  But that's not going to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

                      •  Well "intimidation" is a force (0+ / 0-)

                        and that's not a hard leap from his own stated position.

                        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                        Who is twigg?

                        by twigg on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:34:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, "intimidation" is a conclusion (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Pi Li, VClib

                          "use of force" is a description of a physical act that causes physical harm to a person.  For example, force can be a kick, a punch, a push, or it can be the use of a weapon to cause physical harm, like a gun, or a knife.

                          "Intimidation" can be a physical threat (like a threat of physical harm, such as pointing a gun) or it can be non-physical (a police officer can intimidate others, as can a teacher, or even a creepy looking person following you).  Only a something physical -- force -- qualifies under Gibbs.    

                      •  There you go! (0+ / 0-)

                        "beyond a reasonable doubt"

                        That is what all of this boils down to. And without Trayvon's version of what happened we can't get past reasonable doubt.

                        Personally, I think Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted Trayvon, and most likely tried to stop or even detain Trayvon. And that led to a fight that Zimmerman was losing so he shot Trayvon.

                        That's what I think. But do I believe that beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think so.

                        But if it had gone the other way and Trayvon had killed George I do not doubt for a second that Trayvon would have been arrested at the scene and right now Trayvon would be a convicted felon.

                        There is no way around it, this just sucks.

                        The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

                        by TiredOfGOPLies on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:44:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Rachel Jeantel's testimony (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        AkaEnragedGoddess, guppymoo

                        That was the evidence that GZ initiated the physical altercation.

                        "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

                        by costello7 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:51:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  In fact, others covering the case (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, Tommy Aces, HappyinNM

                says the judge failed to give the proper instructions on several accounts

                she in essense assumed some thing that were factual determination as if they were legal issues she should decide

                this even goes back to earlier in the case both with her ruling on racial profiling and on leaving b37 in

            •  what about chasing the teen with his car? (0+ / 0-)

              IMO the events occurred in a manner where GZ chased the teen with his moving car, causing the teen to run off the roadway.  This happened after Trayvon left the mail kiosk and walked past GZ's car on his way home.   GZ can be heard saying "these axxholes always get away" at that time and also you can hear what sounds like his car being put into gear.  

              Racheal Jeantel speaks to the idea of a car-to-pedesctrian chase as well in her interview with Ben Crump but the prosecution never really connected the dots and pushed this part of the events as part of their theory of the crime.  In a bizarre twist, it took defense attny Don West to speak to that issue on cross examination, where she again spoke to this car-to-pedestrain chase as occurring before her call dropped, as right before Trayvon ran.  Yet again the prosecution failed to pick up on this aspect.  

              My question for legal eagles is, what if GZ chased the ten with his car first, causing the teen to run off the roadway in fear.  WOuldnt that have established him as the clear agressor even before he got out of the car?  

              I've written elsewhere how this chase can be proven to have occurred, so I'll not duplicate the effort here.  But I will point out that in every statement to police and even to Sean Hannity, GZ never offered the information that the teen ran away.  Instead he contradicted that idea heavily by saying things that cannot be reconciled with what is heard or the timing of the NEN call recording.  GZ knew to lie about this because he knew he was doing it as an aggressive move, IMO.  

        •  One could reasonably assume... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bruh1, Tommy Aces

          ...that if someone is being chased then some type of force comes afterwards which meets the "threat of force" requirement.  The court should have given the instruction and let the jury decide.

          •  Read the law. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pi Li, sordiddetails, VClib

            First, here's the statute on self-defense by an aggressor.

            The question is whether, BEFORE Zimmerman used deadly force, he was "the aggressor" by some OTHER use of force.  In other words, was he the "aggressor' in a way that justified Martin hitting him, which then resulted in his shooting Martin.  

            And, under the law, the question of whether Zimmerman did something to provoke Martin into hitting him has to be based on whether Zimmerman used or threatened force before Martin hit him.  That's what the argument was about when the judge considered the issue (the discussion starts about 3 minutes into that video, and continues on the next two).

            Read the Gibbs case.   It's not long, but it makes very clear that the judge had to tell the jury that "mere words and conduct without force" (following Martin) does not make the person the initial aggressor.  

            •  I think if those instructions had been included (0+ / 0-)

              even with the language as specified in Gibbs, the jury would then have had to consider WHO the aggressor was and Zimmerman's actions prior to the instant of shooting would have held more weight in determining the likelihood of GZ being the aggressor vs TM being the aggressor. Especially when you add RJ's testimony. The instructions without the aggressor language boils the issue down to simply whether GZ was in fear for his life at the instant of the shooting.

              So instead of decision tree:

              Q: Do you reasonably doubt that GZ was the aggressor?

              No: then consider whether he is guilty of manslaughter or murder because self defense is not applicable

              Yes: then consider if he was in fear of his life at point of shooting. If you believe it, then not guilty.  

    •  It takes courage to be that one holdout. (21+ / 0-)

      And I'm not criticizing the woman, as I'm sure she felt enormous pressure. It's difficult to step outside that pressure and will yourself to do the right thing.

      ====

      Poll -- should I translate my sig-line to English?

      It means, "It's dangerous to be right in matters where people of stature are wrong"

      Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
      Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

      by BentLiberal on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:56:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She said there wasn't enough evidence. (10+ / 0-)

        Sounds like she deliberated and came to that decision.

        •  If I were to guess (36+ / 0-)

          she was convinced by the others that there wasn't enough evidence and she couldn't hold out.

          It is fairly brave to come out and say that you think he got away with murder.  The last thing you want to do admit you caved.

        •  Sure, but the point is that she was wrestling (19+ / 0-)

          with whether she should follow the rules given to her or vote what she knew was true - that he got away with murder.

          Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort. - Voltaire
          Don't trust anyone over 84414 - BentLiberal

          by BentLiberal on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:02:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  From your 10,000 comments in other diaries (14+ / 0-)

          on this topic, we know where you stand. Thanks!

          Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

          by earicicle on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:04:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How the hell did she even think 2nd degree (5+ / 0-)

          I agree the prosecution put up a shit case. But how the hell does she go to the jury room actually convinced of a 2nd degree guilty after that horrible prosecution case, but then find him guilty 16 hours later. The weak point in the case was not the instructions. It was the damn prosecution and that pointin time was already done when she decided to find him guilty of 2nd degree.

          The fact that she can go from one extreme to another has me doubting her clarity of thinking. Watching a lot of reality shows will do that to your brain. (read the juror bio)

          •  She knew (4+ / 0-)

            what she believed, but was backed into a corner by the jury instructions.

            I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

            by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:29:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  she can't be backed into a corner with i nstructio (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tommy Aces, a2nite

              I think some of you don't undersrtand jury instructions

              They aren't a math equation in which you input variables like you re describing

              •  Think again. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                I was a court clerk for 13 years.

                The defense and prosecution each submits a list of jury instructions from CALJIC to the judge, along with reasons why those particular ones should be included.  When the judge has questions, he calls them all together and it is discussed until and agreement is reached.  Sometimes (fairly often, but not always), the judge also makes some suggestions.

                States other than mine (CA) may have other procedures, but this one is very common.

                I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:59:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't understand the point you are tryingt (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite, Tommy Aces, dfe

                  to make

                  what I mean is that an outcome is not preordained by reading the instructions

                  You have to weigh evidence and consider what the evidence means

                  That's not going to be found simply by reading the instructions

                  In other words, her comment on its face doesn't  make any sense

                  The real question is- if she thought it murder, what stopped her and she responds by saying the instructions

                  butt he instructions raen't the evidence

                  if she believed the evidence showed guilt, how did the instructions convince her it didnt

                  remember the back drop of this too

                  juror b37 cmment about not understanding and the jury's statement about not undestanding

                  •  The court in this case (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tommy Aces, a2nite

                    apparently took all of its jury instructions from the defense.  Te prosecution seems to have neglected that part of his case too.  The instructions the jury got in the Zimmerman case made it all but impossible to convict.  The law the jury was told about was stacked toward the defense to an absurd degree.

                    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                    by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:35:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, they weren't required, even under these (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite

                      instructions to believe the defendant's claim of fear for his life

                      That ws their choice even if they didn't get the aggressor question as the instruction should have possibly included

                      The reason why her comment makes little sense if that it means that she thinks that she was required to believe he was in fear for his life

                      that wasn't required of her

                      •  That is not (0+ / 0-)

                        what she was told.  Jurors tend to believe what they are told.

                        It is (IMO) one of the big flaws in our system - people feel very distanced from the courts and government - that they are not a part of them - and when they come into contact with them, they end up in a strange mental space where they feel isolated, intimidated, and uncertain.  So they defer to Authority.

                        And when authority fails, you get travesties like this.

                        I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                        by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:49:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't understand what you mean (0+ / 0-)

                          that's  not what she was told

                          She was told that his fears has to be reasonable

                          She the juror had to understand that they were reasonable

                          If she didn't believe that she wasn't required to find him not guility

                          Are you saying that's not the instruction here for his self defense even on its own terms?

                          I am sorry-  I have little sympathy for her or many Americans these days who let themselves get rail roaded

                          Who I feel sorry for is the dead boy now without justice

                          if she didn't understand, she should have sucked up her pride, held out, and got answers

                          The least she could have done

                          •  That is not true. (0+ / 0-)

                            The jury was told by the defense that unless they were absolutely certain, they had to acquit.  The definition of "reasonable doubt" espoused by the defense (and not argued against by the prosecutor) was so close to absolute certainty as to be absurd.  it would never have stood up in any courtroom I worked in.

                            They were told that if Zimmerman felt fear, he was justified in shooting Martin.  They were not told (as they should have been) about the level of fear, the level of doubt, or the possibility of extenuating or aggravating circumstances.  They were told that an armed asswipe with a chip on his shoulder was attacked by an unarmed teen, which made him fear for his life.  They were not given an alternate (and more credible by the evidence) possibility that that armed asswipe hunted that kid down with the intent to cause damage.  They weer told that a witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman up, but were not told that the 'witness' saw neither the beginning nor the end of the incident, and that what he did see he did not see clearly.  And they were told that if Zimmerman had any fear, he was justified.

                            And intimidated people tend not to stand up for themselves.  have you truly never noticed that?

                            I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                            by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:28:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They weren't required to beleive (0+ / 0-)

                            the defense

                            This again is a confused point. If one goes in accepting the defense's statement as fact, there would be no point of a prosecutor putting on a closing

                            The prsoecution fucked up , but not the closing, they were right to point out that zimmerman was a liar, now there's good question of whet her they made it clear that if you believe zimmmerman a liar, you don't need to believe his conflicting statements about fearing for his life, but given the jury, I am not usre it would have matered

                          •  by the way, none of what you re describing (0+ / 0-)

                            even the false claiim about the eivdence, has anything to do with their confusion over the jury instructions

                  •  Yeah It Is So Bizarre (0+ / 0-)

                    Everyone seems to think that Zimmerman's version of events have the weight of fact. It was up to the Jury to decide whether or not Zimmerman's version was accurate. In fact it is pretty standard to take nothing a Defendant has to say at face value because they have a very good reason to spin the events to put themselves in the most favorable light.

                    Virtually everything Zimmerman said was contradicted by others,  the 911 tapes, the laws of nature or Zimmerman himself. The Prosecution did an excellent job at showing Zimmerman's version of events to be an utter fabrication.  A reasonable Jury would have ignored everything Zimmerman said which would have led to a conviction, which is what typically happens once a Jury concludes that the Defendant is a liar. This is what the Prosecution expected to happen and why they are completely stunned that Zimmerman was acquitted.

                    •  I was discussing this aspect with a friend (0+ / 0-)

                      he said something that I think may explain it.

                      Unless one has the mental discipline or training (in my case I am trained as a lawyer) and in other cases it may be mental discipline to weigh information being presented to them, if its repeated enough, many will come to think of it as fact (think of it as the Swiftboating of kerry in 2004 in which people came to believe that he was a coward in Vietnam simply because it was repeated enough).

                      The prosecution didn't connect dots that if you didn't  believe the defendant to be a liar, you didn't need to believe he feared for his life. I believe Armando is also right that they made a strategic error of not forcing the defendant to the stand. Although frankly, given this jury, I am not sure it would have mattered. In most cases where the defendant doesn't testify, just like most cases of self defense, the defense loses. So this is a rarity amongst rarity, and given what we see the two jurors here said, it seems like nothing would have penetrated their fog of ignorance.

                    •  that should read (0+ / 0-)

                      "did believe the defendant to be a liar"

          •  If you go hunting AA kids with a gun, 2nd degree (12+ / 0-)

            would make sense.

        •  I have said it before, (7+ / 0-)

          and will say it again.

          The prosecutor (probably intentionally) gave up on the case.  He was incompetent, and should be disbarred.

          I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

          by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:28:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do not believe that at all. (10+ / 0-)

            There are good prosecutors, and no good lawyer likes to lose a case.

            The problem was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time Zimmerman fired the shot, he was not acting in self-defense.  

            Sometimes people who some believe are guilty of a crime are acquitted because there is not enough evidence of guilt.  

            •  I have to disagree. (17+ / 0-)

              I am not an attorney, but I am a legal professional, and have sent more that 20 years in courtrooms dealing with this kind of thing.

              And I watched enough of the trial (and read enough of the rest), and had the prosecutor even tried a tiny bit, he could have demolished the defense case.  I could have, and i did no briefing on it.

              And he let the defense define 'reasonable doubt' without objection, which is absurd, given the definition the jury was given.

              And besides, at the time he fired the shot he had already done more than enough to convict him.  That weasely excuse just pisses me off.

              I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

              by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:56:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll quote the jury instructions (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                taffers, Pi Li, bevenro, andalusi, VClib
                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.
                Following Martin did not make Zimmerman an aggressor under the law.  That was made very clear in Gibbs v. State.

                If you take that jury instruction on its face, you have to judge Zimmerman's actions at the time he used the force -- when he fired the shot.  At that time, was he in a position where he had a reasonable belief that he had to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm?  That's the way the jury instructions presented the law on self defense.  The prosecution had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time he used deadly force (fired the shot), the circumstances were such that he did not have a reasonable belief that he needed to prevent death or great bodily harm.  

                The prosecution was never clear as to what those circumstances were at the time Zimmerman fired the shot.  They just had questions.  That almost necessarily  means there is reasonable doubt as to what the circumstances were at the time the force was used.  

                •  Except (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  trumpeter, a2nite, Matt Z, Tommy Aces, emal

                  there was a battle, fecklessly fought by prosecution, to instruct the juror's about Zimmerman's self-defense prerogatives, which the judge rather summarily and without explanation ruled against:

                  However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find... (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
                  By disallowing the jury be instructed as to Zimmerman "initially" provoking Trayvon, she made the case for acquittal almost a foregone conclusion, IMO.
                  •  No, she would have ALSO had to tell the jury (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pi Li, andalusi, VClib

                    that the only way you can provoke the use of force against yourself is by using or threatening force.  That's what Gibbs v. State expressly says.

                    So, if she gave that instruction, she ALSO would have had to make clear that following Martin did NOT make Zimmerman the aggressor, and that in order to consider Zimmerman the aggressor, the jury would have had to have evidence (presumably beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was the first to use or threaten force -- like pointing a gun at Martin or punching Martin.  

                    I do not think it would have helped the jury for her to give the instruction on an aggressor, and also to tell the jury that following Martin did NOT make Zimmerman an aggressor under the law.

                •  That's my point. (5+ / 0-)

                  The prosecution was inept.  It is their job to be clear.  It is also their job to be a part of the panel that decides what jury instructions are to be used.  They fell apart completely on those points, and on many others.

                  A lot of people are falling into this trap, just buying the "they had no choice" theory.  I don't buy it for a moment.

                  I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                  by trumpeter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:41:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Many tv legal analysts agree with yhou trumpet (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Matt Z, Tommy Aces, costello7, gramofsam1

                as I recall Lisa Roberts, I think that is her name, NBC legal analyst being upset with the verdict and she said..

                The prosecution blew this case, there was enough evidence to present for a manslaughter conviction. But they put on a poor case.

                Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

                by wishingwell on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:50:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lisa Bloom- she was upset long before (0+ / 0-)

                  the verdict. She was highly critical of the prosecution's performance all though the trial, and was pretty specific about what she would have done differently.
                  I absolutely believe that  had she been on the prosecution team, the outcome would have been different- possibly a manslaughter conviction, almost definitely not a "not guilty" verdict.

              •  Bernie de la Rionda had a pretty good record (0+ / 0-)

                He's been doing this 29 years, and he claims that he has prosecuted over 300 cases, including 80 homicides.  Of those 80 homicide cases he had lost only once before the Zimmerman trial.  So on the surface it would appear that he is a pretty good trial lawyer.

                I think the case fell apart by trying to overcharge for a case that was so doubtful to begin with.  I really think it only went to trial for political reasons (because of the public outcry) and the charge of Murder 2 was to placate people, not to actually try to get a conviction.  I think they did try, but because of the overcharge they had to resort to a risky strategy that backfired.

              •  he allowed them to define it as beyond (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, Tommy Aces

                a shadow of a doubt , which raised the burden becuase that includes speculative doubt about what the defendant could have feard rather than basing it on what had happened to the defendant

                it allowed the juries fears rather than the facts of the case to determine the outcome

                •  reasonable doubt is key (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bruh1, Tommy Aces

                  it doesn't mean any, or not a single, tiny doubt; the prosecution should have done a better job at explaining to the jury reasonable versus (as what you say) beyond a shadow of a doubt, that way, as far as the juror who has spoken today may have felt comfortable  in holding out at the least, or persuading others to her side.

                  The Democrats care about you after you're born. --Ed Schultz

                  by micsimov on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:13:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  trumpeter - do you really think the prosecution's (0+ / 0-)

                lawyer(s) should be disbarred? That seems extreme for a single case from a career prosecutor with a very high record of success.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:22:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. Allowing the Z video was malpractice (7+ / 0-)

            allowing him to testify with no cross and no victim to talk, they should NEVER have allowed that

            •  Did they really have any choice though? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jon Says

              Once they went for a Murder 2 charge they needed SOMETHING to show malice, and the only evidence they could try to dredge up was inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements.

              •  Of course they had a choice (9+ / 0-)

                It was incompetent not to know it if they did not.

                Hell, not a lwyer commenting on thee case thought the prosecutuon did a good job.

                Not one.

                •  Well, what could they have done differently... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...that would have actually helped them get a Murder 2 conviction?

                  Manslaughter?  SUre, I can thing of things they could have done differently.  But murer 2?  That was always going to be a tough sell.

                  Some of the witnesses did look ill-preprared (Rachel Jeantel and the coroner in particular) but we don't know how much the lawyers are at fault.  They can only go so far to prepare witnesses.

                  It's easy to snipe from the sidelines or with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but every trial lawyer for a case that becomes renowned in the public eye gets criticized for what they did.  Heck, there were a lot of criticisms about about what Zimmerman's lawyers did too, but they still ended up winning.

        •  She also said this (11+ / 0-)

          "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

          As Jeralyn Merrit (!!) says:

          Of course, the jury instructions specifically said Zimmerman did not have to intend to kill Martin to be found guilty of either Murder 2 or Manslaughter. He just had to have intentionally committed the act that resulted in his death, i.e., he had to have intended to shoot him.

      •  Poll answer: "yes" (5+ / 0-)

        Mainly because I don't speak French.

        Then again, my UID is 135766, so maybe that's not a trust-worthy response.  :-)

      •  We had one holdout in a jury that I sat on. (34+ / 0-)

        He refused to convict a 35 year old man for having consensual sex with a 15 year old. He just couldn't wrap his mind around the fact that sex with a 15 year old was illegal, consensual or not. We ended with a hung jury, and presumably a retrial. He allowed a pervert to go free.

        If I were in this Zimmermans jurist's position, I believe I would hold out for a hung jury. I would not allow a murderer to go free.

        I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

        by second gen on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:01:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I held out for the conviction of an attempted (19+ / 0-)

          rapist who acted as his own attorney. Other jurors insisted on taking what he said, even though he never testified, as evidence and wanted to acquit. The physical evidence was overwhelming but someone watched 12 Angry Men the night before the trial started and praised it throughout.

          It was a bifurcated trial, and since we did convict him on a lesser felony we got a look at his priors. Pages and pages of them. The looks on the faces of those who wanted to acquit were priceless. But they held on to the fact that he had already paid for these past crimes and shouldn't have to pay again (three strike territory). I finally lost it and lectured them that it wasn't their job to determine any penalty nor to concern themselves with it. It wasn't their job to consider if it was fair. It was their job to verify that the DA had provided a list of certified convictions and that we accepted them as proof of prior crimes.

          I'm not even sure if I was right, but I do remember referring to the jury instructions. And that was when I decided that if ever I had to face a trial and was innocent I would ask for a judge, but if I were guilty, I wanted a jury.

        •  I'd tend to side with him these days. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DarthMeow504

          If a 15 year old can be tried as an adult anywhere in this country, then you can't tell me that a 15 year old is not old enough to consent to sex. Of course, if a 15 year old is not old enough to give consent, the fact that their parents agree to a marriage at that age should also not be legal. Keep in mind, I'm not saying the age of consent should be lowered, just that we need to be consistent with how we define the difference in judgement between children and adults.

          Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

          by rhonan on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:58:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right, so because we wrongfully try children (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tommy Aces, a2nite

            as adults, you'd be okay with a creeper statutorily raping a 15 year old just to show 'em.

            Eek.

            At 15, when a 35 man tells you you're hot and he's in love with you, you can't make good decisions. Your emotions take over. At 35, you know damn well you've got one over on the 15 year old. Thankfully, the dick that refused to find him guilty at least had a better reason than you do. It wasn't a good reason, but it was better than yours.

            I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

            by second gen on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:42:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, flip it the other way. (0+ / 0-)

              I am a very strong supporter of affirmative consent. If you really think a 15 year old is not mature enough to decide whether they are ready to have sex, then how in the hell can you say they have the judgement of an adult when instead of chosing to fuck someone, they decide to take a gun and shoot up their school? I have always found it funny how we ascribe the status of child to young people much more willingly when they are perceived as a victime, even if they insist they are not, and are so quick to call them adults when they are the accused.

              Now, keep in mind, that opinion is based on the fact that we used to have a number of states that allowed women to marry at 14, as long as the folks were OK with it. Also, where I live, the age of consent is 16, so the idea that a man would be treated as a sex offender for the rest of his life for sex with a 15 yo who consents is extreme to me. Then again, I share  a home town with Courtney Stodden,

              Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

              by rhonan on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:57:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't believe children should be tried as adults (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                even when they shoot up a school.

                The age of consent is 16 in my state too. Not 15. At 15 it's a crime. The end. You can't get a beer in a bar the day before you're 21. If you're going to fudge and say "Well, 15 is close to 16, then why bother having any laws at all?

                We USED to have a number of states who allowed marriage at 14. There are very few that do. There is no state in the country where the age of consent for marriage is less than 18. There are a few exceptions with parental consent. So, going by that, I assure you, parental consent was not included in this case, as it was the father who caught the man having sex with the 15 year old in a van behind the place that they worked. Yes, that's right, he was also her boss.

                I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

                by second gen on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:03:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

              "At 15, when a 35 man tells you you're hot and he's in love with you, you can't make good decisions. Your emotions take over."

              I don't even know where to start with a statement like that. What in the world makes you think that's the case? She's either attracted to him or not, she likes him or not, and he has no magic power to change her mind. You act like he's Dracula or something and can command her with his gaze.

              I could go up to any 15 year old right now and tell her she's hot and that I'm in love with her and I'm 100% certain she'd react very negatively indeed. You must live in a very strange world if you think older men can just compel teenage girls to sleep with them. It doesn't work that way.

              "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

              by DarthMeow504 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:59:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah. I guess I live in a strange world. (0+ / 0-)

                I was sexually assaulted by my girlfriend's father when I was about 14, and he was about 36. So. . . I guess. At the time, I thought it was love. When what it really was, was perversion. And it's your belief that it can't happen that allows it to happen.

                I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

                by second gen on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Unless this man was telepathic (0+ / 0-)

                  He could not have affected your will. Now if he forced himself on you that's different, but if you "thought it was love" then that's how you felt and that's the decision you made. Regretting it later doesn't change the fact that no one can change your thoughts or emotions but you.

                  I had crushes on older women at that age, and if I had gotten the chance I would have jumped at it. And had no regrets whatsoever. That was how I felt, and it's the decision I would have made, and I would have had to live with it. It's natural, most people have those sorts of fantasies when they're in their early years of sexuality. It's not mind control, it's nature.

                  You are responsible for the decisions you made. If you feel it was a mistake, perhaps it was. But if you felt you were in love with him, you made the call and you followed through on what you wanted. I personally feel you had the right to do so and no one should tell you you were wrong for it. Perhaps it was a bad idea in hindsight, but who doesn't have those?

                  Two hundred years ago, you might have married him and ended up happy. Or not happy. That's how relationships go. Two hundred years from now, those in their teen years might be free to make such decisions again without it being criminalized. Who knows? Society's standards have changed and can change again. Nature never does.

                  "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

                  by DarthMeow504 on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:51:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I would add the translation, yeah. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BentLiberal
      •  Je prefere le francais (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BentLiberal, collardgreens

        Mais pourquoi pas tous deux?

      •  Both languages if it will fit. n/t (3+ / 0-)

        "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

        by rubyr on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:30:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sig Line (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BentLiberal

        I'd like to see it in French with followed by the translation in parens, otherwise most people just won't know what it says. And it is a good one worthy of as many people as possible reading it.

        The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

        by TiredOfGOPLies on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:47:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i bet the five white girls beat her down until she (4+ / 4-)

    gave in.  now, she's feeling guilt.

  •  I would have hung that jury without a second (27+ / 0-)

    thought.  Wish she would have held onto her convictions.

    If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

    by livjack on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:53:03 AM PDT

  •  She fought to the end? Bullshit. (18+ / 0-)

    She gave up.

    Warren/3-D Print of Warren in 2016!

    by dov12348 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:54:07 AM PDT

  •  some other snippets: (11+ / 0-)
    Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her
    on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.
    When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."
    •  I think the judge refusing to let the prosecution (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      micsimov

      talk about racial profiling , which clearly it appears to be, in fact Z's brother talks about the robberies and that George had called  the police about some of these young black men robbing houses...well there went their case.

      It seems the case did revolve around racial profiling, hell the Zimmermans, their friends, some of the neighbors, all admit that Trayvon being a young black men got George to be suspicious of him. See Z's calls to police in the few months previous to this.

      Anyway, not being able to talk about Z profiling Trayvon, hurt the prosecution.

      Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:58:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You left this out (4+ / 0-)
      Zimmerman concedes he shot and killed Martin in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintains he fired in self-defense.
      "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty.
      She believed that Zimmerman had to have killed him intentionally. She didn't understand manslaughter.

      "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

      by Siri on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:13:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It seems that she didn't understand much. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        No reasonable person was arguing that Zimmerman didn't kill him intentionally. He did. The question was whether or not it was done with a depraved mind and/or in self defense.

        If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

        by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:40:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is not a surprise, (20+ / 0-)

    If you watched the trial, it was pretty obvious that the State didn't have the evidence it needed to convict.

    When the prosecutors goes on and on about how Zimmerman's action 'could have', or 'possibly', and then pleads with the Jury to come to their own conclusions - their case is shit.  That's what the defense does, not the prosecution.

    The Jury, and this Juror in particular, clearly performed her duty as required. To assess the evidence and make a determination based only what was presented in the courtroom. Good for her.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:58:59 AM PDT

  •  If you read between the lines (8+ / 0-)

    (always a dangerous thing), I get the feeling that she was bullied to go with the not guilty.  But she really doesn't want to admit to that, so she is saying she had to vote not guilty.

    •  This is too close the concept that (8+ / 0-)

      women of color like the juror have no agency, and are easily suborned by other(white) women.

      Yeah, I'm not going to go down that road. Instead, I'll take her on her word that the evidence presented and the law of Florida made it impossible for her convict.

      Change the law I suppose if you don't like it, although
      I'm not at all about weakening the rights of the defendant in our justice system.

      Look, I tried to be reasonable...

      by campionrules on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:03:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes that's my impression too (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, a2nite, micsimov, mconvente, doroma

      Over reliance on a document that has nothing to do with her using her judgment to weigh the evidence

      Jury instructions aren't a math equation that you plug into and then spit out an answer. So her thing about this booklet makes little sense

    •  You are essentially calling her a liar (9+ / 0-)

      She's very clear that she came to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to convict and that the law mandated an acquittal.   To say that she was "bullied to go with the not guilty" is to call her a liar.  

      •  Quote the part that is clear? (6+ / 0-)

        It's obvious this jury and this juror did not understand the law.

        Now note I've said repeatedly I think the result was correct.

        But I am positive this jury had no clue about the law.

        •  Here's the part where she says SHE (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          taffers, Pi Li

          was convinced that there wasn't enough evidence:  

          However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law
          Nothing about other people talking her into it.  "She said she realized there wasn't enough proof."  
          •  And what does that tell you? (9+ / 0-)

            that she understood the law? Here's a quote that proves conclusively she did not:

            "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty.""

            Hell, she does not even understand the facts.

            Zimmerman's intentional killing was not even in dispute!!!

            Juries suck. they just do., And not just in this case.

            •  People on DKos have been discussing the law ... (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              taffers, coffeetalk, ferg, worldlotus, janemas

              for months, with new aspects being added regularly, and are still arguing over it.  The jurors got it thrown at them all in one lump.  It would be no surprise that they were undereducated and overwhelmed with it all.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:31:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Finally!! (6+ / 0-)

                Someone admits what I have been arguing - the  jury did not understand the facts or the law.

                To keep pointing to it as some majestic showing of JUSTICE is so effing ridiculous.

                This juror had no clue.

                It's obvious.

                And any honest analysis of this should admit that.

                Anyone doing that in this thread until you just did?

                No.

              •  So coffeetalk (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                edg, a2nite, wishingwell, micsimov, doroma

                Do you agree with that comment? You recc'd it right?

                So, will you stop pretending the jury applied the law and the facts in some majestic fashion?

                Or does that undercut your majesty of the law thing?

                •  I agree that juries can be overwhelmed with the (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pi Li, Neuroptimalian, andalusi, VClib

                  law as in the jury instructions.  That's why I think it's a good thing for juries to be given the instructions in writing, as these jurors were.  That way, they can spend a lot of time reading through those instructions, and talking about how they apply to the evidence at trial, which is apparently what happened in this case, but of course, we can't know for sure without being in deliberations.  

                  That said, I think it was incumbent on the prosecution to go through the jury instructions, and to explain to the jury -- especially with respect to the self-defense instruction -- how the evidence proved the prosecution's case, beyond a reasonable doubt, under the jury instructions that the juror was going to take back with them into deliberations.  

                  I often see lawyers blow up the crucial jury instruction (here, it would have been self-defense, I think) and go through it with the jury, applying the evidence to the language of the jury instruction.   Or, at least, the lawyer can say to the jury -- "The judge will tell you this.  Here's how it applies to this case."  The defense in this case did it with the instruction on burden of proof.  The prosecution did not do it with the self-defense instruction.  

                  •  All true but not an answer to my question (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, doroma, VClib

                    Frankly, juries are incapable of thinking these things throough on their own.

                    And that is not a slam, any non lawyer would struglle with it.

                    You point out BTW the poor performance by the prosecution.

                    No they did not throw the case. They just sucked.

                    Had to put Zimmerman on the stand by not putting his exonerating statements in.

                    •  Well maybe (7+ / 0-)

                      But your comments are more an indictment on a system that has juries composed of lay people ("peers") as in the US, rather than professional jurors.

                      If you have a problem with that system, fair enough, but as someone who has done lots of criminal trials, and talked to many jurors after, I can tell you that B37 is not atypical of your average US juror. If jurors not having a lawyer's understanding of the law (and many lawyers don't understand is, as evidenced on this site) is a miscarriage of justice, well then almost all jury verdicts are a miscarriage of justice.

                      We agree that the case "sucked", in that the facts just weren't there for the state.  Some cases just don't have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as you know, even if a crime was indeed committed. It happens.

                      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                      by Pi Li on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:55:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This misunderstands the importance of (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        a2nite

                        other factors.

                        In particular, the favor of race.

                        Yes, I have always disdained in the jury system in ALL circumstances.

                        But the predominate effect of race in the process makes injustice because of race issues the primary problem in our system.

                        I have no idea why so called progressives deny this obvious fact.

                        Perhaps you can explain yourself.

              •  And your reaction to that qupote from the juror (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, wishingwell, micsimov, bruh1, doroma

                She's wrong right? Wull you have the courage to write - "the juror did not understand the law."

                I'll wait to see.

                •  I have my own belief as to what she meant (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Neuroptimalian, Jon Says

                  and I admit that my belief is shaped by my watching of the trial and the part of the jury instructions that I think would be most crucial.  

                  I think that she did not articulate the law well in this interview, something that is not unusual for a non-lawyer, especially this long after the trial.  I don't know whether they correctly interpreted the jury instructions while they were in deliberations or not.  I would have had to be in deliberations to know whether, at the time they had the jury instructions  in front of them (something she did not have during the interview) they correctly understood those instructions or not.  

                  If they did not, however, the blame for that lies with the prosecution, I think, who did not do a good job in closing of applying the law -- as the juror would get it -- to the evidence at trial.  Instead, the prosecution relied almost entirely on the notion that Zimmerman "lied" (a notion that was undercut by their own witness) in the hope, I think, that Zimmerman's "lies" would make the jury dislike and distrust him enough to convict him of something.  

          •  You're going to ruin everybody's fantasies about (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jon Says

            what happened in that jury room if you keep stating facts.  Honestly, I think most here would rather no one from the jury speak.  That way they could make up anything they wanted and it couldn't be refuted.  In fact, in light of the verdict, I would bet, based on most of the comments, that those who thought Zimmerman was guilty, would have wished that the case was not on TV.  Then it would be so much easier to make up what the evidence really showed in the court room.

            •  What facts are being stated in your mind? (5+ / 0-)

              The juror said she followed the law.

              The juror did not understand the law.

              IF you keep up with your belief in third party characterizations of what people say, you'll convinvce yourself of what you want to convince yourself of.

              Consider this:

              "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."""

              Zimmerman's intentional killing was not even in dispute!!!

              Hell, she does not even understand the facts, much less the law.

              •  I commented on the fact that she stated she (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jon Says

                realized there wasn't enough evidence to convict.  She wasn't bullied.  She wasn't focused on race.  She based her decision on how she understood the jury instructions.  She was picked to serve on the jury, and did the best she could. She didn't believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

                •  She did not understand the jury instructions (5+ / 0-)

                  Hell, she did not understand the undisputed facts.

                  Let's stop pretending the jury verdict was some majesterial moment is all I am saying.

                  6 random ignorant people who did not even ask a followup question on maslaughter were not some wise final word on this.

                  I just get annoyed by folks who pretend the jury understood much of anything frankly.

                  And not just THIS jury, ANY jury.

                  •  not majesterial (sp?) (0+ / 0-)

                    but you have to admit the system worked exactly how it is designed to....he who has the best (most expensive) lawyer wins.  Keeping the jury ignorant is built into the system, is it not?

                    "What we've got here is failure to communicate." -- Captain

                    by goObama on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:00:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Fair enough. And I'll I'm saying (and not really (0+ / 0-)

                    to you in particular) is people need to stop putting motives to these jurors simply to fir a narrative.  As you said, ALL JURYS, are going to be made up of flawed people.  We all come into these things with different types of life experiences, different levels of understanding and different biases.  Hell, the lawyers seem to want to least educated, least intellectually inquisitive, and least understand of the law to serve.  When was the last time you saw a jury of doctors, CEO's, MBA's, etc...I'm not saying these people are any better than anyone else.  Only that these types of people have shown an ability to think critically.  It seems lawyers simply don't want critical thinkers in that room.

              •  I disagree with your interpretation. (0+ / 0-)

                When she said "no proof that he killed him intentionally" she was probably referring to "ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent".

                Was your statement that intentional killing was not even in dispute using a different definition or application of the word "intent"?

  •  I had a diary about jurors being aligned on race (5+ / 0-)

    And while I wasn't sure how white the hispanic juror was, I did guess that if there was any resistance, it had to come from this member. The fact that four white women were the ones who felt the need to put a joint statement without having the hispanic juror sign on tells me that the others just bonded on race and the only reason they rebutted the first white juror B37 was they weren't as racist as she was and they didn't want to share in the backlash.

  •  I figured she was the holdout. (10+ / 0-)

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:10:51 PM PDT

  •  Too many people here and elsewhere (12+ / 0-)

    are taking into account all the information they've been given in the "news", and around the water cooler, and on gossip websites.  None of it was presented at the trial.  Folks who watched it were surprised at all the info they knew that never got presented....it wasn't allowed.

    As much as I KNOW  exactly what went through Zimmerman's mind that night because I know people exactly like him, what was presented at the trial, combined with the really, really shitty laws in FL (self-defense and stand your ground), meant the jury really could not come out with anything other than what they did.

    Now the work begins to change the laws.  That means changing the fuckers who voted them onto the books and the governor.  

    My aunt lives in FL.  "Stand Your Ground" we presented to her as a way to shoot carjackers.  You may laugh, but that is how support for it was ginned up among the old folks down there.  Add in the hillbillies in the western part of the state and the rampant racism there, and it's not hard to see how it got support.

    Time to change that.  Work to change that.  

    Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

    by PsychoSavannah on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:17:55 PM PDT

  •  HORSESHIT (8+ / 0-)

    The jury can decide as they please. It's called "jury nullification" and is one of the great things about a jury.

    Not that it should be used often. It's important to follow the letter of the law.

    But, there are exceptions. Surely, this case should have been one of those.

  •  SYG is so White people can kill Black people... (7+ / 0-)

    That is why so many whites were outraged Zimmerman was even charged.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 12:22:28 PM PDT

  •  For all who think she was pressured into (10+ / 0-)

    changing her vote, she's very clear that she concluded, after looking at all the evidence, there was not enough evidence to convict:

    However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.
    She also said that this was based on the "booklet" (the jury instructions) that the jurors were given:
    "As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."
    And that's not a ridiculous position, given the evidence.  Remember, the jury instructions told the jury this about how to judge Zimmerman's self-defense claim:
    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.
    And the prosecution had the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense --any doubt about that, and the jury was instructed to acquit.  The prosecution, however, never provided the jury with what they contended were the "circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used."  In other words, the prosecution never told the jury what they contended was happening at the time the shot was fired.  They, instead, posed a bunch of questions, even in closing argument.  Questions mean reasonable doubt, and mean a acquittal.  

    It sounds to me like this jury, despite her own emotional feelings about the death of this young man (feelings which are completely understandable for any compassionate human being), ultimately decided that she had to follow the law as outlined in the jury instructions, and to evaluate the evidence presented at trial in light of that law -- which is exactly what jurors are supposed to do.  

    •  Too bad the did not know about jury nullification. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, mconvente, hester, micsimov, doroma

      I would have done that in a snap. Put the law itself on trial.

      I know from experience that if the lawyers on both sides see that you know ANYTHING about jury nullification, they will wisk you out of the courtroom as fast as they can.

      •  That would simply have been reversed on appeal (8+ / 0-)

        When a jury convicts on a basis that is contrary to the law as set out in the jury instructions -- what you are calling jury nullification -- that gets reversed on appeal.  

        Jury nullification is only effective when jurors ignore the law in order to vote for an acquittal, because there is no appeal from an acquittal.  Jury nullification verdicts for convictions are typically reversed on appeal.  The appellate court gets the record, and will apply the law to the evidence in the record, and if the appellate court recognizes that the jury did not follow the law in the jury instructions -- that the jury verdict was jury nullification -- they will reverse.  

      •  Did not need Jury nullification (5+ / 0-)

        More than enough evidence to convict if one used common sense.
        Someone is screaming for help right until the final second of the shot.
        Its common sense that the man with the gun in his hands is not the one screaming for help.
        Does anyone really believe that Zimmerman had his gun pointed at Martins chest in that final second and still screamed for help..

        •  The fact tht one isn't required to believe (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, mrblifil, hester, zezefe, doroma

          zimmerman is often ignored

          Ask them to explain what the verdict should have been if one didnt  believe hm

          They will still say not guilty

          •  One is ABSOLUTELY required to begin ... (0+ / 0-)

            with the belief that GZ was not guilty, then open to the possibility that the prosecution could prove differently.  As it turned out, they could not.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:33:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  One is not required to begin with believing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, doroma

              the defendant or not believing him

              One is required to look at the evidence to decide his credibility

              there's no presumption the defendant is telling the truth

              There is the pressumption of guilty beyond  a reasonable doubt which goes to evidence proving  a case. Not to whther one is required to believe evidence presented. The defedant's credibility is not something one has to assume is valid.

          •  You conveniently forget the witness testimony (0+ / 0-)

            A lot of it seemed to validate Zimmerman's side of the story.

            Even if you think Zimmerman lied about some things--I know I certainly do--that doesn't mean that everything is a lie.  Especially when the evidence seems to support his side.

            •  Which version of his many statements? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, ChiTownBlue2000, doroma
            •  No, it didn't. What trial did you watch? n/t (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bruh1, a2nite, doroma

              "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

              by rubyr on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:54:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The one where the witnesses... (0+ / 0-)

                ...for the prosecution seemed to give evidence that both worked against and also supported Zimmerman.  Oh, and where the defense brought in a fantastic foresnic pathologist who indicated that it was consistent that Trayvon was on top when the shot was fired, and that Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with being hit in the face and having his head hit against concrete.

                •  did it include the one where the defendant (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite

                  was caught in mulitple lies?

                •  Well, that "fantastic" forensic pathologist (5+ / 0-)

                  was a paid witness and everything he testified to was contingent upon one believing all the lies that GZ told, which were disproved time and time again, if one cared to pay attention.

                  The only eyewitness that "confirmed" GZ's tale was Good and he changed his story and he also said that he DID NOT see any
                  hitting but that the arm's of the person on top were in a downward motion and DID NOT see GZ's head being slammed on concrete and DID NOT hear any sounds that would reflect those things happening. He also said he was out there for a matter of seconds, deeming his "eyewitness" testimony somewhat limited. Other witnesses heard an argument (denied by GZ), saw GZ get up and walk away just after the shot was fired, saw movement from right to left (toward the T), Rachel Jeantel heard Trayvon say "get off of me" and heard his headphones fall. Come on!!

                  "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

                  by rubyr on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:26:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are wrong (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coffeetalk

                    The witness did not have to believe anything Zimerman said to come up with the conclusions he did.  He merely pointed out that the physical evidence was consistent with that version of the story, or else did not contradict it (like Zimmerman spreading out the arms of Trayvon yet the arms were found underneath.  He testified that Trayvon would not have died immediately so it was possible Zimmerman's account was true).  Even if he didn't believe Zimmerman the evidence is still the same.

                    And he's a well-renowned expert.  He's not simply going to make up a lot of stuff and ruin his reputation by giving terrible expert testimony.  He says he was paid a mere $2400 by the defense, which is nothing for an expert witness of his renown.

                    •  There is no way they could come to any (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite

                      conclusions with the physical evidence without Zimmeerman because there are whole moments (2 minutes to give one example) for which there is no evidence

                      The same with the physical eviedence. The injuries are not indicative of fear for his life, and the only way we reach that point is to believe the defendant's claims because but-for thsoe claims there is no way for the juror to go there without pure speculation.

                      There is no other person who could claim he was in fear of his life at the end other than zimmerman, since even Good didn't say he saw a fight that indicated that zimmmerman (for example) had his head repeatedly beat against concrete

                      where does that concrete staqtement come from other than zimmmerman?

            •  What evidence? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              micsimov

              Nobody witnessed the shooting. The only one making a claim about what happened at that moment is Zimmerman. If he lied about some things, why wouldn't he lie about the some things that would keep him out of prison?

              How truthful would you be if you faced 30 years in prison for telling the truth?

    •  Quote the juror not the reporter (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oke, hester, wishingwell, a2nite, Matt Z, bruh1

      Please stop with your conclusive statements based on a reporter's characterizations..

      It is your opinion based on a reporter's characterizations.

      Nothing funnier to me than people claiming to be "evidence based" grasping at anything to pretend they have evidence when they do not.

      I am expressing my opinion about what I think the jury knew and even then I based on direct quotes from the jurors, not some third person's characterization.

      Many of you have the bad habit of turning a third person;s characterization, often it is your own, into a fact about what someone said.

      You know that is wrong.

    •  By the way, Armanda posed some questions to (0+ / 0-)

      you directly in above comments. did you see those?

      Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:09:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just more evidence why we need more (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Sychotic1, Kalex

    atheists.

  •  some of you guys should listen to yourselves. (11+ / 0-)

    According to some of you, we have a Latino woman who is unable to think for herself and can only act in response to  the unrelenting pressure of white women on a jury?

    What--Latinos have no agency?  How 19th century.  Perhaps you feel the need to step in and 'educate' this woman.

    Sometimes this site appalls me.

    Hey--here's a notion:

    Maybe this woman felt a certain way, wanted very much to justify her point of view legally, was unable to find a way to do so, so came around to the idea that she agreed with the others based on weak legal evidence.

  •  UGH.... (13+ / 0-)

    You know what, this doesn't make it any better.

    As much as this lady wants to go about how she can't sleep or eat, ultimately in the end she chose to vote 'not guilty'.

    There was something she could have done about it - stay strong to your beliefs and interpretation of the evidence, make it a hung jury, and see if the prosecution change their game plan heading into the retrial.

    Don't complain that there was nothing you could do.  Even forgoing the very real and legitimate (in my opinion, at least) notion of jury nullification, this lady could have kept her 'guilty' verdict, stayed true to her convictions (no pun intended), and at least not have the guilt of letting a murdered walk free.

    Ugh..........

    "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

    by mconvente on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:04:53 PM PDT

  •  The majesty of the law (5+ / 0-)

    and the jury system.

  •  The jury instruction was deeply flawed. (5+ / 0-)

    If the judge had relied on traditional common law, Zimmerman would not likely have been entitled to self-defense for two reasons:  he was the initiator and didn't appear to relent at any point and attempt to diffuse tensions; he used disproportionate and deadly force in response to getting hit.  

    Alternative rock with something to say. Check out Global Shakedown's latest album, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes/Amazon, or stream it at http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown.

    by khyber900 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:11:54 PM PDT

    •  The judge doesn't get to decide such things, ... (0+ / 0-)

      she only rules over issues the attorneys disagree on (for the most part), making such decisions under the law, not whim or personal preference.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:38:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe the Judge has some discretion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma

        over the jury instructions and especially so where one party raises an objection.  But in Florida, who really knows?

        Alternative rock with something to say. Check out Global Shakedown's latest album, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes/Amazon, or stream it at http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown.

        by khyber900 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:23:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's how SYG affected trial (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, khyber900, doroma

      even though it was not being invoked in the defense.  Through the instructions.

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:58:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would have. Fuck these people. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, varii, doroma, HCKAD

      They can have a hung jury or they can declare me in contempt for ignoring judge's instructions and remove/replace me. Their choice.

      But that's why I'd never have been chosen.

      If the law is based on me taking defendant's word for what is going on in defendant's mind at the time of the crime, then I get to base my decision on my opinion of defendant's veracity. If you don't like that, then base your case on something other than defendant's word about how "scared" he was or wasn't at the moment of the crime.

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:00:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Judge and the Prosecutors sucked. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, a2nite, WaryLiberal

    The Judge and the assholes that made up the prosecutors team were horrible.  The mistakes they made were disgusting.  

    The Jury was racist, dumb and stupid and probably were a jury of GZ"s "peers", except in gender.   This verdict will go down in history as one if the darkest hours for Florida jurisprudence.

    As I have said before, the majority of better attorneys DON'T go into public service in Florida or anywhere else.  We got what the State of Florida is known for:  Ignorance, prejudice and incompetent law enforcement.

  •  A better prosecutor would have (5+ / 0-)

    educated the jury to the other silly little Florida law involved, at least according to Zimmerman.   Zimmerman lied IMHO that Martin saw his gun and that Martin tried to take that gun. He lied to convince folks that George had a real reason to fear for his life.

    I once considered getting a concealed carry permit for my guns here in Florida.    I sent for and studied the legal requirements imposed by being a permit holder.    I decided against it mainly because you must KEEP it concealed.    You can't accidently let it show.  Zimmerman gave them his pitard--- and they didn't hoist him on it.

    (The confusing instructions also didn't explain stalking laws -- and jury probably would have been too confused to agree that Zimmerman was indeed stalking Martin that night.  )    

    Zimmerman lost his "legal right"  ----- when he caused his gun to be exposed in direct violation of permit laws.    He no longer had a legal right to be in that place and doing what he was doing   ---- once he supposedly exposed his inside the belt holstered behind his back  CONCEALED weapon  -- the one he claimed the kid saw on a dark and rainy night past Z's jacket too.  What, with xray vision?        

    I read fairy tales.  I don't believe them.  

    All the jury heard was that he had a gun permit ---- nobody told them he admitted to violating the law you MUST read and learn to get that permit.    

    I'm not a lawyer  --- but I carefully and legally carry my gun without registration or permit.   I carry because of guys like Zimmerman -- who profile people to bully --- including women.
       

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:17:54 PM PDT

    •  Also ... (3+ / 0-)

      the supposed reason for getting the gun was protection for his wife after she had a bad experience with a couple of loose pit bulls. If the reason for having a gun was so she could protect herself, why was George carrying it?

      •  I hadn't heard that excuse. Good question. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kentucky DeanDemocrat, Nance

        Makes one wonder if SHE ever got a concealed permit for "her" gun?

        I also wonder if they will pull his concealed permit --- and charge him for breaking this law.   His behavior caused the gun to be exposed illegally --- in his version --- prior to the magic Kennedy bullet contortions it would have taken to pull & use it through his web of lies.

        De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

        by Neon Mama on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:40:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There is a special place in hell for (6+ / 0-)

    someone who kills a kid and then makes it appear that he was the violent one.

  •  Wow. Wish she had "hung" in there a bit longer. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    But good for her for saying the truth now, the real, ethical, moral truth.

    "Let's stay together"--Rev. Al Green and President Obama

    by collardgreens on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:33:04 PM PDT

  •  incredible (7+ / 0-)

    I have not read through any of the comments, and I really dont care what anyone thinks about this. My only response is how can you agree to a verdict of "Not Guilty" and then about two weeks later say that the man you just voted on a jury to be "not guilty" is GUILTY of murder!

    I dont care about what juror instructions these jurors are using as an excuse.   If I was on a jury, and I knew a man was guilty of killing a teenager in cold blood, I would vote to find him guilty.  Jurors vote for a verdict, no one is going to go back and throw them in jail because that verdict does not seem consistent with any "instructions."

    There is also a legal precedence for "jury nullification"
    This is just amazing and I cant believe the incredible cowardice of this entire jury.  Shame on them all!

  •  Jury instructions or no jury instructions (4+ / 0-)

    I don't see six black jurors coming back with a not guilty verdict. So we can talk about legal nuance or bad prosecutors and judges but there's obviously a racial divide on the culpability of Zimmerman for Trayvon's death.

  •  I want her to write a book about all of this . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WaryLiberal

    Someone please get her a literary agent
    and a book deal , asap .

    The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. David Morrison

    by indycam on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:39:16 PM PDT

  •  To quote Adam Sandler... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WaryLiberal, a2nite, Nance

    A lot of good it does us now...  a hung jury would have brought a retrial at the very least.  But, she gave in so she could go home.  Not impressed.  

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:40:45 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, he did. We know. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma

    Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:46:50 PM PDT

  •  The instructions. It's all about the instructions. (4+ / 0-)

    If you're going to tell the jury what to say, why don't we just fucking drop the pretense of having one.

    Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:48:06 PM PDT

  •  "i was the juror... (6+ / 0-)

    that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end"......so, then...why wasnt there a hung jury?..."to the end" means....

    and then---"...we were trying to find this man guilty...they give you a booklet that...tells you the truth..."

    wow...really?...who's booklet...who's truth?----"...there was nothing that we could do about it--i feel the verdict was already told"

    i ...uhh...i dunno..speechless...somebody help me here

  •  B29 is right, but she should have held out. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Boycott Florida (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, varii

    It's the Florida justice system that determined the way the jury deliberated the law. Half the jury was in the bag from minute one, but it was the system that gave them cover to sanction the murder.

    I've seen some hardboiled eggs in my time, but you're about twenty minutes

    by harrylimelives on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:55:16 PM PDT

  •  Duh, of course he did nt (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 01:57:32 PM PDT

  •  Then why didn't she? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WaryLiberal, a2nite, jan4insight

    "I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

    Why didn't she "give them a hung jury?" If that was the best she could do, she could at least have done that.

  •  The fucking law needs to be changed. IF you are (5+ / 0-)

    following or stalking someone it is a form of intimidation and an implied threat. The natural response is fight or flight.

     I was followed by a guy when I was in college. My heart was racing and I ran like the wind to elude him. I'm a female and I am not large so I couldn't have fought him off.

    But i can totally understand a guy who punches someone for following him.

    It's what humans do when threatened: fight or flight.

    "Say little, do much" (Pirkei Avot 1:15)

    by hester on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:01:47 PM PDT

    •  Flight is the better option if possible. (0+ / 0-)

      You never know who might be carrying a loaded weapon. If you are scared because you think someone is following you, it's best to flee and call the police. In this case, it seems that Trayvon had plenty of time to go to Brandi Green's condo and call the police.

      He didn't, instead choosing to fight. Rachel Jeantel said as much in her testimony. Trayvon was tired and wasn't going to run anymore. Regardless of what else you think about this case, I think it's reasonable to conclude that TM made the wrong choice.

      I've seen hundreds of comments in which people claim Trayvon stood his ground. He had no obligation to flee under SYG. True enough. But it was a tragic decision.

      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

      by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:21:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The verdict preceded this trial. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, varii


    I shared 96% of my DNA with a chimpanzee. In return, the chimpanzee gave me a banana. There is no duty more indispensable than that of returning a kindness.

    by glb3 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:15:31 PM PDT

  •  I want a copy of the Booklet of Truth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight

    But if all it says is "42" I'll be damn disappointed.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:27:02 PM PDT

  •  For those confused about her comments: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus

    she believes Zimmerman is guilty of murder or at least manslaughter, but under the law based on the evidence provided, she could not find grounds to legally say "He is guilty of this charge."

    That's why she "caved."

    As a juror, you are only supposed to apply the law.

    If one were to be on a jury, and say they would apply the law (to avoid getting in trouble) but actually be lying so that they could apply actual justice, they could then make a decision based on what was right (regardless of law.)

    She made the other decision, to judge based on law, though she felt it was unjust.

    She did what she was supposed to do, legally. Not what she thought was right, morally.

    Given the situation, there was probably a lot of threats and pressure to go the legal route. I dunno.

    It sucks, but she's not being contradicatory. At least from what I can see.

  •  This is just...embarassing. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kristina40, doroma, WaryLiberal, WakeUpNeo

    "we were trying to find this man guilty...they give you a booklet that...tells you the truth..."

    The American justice system is an embarrassment.

    I don't know what to do about it, but...wow.  Just, wow.

    "Fighting for us, good. Winning, better. Talking about fighting? Not so good."--Atrios

    by andrewj54 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:20:05 PM PDT

  •  Shame on this woman (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, doroma, Kristina40, WaryLiberal

    for going on TV and telling the whole country that she failed Trayvon's parents.  Now they get to live with the fact that there was a juror who knew better but just couldn't be busy.

    And she feels the same pain that Trayvon's parents feel?

    This woman makes me want to vomit.

    "Fighting for us, good. Winning, better. Talking about fighting? Not so good."--Atrios

    by andrewj54 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:24:44 PM PDT

  •  Zimmerman Trial (0+ / 0-)

    I can understand why they might not wanted to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder, but thought they'd convict of manslaughter.   Sometimes, it's just necessary to hold out for a mistrial, rather than compromise to a not guilty verdict.    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site