Zimmerman Trial Predictions

So sad; Yet sooo true!

I voted guilty, but the poll wouldn't allow me to add the choice of guilty of manslaughter. The burden of proof is lower for manslaughter, they just need to show that there was no lawful justification.

I saw some of the prosecutor's closing arguments and he summed it up well for me. If he would have stayed in his truck, Martin would still be alive. I'd find that hard to ignore if I was a juror.

An all woman jury would not be a hung jury.I don't know how the prosecution thought they could get a murder conviction with what they presented, but I would bet they find him guilty of manslaughter.

It's not the following that I have a problem with, it's the getting out and confronting him. So you'd be OK if someone did what Zimmerman did to you or your family? Get out of the vehicle with a gun and confront you? Demanding to know what your're doing and why you're there?

Point of order...  Burden of proof is the same on all crimes - proof beyond reasonable doubt.  Elements and mindset may differ, but the level of burden does not change in a criminal case (as opposed to civil which is more likely than not).

Carry on.....

I know your question was rhetorical... but no.

If someone is following you and you are not reasonably apprehensive of imminent bodily harm, you cannot use force.  Even if they are carrying a gun

If that person raised the gun, pointed it at you and cocked it (do they even still do that?) there is a reaonable threat of imminent bodily harm you can use force

If someone is on top of you, as the defense claims, and inflicting imminent bodily harm, (or there is a reasonable apprehension of it), you may use force.

it's all in the timing

thanks for the worm ear

By the same token, what he did is not a crime. I do not agree... and maybe I would not do the same... but just following, or even asking him what his business is, is not a crime. Martin is free to tell him to f off and go on about his business. The minute the fight starts, none of it matters.

That complex had 8 burglaries. They caught one guy, but not his partner. That is why he was doing what he was doing.

Bottom line, the prosecution showed nothing that refutes Zimmerman's claim of self defense. One of their witnesses even bolstered it. Both sides say the voice on the recording was their guy... everything Zimmerman said was consistent with everything everyone else said... how the heck to prove murder with that?

I agree... there is no way I want to end up a defendant.... but then I would not have done the same. I also do not think what he did was criminal, I just would not have done the same.

Heck, I drove up to my house and there was a guy parked in front of it and I swear he was taking a leak. I get out of my car and ask him WTF he is doing... and then of course it dawns on me I am in front of my house, and he is just a stranger. People do stupid stuff... you never know these days... he promptly left. Point is, I usually try to avoid confrontations with strangers... sometimes they lead to unintended consequences.

It does not matter. There is only one person that does know. He is on trial for murder two. The State has shown no evidence to counter his assertion the kid hit him first. The kid had no injuries except the gun shot, and Zimmerman had clear injuries. The State's own witness testified Martin on top raining down blows... but he could not see if they were "connecting"... just throwing blows from the top. There is a whole dump truck of reasonable doubt to choose from. I watched the prosecution when I was home, they had nothing. And I am in no way a fan of Zimmerman... not at all, but I saw no evidence strong enough to put him away on murder two... not even manslaughter. The State has a very weak case.

I disagree, I watched the case off and on but watched the full closing arguments for both sides.

I tried to put my juror hat on (i just got done with jury duty a couple weeks ago) and see how I would rule it.

Zimmerman is on his way to get some groceries and sees Martin walking through the neighborhood.  He calls the police to report a "suspicious person".  (Profiling at its finest).  He makes some pretty bad comments about Martin while on the phone with the cops further indicating his state of mind prejudging him as a criminal.  Martin is on the phone with his girlfriend and acknowledges that some creepy dude is following him, to the point that I wouldn't say it's a stretch for him to be scared.

You have the police telling Zimmerman not to follow him, but he does anyway.
When asked about this during the interview he fabricates a story of getting out of the car, to simply find a house number and look for the street sign during the police interview.  He even walks down the pathway where he ultimately shot Martin pointing to the houses, see they don't have numbers so I had to keep walking while ignoring the houses on the other side of the path that did have numbers.  hmm
The part that resonated to me was his neighborhood that he's lived in for 4 years only has 3 streets and he was standing on the main entrance street so he dam sure knew the street name.  He also told a cop what street they were on the night of the shooting.  So, IMHO he lied about why he got out of the car because he knew it would look bad if he were pursuing Martin.  He also made a statement about following him and then quickly changed it to he was approaching me in the police interview.  I thought that was telling as well and didn't line up with the "jumping out of the bushes and attacking me" story.

During the altercation I feel Zimmerman also lied about Martin going for his gun because he was carrying it at the 4:30 position on his back hip and said that when they were fighting Martin was choking him with both hands and started to reach down his side for his gun while he was beating his head in the ground (how many hands does this kid have?).  His gun was concealed on his back, how exactly did he know he had a gun?  (lie)

What do I think happened?  Obviously only zimmerman knows, but I suspect he was upset about local burglaries.  He saw a black kid in a hoodie walking through the neighborhood and profiled him as a criminal.  He stalked him through the neighborhood to the point that the kid was scared.  He never identified himself as a neighborhood watch dude.  I don't know who initiated contact, but either Martin turned around and confronted zimmerman for following him or zimmerman confronted him so he wouldn't get away.  Either way a fight ensued and zimmerman got his butt handed to him by a 17 year old kid.  At this time Zimmerman may have legitimately been in fear of his life, but IMHO due to the circumstances of what lead up to the altercation I feel he initiated the altercation no matter who started the final encounter.

OK, after all of my bloviating, as was in my case it really boils down to Jury instructions.  In the case I just sat in, I was full on in favor of the Plaintiff and had my mind made up until the Jury instructions came through.  I couldn't rule in their favor of the plaintiff because of how the instructions were worded.  I've read the Jury instructions for this case and I can see how I could rule in favor of guilt for Manslaughter.  Here are the Manslaughter instructions (notice the two parts with beyond reasonable doubt):

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.  (check)
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. (check, he shot him)

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide: (ok, so it's down to the justifiable part, notice the burden is now "act reasonably towards others" (whatever that means))

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing. (I'm sorry, I don't see it because of the way Zimmerman stalked him and never identified himself as a neighborhood watch.  I feel Zimmerman was the thug in this encounter, not the other way around.)

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or (definitely not an accident)

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or (n/a, not an accident)

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner. (n/a, not an accident)

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. (I feel him profiling an innocent kid and continuing to stalk him around the neighborhood was the negligent act which ultimately caused Martin's death.  I also say Zimmerman proved this point by fabricating several aspects of his story to make it look as though he was not following him at the time of the shooting.  On Hannity, even after knowing everything about Martin being an innocent kid walking through the neighborhood he claims the shooting was "God's plan".  WTF is wrong with this guy?)

My thoughts to each line in blue and I feel the Manslaughter guilt comes down to the two red parts I highlighted.

Full jury instructions are here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201410108/read-instructions-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman

So if I'm carrying and want to kill somebody I just have to pick a fight with them and let them get the upper hand.  Then I can shoot them without ramifications due to the fact that I was "defending myself" at the time of the shooting. (or at least make it look like I was)

like I said above, read the jury instructions.  I don't think it's as cut and dry as you'd like to believe it is.
As a juror, I could almost read those instructions as if the defense has to prove Martin was committing a felony against Zimmerman in order to be found not guilty.  Obviously he can't do that any more than the prosecution can because nobody knows who started the fight.

Old man notorious for looking for bad drivers and open carrying. Tailed them, wrote down plates... finds the wrong guy. 18 yo punk notorious for violent behavior and aggressiveness. Not a thug, a jock, huge. Kid screws up, guy follows down interstate, they pull over. Kids walks up to guy and pummels him through the window nearly knocks him out. Beat the crap out of him... who beats the crap out of an old man... kid walks back to his car, turns around goes back to guy and guy puts a 44 mag slug in his chest... charged with murder, with possible manslaughter... acquitted... everybody can't stand the guy... but when the kid went back for seconds, it was clear self defense. Happened here, made national news.

Man gets shot with pellet gun by biker. Man gets pizzed, knows where he hangs out. goes home gets a bunch of guns, and a fake grenade. Man figures he will walk into a biker bar and scares them all loaded for bear. Man walks in door of biker bar...promptly gets his rear handed to him. They disarm him and decide to kill him. Someone decides they can't shoot him on the ground, so they stand him up. Another idiot arguing over who is going to get to keep his guns fires a shot. All heck breaks loose, shoot out inssues, 3 people dead. Man charged 3 counts 1st degree... acquitted. When they disarmed him and intended to kill him, it was clear self defense. The prosecution didn't actually have a case... all witnesses corroborated with what he said. He could have been charged with manslaughter, but DA wanted 1st degree and left no other choice. Happened here, made national news.

Both were complete idiots. I think Zimmerman is an idiot. But when they were nearly about to die...it was self defense. Who knows what this jury will think. I have not seen the closing arguments, but I did get to watch all of the prosecution. It is not against the law to follow someone. It is not against the law to think someone is suspicious... especially with all the burglaries. The Police said he did not "need" to follow... that was not an order to stop. It is a really weak case. And Zimmerman may indeed have "wanted" the altercation just so he could play Charles Bronson... but I did not see the proof from the State for conviction.

I know what you're saying, and in the cases you cite I can see different aspects of where they could be found not guilty.  The only reason I really even followed this case was because I was selected for a jury the same week they selected the Zimmerman jury.  We were talking about this case quite a bit in the Jury room so it kind of resonated with me.  Then with the whole thing being on TV it was easy for me to keep following it.

I learned a lot sitting on the jury and even had the privilege of being elected the foreman.  I was amazed at how much the jury instructions played into the whole process.  As I mentioned, it was blatantly obvious to me who was at fault and which way we should go until I got the jury instructions.  Then it all went out the window.

So, I'm somewhat putting myself in the jury room after watching a lot of the trial with the same instructions they're looking at.

Obviously it could go either way or be a hung jury.  None of us know.  I just don't feel it's as cut and dry as everyone says it is.

So for one, I have not seen the highlighted inconsistencies that you said. I am a firm believer that there is only one truth... good or bad, but if you change your story, then you are lying. OJ is guilty on that count alone, end of discussion.

Instructions have a lot to do with cases, and most can't understand how they reached a verdict they did... because they don't under stand the laws they were trying the guy under and the restrictions of them.

I had jury duty and was picked for a civil medical malpractice that could have been a week. I was in the group to choose from, but when it was all said and done, I was dismissed. I told them that I had recent surgery, and that it wasn't good or bad but that it was recent and it was kind of a big deal with me... but obviously I had no problem being impartial to the defendant or plaintiff. I really wanted to do it though, I had nothing else going on and I thought it would be really interesting... but no dice.