You're a member of the jury. How do you cast your vote on whether the defendant, George Zimmerman, is guilty or not guilty?

["Guilty" includes the lesser charge of manslaughter.]

I voted "guilty" ~ and was VERY pleased that the judge included "manslaughter" in her jury instructions over the defense's strenuous objections ~

Sooz

I voted "Not Guilty" because I don't believe George Zimmerman set out to kill anyone. I think he must have truly felt his life was threatened for him to feel the need to shoot someone.

I voted guilty, because I believe he's guilty.

I voted "not guilty" on a strictly legalistic basis. The prosecutor was not able to prove that Zimmerman's version of events did not occur. That doesn't mean I don't think he wasn't morally guilty. He set out from home, armed and looking for trouble. He saw Trayvon, profiled him as a bad guy and stalked him. It's entirely possible that Trayvon, seeing himself being stalked by a burly, low browed guy like Zimmerman decided to stand his ground and attacked Zimmerman.

Either way Zimmerman is morally guilty as are the morons who passed and support these stupid strap on a dick and stand your ground laws. If he hadn't been packing and, thus, stoked with false courage, racism and an imaginary bigger dick, Trayvon would be alive today and Zimmerman wouldn't be facing a destroyed life no matter what the outcome of the trial. Trayvon's dead because of Americas moronic love affair with guns and shooting each other.

I voted guilty because he shot Trayvon - it's really that simple.

If we had a like button, I'd have pressed it on your post. jim.

I really think the prosecution failed in this matter. I think Zimmerman had his gun out already. I think the fight and struggle were over the gun. I think the screams of terror were from a kid struggling with a man who had a gun. Because there is NO way that gun could have gotten pulled the way Zimmerman tells his story. Martin is straddling his hips? How does he get the gun out? In his 1st account, the gun is on the rear of his hip (that changes to the side of his hip later, even still it can't be pulled). Zimmerman has short arms, look at him. Martin is all the way in his arm pits, according to Zimmerman. It is true, mount someone so they can't move, you HAVE to control the hips, which means your hips have to be on their hips, and that puts your knees in the arm pits. He had to have been able to push Martin off him enough to pull the gun, and if he could push him away enough to get the gun, he could have gotten out from under him, because martin would have no longer been on his hips.

I think the jury is going to find him not guilty.

I tend to agree with Jim's post although I detest letting Zimmerman walk: that Zimmerman rushed to judgement and judged Martin as being a "punk", a criminal "suspect" (suspect of what? what was his probable cause for following Martin? His judgemental mindset.) I have no doubt....

Bolstered by the false courage that comes with packing a gun, the shorter man decides to pursue the taller "man" "because these punks are always getting away" and not wait for police backup although the police had advised (ordered?) Zimmerman to stand down...sadly, Trayvon, 17 yrs old, aware he was being stalked, confronted Zimmerman...who threw the first punch who knows...what is known is that Zimmerman, as he obviously is getting hit and his head slams the concrete, becomes "afraid of bodily injury/or death" and shoots Trayvon--was his fear "reasonable"? If someone slammed my head against a concrete slab, I would be afraid of getting my skull crushed...but then that is why Zimmerman packed a gun--and he used it. Self defense.

I deplore "watch" personnel being commissioned to carry guns....I always remember what my soulmate (a cop) once said: "the little guy almost always will hurt the bigger guy by doing something chicken-shyte"--like pulling a knife/gun..." I think that is what happened here: the bigger guy was whipping the lesser man...so the lesser man pulled the weapon.

If Zimmerman had not been armed, I do not think he would have pursued Martin...as it is, if Zimmerman is not found guilty, (and legally it was self defense) i am afraid it will be "open season" on every youth who is out after dark wearing a hoodie...(and what young person does not wear a hoodie at one time or another?) As a grandmother of young men, I find that a very scarey thought...

What Jim said.

Is it really that simple? So you believe that even if someone shoots someone in self-defense they should go to prison?

Apparently you do: "If they shoot someone, they're guilty -- it's really that simple."

In my mind, the "stand your ground" laws are on trial here. Immediately after this happened, remember, Zimmerman was questioned at the scene and not charged with anything at all, because, he said, he'd shot the kid in self defense. The cops took him at his word, later saying that under Florida law, they couldn't arrest him... he had "stood his ground".

The fact that he was arrested, charged and tried at least shows that we do not casually take the word of the guy who is not dead that the dead guy had it coming, and everything is hunky dory. That is just stupid. This trial at least shows that we actually do value life enough to inquire why it was taken from someone. That's not the way this story began.

I suppose he will be found not guilty.

There are only 3 streets, in a neighborhood he has been Watching for some time. I doubt he didn't know the street name.

I think the jury will find him guilty of manslaughter. The evidence showed he disobeyed orders not to follow Martin, he disobeyed orders to stay in his vehicle, he has changed his story twice that I know of and maybe more. What I think is most damaging to him is his own words on Hannity that he does not regret what he did and he thinks it was " God's Will" what happened. How can any person who believes in God make that claim?

While I don't think George Zimmerman is morally blameless here, if I were on the jury, legally I would find him "Not Guilty".

The prosecution has to make its case that Zimmerman was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecution has not made its case to that standard. I do have reasonable doubts as to what happened. I do have reasonable doubts that Zimmerman might have fired the gun in self-defense.

Since I have these reasonable doubts, legally I must give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, and find the defendant "Not Guilty".

Our judicial system says that it is better to let a guilty man walk free than to let an innocent man be imprisoned.

Being a prick isn't grounds for a conviction but, in many cases, circumstantial evidence has been sufficient grounds. From what I've read (which isn't much) I expect a manslaughter conviction consistent with the judge's instructions to the jury.

And then an appeal, claiming the judge misbehaved when she allowed a second, alternative charge of manslaughter.

The prosecution has to make its case that Zimmerman was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I'm not sure how you mean this.

There is no doubt that Zimmerman was following Martin.
There is no doubt that Zimmerman was armed.
There is no doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin.
There is no doubt that Martin died from Zimmerman's gunshot.

So what is in question? Whether Zimmerman acted in self defense, which would justify his use of deadly force.

Am I missing something?

mp- this is the first explanation i have heard that makes sense.

Hung jury is my prediction.

Oh SHIT!!!



Sooz

I guess I was wrong. Had I been on the jury, I would've been the one "guilty" hold out, lol.

The only thing I have to say is "karma's a bitch"

John59 wrote:

I'm not sure how you mean this.
There is no dispute on the facts leading up to the scuffle. The reasonable doubt I have is what occurred during the scuffle? Did Zimmerman believe Martin was going to kill him? Can you prove to me beyond all doubt that Zimmerman did not believe that Martin was going to kill him?

There is no doubt that Zimmerman was following Martin.
Agreed.

There is no doubt that Zimmerman was armed.
Agreed.

There is no doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin.
Agreed.

There is no doubt that Martin died from Zimmerman's gunshot.
Agreed.

So what is in question? Whether Zimmerman acted in self defense, which would justify his use of deadly force.
You just answered your own question. The question is why Zimmerman shot Martin.

I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman would have shot Martin just to shoot him. Zimmerman says it was in self-defense, and there was no testimony or evidence that proved otherwise.

Can you prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that during their scuffle on the ground Zimmerman did not fear for his life and felt the need to shoot Martin to save his own life?

I don't know what happened. But the prosecution did not convince me that it was not in self-defense. Since I have a reasonable doubt, according to our laws, I must give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant and find him "not guilty".