Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a legal matter, even if jurors find parts of Zimmerman's story fishy, that is not enough to convict. Even if they believe that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, and that his injuries were relatively minor, that too would be insufficient evidence to convict. Prosecutors have to effectively disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So what exactly would that mean based on the facts as we know them?
Quote:
With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.
Notice in bold to those whose names need not mentioning. You can spot all of them easily in the Zimmerman Trial threads.
Thus far it appears the state never should have even charged Zimmerman. Maybe that's why it took 44 days before charges were made...and ONLY came about for purely political and racial reasons.
The Stinkerprosecutor skipped the Grand Jury............why????????? They knew the FACTS surrounding the whole shooting would have them voting-down a indictment!
That tells me this whole thing is even more political and scammish than the Duke hoax.
Thus far it appears the state never should have even charged Zimmerman. Maybe that's why it took 44 days before charges were made...and ONLY came about for purely political and racial reasons.
If they charged him at all, it should have been manslaughter. I think they were dealing with an over jealous judge who really didn't like Z and based her charges on her dislike, without thinking about whether the charges would stick or not.
But we know, juries do strange things: OJ: Casey Anthony for starters.
It is definitely true that one can't outguess a jury.
True. But imo, juries should have to justify their verdict. Each on of them should have to give a reason why they came to their decision. Everyone knows if THE LETTER OF THE LAW is followed, its a Not Guilty verdict. Which is why that stupid, biased judge shouldve stopped the trial. Our justice system is better than most, but its got serious issues. For this whole thing to continue to go on, is an outright travesty. Per the LAW, there is no way he is guilty. PERIOD
Thus far it appears the state never should have even charged Zimmerman. Maybe that's why it took 44 days before charges were made...and ONLY came about for purely political and racial reasons.
Thats what what i was thinking too. It took them forever to charge him. Didn't Oprah among others speak out and not until then he was all of a sudden charged. Maybe I remember it wrong.
If they charged him at all, it should have been manslaughter. I think they were dealing with an over jealous judge who really didn't like Z and based her charges on her dislike, without thinking about whether the charges would stick or not.
But we know, juries do strange things: OJ: Casey Anthony for starters.
They might end up convicting him of littering, for leaving stuff on the ground, to pacify the mob.
Either way, I feel for the family of the dead boy. The experience of burying your child must be so terrible. Zimmerman could have avoided the situation and a life would have been saved. But Lord only knows why He allowed and He will right all wrongs even where humanity fails.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.