When the jury notifies the judge they have reached a decision.

I'm shocked they didn't acquit Zimmerman today. That prosecution team.

Once again mdana provides the best logic.

Why are there only 6 jurors?

Maybe there's a reason, I am not an expert in the law, but until someone gives me one, I'll just assume that's because this trial has sadly been turned into a sick political joke.

I hope George Zimmerman is acquitted. My house and others in my neighborhood were burgled (by African Americans in their twenties, as it were), and I understand the ensuing sense of paranoia. So when, for example, the media plays recordings of his numerous 911 calls reporting "insignificant" events and sightings around his home, I understand where he is coming from rather than regarding it as evidence he is a loon. The way I see it: a slightly overzealous and paranoid, but well intentioned suburbanite tried to investigate a person he found suspicious, said person jumped him and began to beat his head against the pavement, and, fearing for his life, he shot him with a gun he was permitted to carry.

Of course, race-baiting lawyers and the media have transformed the case into a warped, grotesque spectacle which transcends both Martin and Zimmerman as individuals with histories, motives, personalities, etc.

I find it annoying how Zimmerman, a white hispanic is a cracker when he shoots a black man, but when a white hispanic plays an Indian character in a certain sci-fi series, he is a man of color. Our pc society is so twisted and distorted that instead of focusing on actual racism, the politically correct left has beocme racist itself and defends racist minorities.

I consider myself a liberal, and I am one to admit that racism against racial minorities still happens in the United States, you cannot deny that. But it is bullshit like this Zimmerman trial that leads the politically correct left to cause more problems than solve anything.

In Florida, only capital cases have 12 jurors.

The state never proved their case, they didn't even provide any evidence that any law was ever broken because they never provided a timeline or scenerio in which GZ initiated the confrontation or had the upper hand in the struggle which would be needed to at least establish a basis to negate GZ's claim for self-defense. However, because it is difficult for people even when on a jury to seperate the impulse to blame someone morally from assigning blame under a legal framework divorced from irrational emotion, GZ has a solid chance of being convicted to serious time.

I think GZ is in trouble for an acquital if they don't reach a verdict by the end of the day. In high profile cases (small sample size), 1-2 days deliberation tends to be a defense advantage. After 2 days it tends to advantage the prosecution. Oddly enough, in lower profile cases it tends to be the opposite, quick decisions conviction, longer decisions acquittal or hung jury mistrial.

I thought Mark O'Mara really dropped the ball in closing yesterday. He went on way too long (3hrs.), as well as being too dispassionate. Even for someone such as myself that likes logical reasoned arguements over emotional appeals, he missed any opportunity to define the injustice of his client being assaulted, crying for help for 40 secs. with no aid from his neighbors, then having to make a split second life altering decision to use self-defense, now facing the possibility of spending practically the rest of his life in jail for utilizing his right to self defense. He never tied any of that together or even mentioned parts of it enough for the jury to make the inferences. I was really underwhelmed and thought he missed a golden opportunity to get a quick acquittal for his client.

Another thing about O'Mara's performance is that it reminded me of how the media puffs up these judges and lawyers in all these cases without ever really being really critical just giving the illusion of analysis. There is very little accurate analysis by the talking heads and they are grossly uniformed about Florida law. Just one example, Judge Hatchett was on Piers Morgan and the panel got into speculation about GZ brandishing a gun and she asked why GZ didn't admit. Never mind even the state never presented this theory and there is no evidence this ever happened, in fact I would think it was highly improbable due to the lack of any forensic evidence and the injuries suffered by GZ. Yet, this judge did not understand even in this hypothetical why GZ would not admit to brandishing a gun which would open him up to a charge that carries a mandatory 10 year sentence.

Lastly, for the last 16+ months the media has constantly created this false narrative of TM only armed with Skittle and Arizona Iced Tea. The entire time it has been in evidence that he had Arizona Watermelon Juice. I realize this is really insignificant, but I find it extremely weird the media couldn't get something as simple and verifiable as that fact accurate. Should we really trust them to get ideas as complex and nuanced as reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty right?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0913/Sections/0913.10.html



I see mdana beat me to this.

Not guilty.

Blech.

Obviously not guilty of murder. Martin was clearly at least fighting him.

Just because Zimmerman completely fucked up by ignoring the cops & should never have been there does not mean it wasn't self defense in the heat of the moment.

He shouldn't even have been charged.

Took long enough.

Not surprised. The prosecution was presented as awful, just like in the Casey Anthony trial.

He should have been charged with something though. What about vigilantism? You can't start a fight and then shoot the other guy when you lose. An awful precedent to set.

The state had no evidence that GZ started the physical altercation. Self-defense normally does not work, but it works for any charge you might want to create. The prosecution did a pretty good job, they just did not have a valid case.

Maybe not, but he did start the interaction and couldn't have just expected Trayvon to say "alright, you got me." I agree that it is incredibly difficult to prove that though. It's still a bad precedent to set and will justify future killings.

The reactions are completely ridiculous. People keep crying race and it really doesn't have anything to do with it. If Zimmerman was black this wouldn't have even been a big deal. Just another dead guy...

There is no proof of that contention. I grant that he might have, but the state never proved it. They tried to imply that following and getting out his vehicle instigated it, but the law allows all those actions. It was a weak case by Angela Corey who played the victim advocate card even in her post-verdict press conference.

This was just media B.S. from the beginning. The L.E. investigation was botched from the start and they did a grave diservice to both GZ and TM, but we can't take it out on GZ for their failings.


2nd Bolded Section-They stated the same thing about Bernie Goetz back in 1984 and I know of no increase in those type of vigilante incidents in the preceding decade.

The Tampa Bay Times did an investigation of 193 SYG cases and found that 135 were unarmed. Black, white, and hispanic were the shooters and the victims. There are 20-30 of these types of cases every year in Florida.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

God Bless America!

Justice has prevailed. I doubted if these females would bow under media hype pressure but they didn't and they came to the most clear conclusion possible. Bravo!

How could they bow to media pressure when they were under sequester? They were under a media blackout.

I am sure they were aware of the case's cultural status and the implications people would try to find within their decision.

They were not found in Plato's cave and brought directly to the courtroom.

Also, one wonders how strictly the rules are enforced in the 21st century. The judge instructed them to not read news on their phones, but did stormtroopers kick into their hotel room and stop them if they did?

I'm referencing before the trial and just because you are under sequester doesn't mean you can't actually peek at things in some way or another.

I think they were found in the latest raid of Berlusconi's Bunga Bunga Grotto. Juries for high profile cases are known for lacking much knowledge of the world at large and are picked, because they claim to know little about the case.

I was under the impression the jury had their personal electronic devices held during the trial and they had to use a communal phone for short personal phone calls. They also had limited access to the internet that was only used for games, no blogs or news. They can only get their news from newspapers and the news of the trial is cut out. They can only watch taped entertainment. You could be charged for peeking as it is an automatic mistrial. In this century, my wife and mom served on murder trials and any violation was treated as serious. In my wife's case, a juror got thrown in jail for lying about something, I think she had worked at the same bussiness as the defendent or something like that.