Zimmerman Verdict: Guilt or Not Guilty? Vote now!

Will the Jury find Zimmerman Guilty or Not Guilty

  • Guilty

    Votes: 7 21.9%

  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 25 78.1%
  • Total voters
    32
Quote from Arnie:

A better poll would be how long the jury deliberates. The longer that goes, the worse for the defense imo.
More...

The worse thing (imo) is that in a few days they ask the judge for clarrification of the jury instructions...they at that point would be trying to thread a the proverbial needle.
 
Quote from nonlinear5:

There is no "good" verdict in this case. I'd describe this case as "mutual self-defense gone wrong". If I were Martin, I'd do what he did: confront the creepy guy who followed me in my own neighborhood. The Florida's "stand your ground" law would be on my side. But if I were Zimmerman, I'd use whatever force I needed to stop Martin banging my head against concrete, as it's clearly life-threatening. And again, the Florida's law would be on my side.

In the unfortunate incident that happened, I'd say Zimmerman is guilty of playing to be a cop, and taking it far too seriously. For that, I'd give him 2 years in a low security prison, and take off 1 year for good behavior.

Unfortunately, the jury does not have that option. Conviction on the second degree murder would clearly be overreaching. Conviction on the lesser charge of a manslaughter would send Zimmerman to federal prison for up to 20 years, which also seems way disproportional to the crime. I don't like the third option, the acquittal, either, because the precedent would be set for any maniac with a gun to stop me anywhere, question me, and kill me if I attempt to confront him (or perhaps even If I attempt to flee).

So, back to the poll question, if I were in the jury, and I had to decide whether Zimmerman gets 20 years or no time at all and the "fair and proportional" punishment seemed to me like 2 years, I'd have to acquit.
More...

Since there seems to be an interest in this case on the federal level ("my son") I would expect some type of federal hate crime charges leveled if the jury chooses not to convict. It seems that based on testimony presented in the trial, they were just laying the foundation for this being a racial incident (how many times have we heard during this trial that Zimmerman was profiling Martin) which I think qualifies under Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't get this. Do you really believe that if trayvon had simply asked why are you following me, then explained that he was staying nearby, there would have been any problem?
More...

The (remaining) freedoms that we have in the United States are based on the presumption of innocence, not on the presumption of guilt. When I walk (or jog, or skip) in any neighborhood, I don't owe any explanation to any "good citizens" as to what I am doing here, or why I am dressed in a certain way. If the "good citizens" start following me, I'd perceive it as a threat and say, "Fuck off, you creeps".

The burden of proof is on the police to have a reasonable suspicion that I am up to some illegal activity, in order for them to stop and question me. And yes, okay, the neighborhoods have the right to form whatever "militia" that the'd like, but again, I don't owe them any explanation unless there is a clear intent on my part to break the law. There wasn't anything like that in the case under the discussion.

Imagine a country (or a neighborhood) where this concept of presumption of innocence is substituted with the presumption of guilt. Would that make any neighborhoods safer? Hell, no. You'd be afraid to go anywhere, because any psycho with a gun would be entitled to follow you, stop you, question you, and kill you, if you show any signs of human dignity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top