They were presented with the facts as best as they could be ascertained, deliberated, and found the evidence insufficient to sustain the charges against Zimmerman beyond the shadow of a doubt. Despite all the prejudicial biases, ideological baggage, and self-serving imaginative scenarios that avid kibitzers heaped upon this cause célèbre - and there are cogent, legitimate issues that have arisen - it is the jury's verdict that carries all the weight as a matter of jurisprudence. Had the unarmed Martin succeeded in wrestling Zimmerman's gun away from him during their struggle, shot him to death, and presented the same defence, my speculation is that he would have been similarly acquitted. I have never presumed to second-guess the jury, neither prematurely nor retrospectively. Zimmerman is "not guilty."
I agree, they got it right.... that will NOT, however, protect these jurors and their families from harrassment, death threats and personal information posted on Twitter by celebs like Roseanne once their names are revealed. but it will all be "FOR TRAYVON" so they will feel justified when they do these things to the jurors
you're* I know you were talking to OP, but I don't think trayvon's intent with Zimmerman's gun is of any importance to Zimmerman's right to shoot a person who was in the full mount position, actively assualting a him. Trayvon could have caused great bodily harm to Zimmerman, even death, despite what the "trayvon was unarmed, and therefore innocent" crowd wants everyone to think.
Of course they got it right. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see George is innocent legally whether you agree morally or not.
Most folks who exploit this case do so to tout agenda, legitimate or otherwise, that have no bearing whatsoever on the trial itself.
In the English-derived common law system of adversarial trial the emphasis on fairness and following the rules means that the truth of an incident is largely irrelevant. What happens is that a verdict is considered to be a "procedural truth". As has been pointed out there is a requirement to find on the admissible evidence (which are facts but not all the facts) in a case beyond a reasonable doubt and it is the task of the prosecution to prove this to the satisfaction of the jury. If that can't be done then the jury must find the defendant not guilty of the allegations. The advantage is always with the defence. The trial is not an inquiry, it is a set of procedures that use logic to arrive at a decision and it is all entirely based on probability and not certainty.
Frankly as a 'white' Hispanic progressive who once served as captain of the neighborhood watch in a less than desirable neighborhood, and who now owns several income producing rental properties in a gated condominium complex that has has had some of the financial up and downs of The Retreat at Twin Lakes, AND who supports my wife who serves in the HMO, I can honestly say GEORGE ZIMMERMAN COULD HAVE BEEN ME!
Which is embodied in Blackstones formula It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
Indeed, but the ratio gets ramped up a bit these days! Reminds me of the old maxim that a guilty person (factually guilty, I'm not assuming guilt for the purpose of trial) is best tried under the English adversarial system but an innocent person is best tried under the European inquisitorial system.
Exactomundo! Mr. George Zimmerman is NOT GUILTY! And I agree with you that if TM got a hold of the gun and he shot George dead, he would be acquitted himself in a defense case. If TM shot George dead, (given the exact same circumstances) it would have never even gone to trial.
Zimmerman was merely found 'not guilty'...same as OJ. They're both still murderers who got away with it.
Wrong...two different cases. I concur with you that OJ got away with murder, but I don't concur with you in the GZ case. George did not murder TM but rather he killed TM in self-defense and that is what we call justifiable homicide. George shot TM to protect his life, whereas in the OJ case, OJ didn't commit a double homicide to protect his life. He killed them in premeditation but the jury in his case acquitted him because the gloves didn't fit.
Well, at least you blame the blacks consistently anyway. OJ may has well have been white so he doesn't really count. OJZ is just a wussie murderer, killing for kicks.
Those are not my words...for I don't blame anyone based on race. I look at everyone as just being a human being but people like you have to always bring in the race card...shame on you!
That's just an emotional biased statement coming from you and not based on any factual evidence...sorry but I just can't accept that statement of yours!
Well, the obvious is the obvious. It is what it is. You can either address it or ignore it. To each his own? - - - Updated - - - The kid is still dead and the murderer is still free. Whether or not you personally accept is really quite irrelevant in the long run. The facts remain.
Its the racist liberal media and agitators that turned this into a race case. Their predecessors in the Democrat Party and KKK did the same in their day, stirring up white mobs and lynching blacks. Today, they stir up black mobs to lynch "white Hispanics." Same deal.
Yes the facts remain, the kid is dead...that's a fact. George Zimmerman is NOT GUILTY...that's a fact. TM punched GZ in the nose...that's a fact. TM bashed GZ's head into the concrete...that's a fact GZ had a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon...that's a fact. GZ used his weapon against TM in self-defense after no one came to his aid while yelling for help...that's a fact. GZ is a murderer...that's not a fact, that is your emotional biased opinion....just the facts sir!
Right wingers always stick together. OJZ is a murderer who hide behind a hidden gun in the dark of night, stalking a kid, and then killing him. OJ-Z is EXACTLY that., a MURDERER.
How about the fact that several of the jurors were for guilty of second degree murder and were talked out of it by the juror with the book deal and how and when was that set up?!!!!!!!!!!
