Zimmerman Jury -- What will they do? Vote here - murder, manslaughter, or not guilty?

Not asking for your opinion, although you are certainly welcome to share it. Just asking you to vote what you think the jury will do.

Prosecutors asked for a verdict "that will speak the truth."

I do, too. I don't know what that is. I hope the jury does.

The three choices are--

Guilty of 2nd degree murder. For Mr. Zimmerman to be convicted of second-degree murder, the jury must determine that he acted with spite, malice or ill will without regard for human life in the shooting death last year of Trayvon Martin.

Guilty of manslaughter.
In Florida, manslaughter is automatically included as a lesser charge in a second-degree murder case, unless the prosecution asks that it be omitted, and it did not. The defense sought unsuccessfully to strike the lesser offense, hoping to keep pressure on the prosecution to prove murder.

Not Guilty.

Generally, if it can be proven that Mr. Zimmerman acted with reasonable fear of imminent death of serious bodily injury, self-defense means that the killing is justifiable homicide, and he is not guilty of either crime.

Not Guilty

I'm thinking not guilty. From what I've read there simply wasn't enough of a case to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, I wasn't in the courtroom so I don't know that for sure.

I do think I'd personally vote for manslaughter in this case. I feel like his attempt at vigilantism instigated the whole situation. But I don't know enough about the law to say if that qualifies for manslaughter, and that's something that I'm sure has been clarified to the jury.

Apologies if this leads to the third major derail of the week. And apologies for that joke. Too soon...

In the poll I said guilty of manslaughter, because the question is what do we think the jury *will* do. I'd rather see him acquitted, based on the little I know. I just think it's going to be hard for six women who apparently didn't reach a consensus within a couple of hours to do something other than compromise at the middle position.

I think he should be found not guilty. I think the jury will find for manslaughter.

We had our former prosecutor chime in on the premium board, but not seeing people fall in line with what he thinks. He certainly has the knowledge and background; wouldn't be surprised to see his pick be the one, despite the votes going to the contrary.

It only takes one. More likely if there are two at extremes.

I think it will be not guilty, if the jury follows the jury instructions. The evidence indicates that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman's legal actions were a result of the attack.

I think the judge should have let in the evidence thatshowedthe type of kid Martin was, he was not your average 17 year old who went for Skittles,obviously relished finding trouble.

IMO the 2nd most likely is hung jury. This way I can be wrong twice. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

IMO the 2nd most likely is hung jury. This way I can be wrong twice. :)

---

A hung jury is entirely likely given there are three possible choices each juror can make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

A hung jury is entirely likely given there are three possible choices each juror can make.

---

Is there an irony that an all female jury can end up hung? Just sayin'

I think it will be manslaughter simply because I think the jury caves in. I think the verdict should be not guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNCat

I think it will be manslaughter simply because I think the jury caves in. I think the verdict should be not guilty.

---

If the verdict is manslaughter it is because the jury caves to political pressure. Clearly this is a classic case of using force to repel an attacker.

According to the board's resident former prosecutor:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genuine Realist

In my opinion, Zimmerman is stone cold guilty of voluntary manslaughter and always was. So hung is indeed his best outcome, but a break for him.

---

So, the head wounds are self-inflicted?

I am curious as to his thought process, but haven't been able to entice him over here yet to get that analysis.

I am one that is in 100% agreement with GR. Personally I think that Zimmerman's aggressive actions started the fracas, Martin defended himself, and Zimmerman then did what he did to defend himself. It wasn't murder, but if Zimmerman stays in his car and/or doesn't pursue Martin through the neighborhood on foot, then Zimmerman never gets attacked by Martin, and he never needs to fire his weapon. In other words if he lets the police handle it, this never happens.


Plus even after the trial I don't believe that Zimmerman's injuries were close to being life threatening. Was Zimmerman "scared to death"? Absolutely, but I am not sure that is a reason to kill someone. Bottom line to me it is manslaughter because he killed someone and his actions were a direct cause of that death. There was no premeditation, he did not mean to kill someone, but his actions did lead to an untimely death. To me this is akin to charging a texting driver, a speeding driver, someone in a bar fight, etc that causes a death with manslaughter. They didn't mean to cause a death, they never would knowingly kill someone, but their actions caused someone to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTcatfan

I am one that is in 100% agreement with GR. Personally I think that Zimmerman's aggressive actions started the fracas, Martin defended himself, and Zimmerman then did what he did to defend himself. It wasn't murder, but if Zimmerman stays in his car and/or doesn't pursue Martin through the neighborhood on foot, then Zimmerman never gets attacked by Martin, and he never needs to fire his weapon. In other words if he lets the police handle it, this never happens.


Plus even after the trial I don't believe that Zimmerman's injuries were close to being life threatening. Was Zimmerman "scared to death"? Absolutely, but I am not sure that is a reason to kill someone. Bottom line to me it is manslaughter because he killed someone and his actions were a direct cause of that death. There was no premeditation, he did not mean to kill someone, but his actions did lead to an untimely death. To me this is akin to charging a texting driver, a speeding driver, someone in a bar fight, etc that causes a death with manslaughter. They didn't mean to cause a death, they never would knowingly kill someone, but their actions caused someone to die.

---

My question is how much nexus is required? If you see someone in your neighborhood who looks suspicious and you follow them on a public sidewalk to see where they are going does that make you culpable for anything that happens subsequently? Call the police and let them handle it? Realistically, how long is it going to take for police to respond to a simple "I see someone I think is behaving suspiciously" call, if they come out at all? Those are all great examples, but they all involve actions which are themselves illegal and/or inherently dangerous (speeding, distracted driving, bar fight.) I don't see the simple act of checking someone out on a public street because they're a stranger to your neighborhood and you feel they are acting suspiciously to be an inherently dangerous act (it is only dangerous if they react violently) and definitely not illegal.

Obviously there are elements here which complicate things. Zimmerman's apparent frustration, profiling, and possible racist motivations combined with the 911 operator's comment (I'm not sure I call it an instruction) "we don't need you to do that" when asked if he was following. I'm not clear on the timeline - did Zimmerman continue following Martin after this? Still, IMHO it comes down to two things. 1. Did Martin start the physical altercation, and if so was he justified. Turn things around - if Zimmerman never shoots Martin and Martin is on trial now for assault (or worse) would you acquit Martin as being justified in physically striking Zimmerman? 2. Did Zimmerman initiate an assault on Martin without provocation? I don't buy that #2 happened. My theory is that Martin was ticked off at Zimmerman for following him (regardless of why) and decided to he was going to teach him a lesson, and messed up and assaulted an armed victim.

The next item is whether Zimmerman used excessive force. What matters here is whether a reasonable person would be in fear for their life in that situation. In the dark (right?) Someone has punched you in the face and is on top of you, striking you / striking your head against the sidewalk. I think if anyone here says if they had a gun in hand they wouldn't use it they're a liar. In fact, in my opinion the only scenario which makes sense other than Zimmerman acting in self-defense is that he acted with malice and depravity, and possibly with intent to provoke a confrontation.

What I think will happen. I admit to stereotyping, but I think that with an all female jury there is likely to be more sympathy for Martin and more inclination to hold Zimmerman responsible for "not following the rules."

Zimmerman used bad judgement in getting out of his car to follow Martin. However, both of them had a right to be where they were at that time, and Zimmreman was acting in a capacity for the safety of the neighborhood and neighborhood property as a member of the neighborhood watch. And let's not forget that Martin was anything but a "child" as the state is claiming. He was approximately 6' 2" tall and weighed approximately 150-160 lbs., and was 17 yoa at the time of the event. THAT IS NO CHILD, in any sense. And once the physical altercation started, and after it escalated to the point of Martin having Zimmerman pinned to the ground(which in essence denies an escape route and severely hinders defense)and used that leverage to pound Zimmerman's face and allowed Martin to grab Zimmerman by his head and then pound the back of his head into a concrete sidewalk, causing Zimmerman to feel as if he was going to black out and making him fearful for his life, then self defense is the only logical verdict that can be reached by reasonable people.
However, all of that said, Florida juries are notorius for arriving at verdicts that defy logic and the law sometimes. I've seen a killer go free because a jury thought the killer was just playing around and the death they caused was really only an accident. So, whatever this jury decides won't come as any surprise to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTcatfan

I am one that is in 100% agreement with GR. Personally I think that Zimmerman's aggressive actions started the fracas, Martin defended himself,

---

Just trying to clarify, but are you saying Zimmerman took the first physical action of punching or grabbing, or that one can use physical force to defend from someone who isn't physically attacking you but just confronting you verbally?

I ask b/c the legal standard would generally be that the first person to throw a punch is the instigator, not the person who called you the name that led to the punch. I guess I don't see how Martin was being physically threatened (that we know of) to then defend himself. Defend himself from what, a nosey guy asking why he was there? that's not being attacked IMO. Annoyed yes, even offended or angered, but you can't defend yourself with physical force from being annoyed or insulted. You can however walk away or call the cops yourself to get the guy away from you.

Not accusing, I swear, I'm really very curious where everyone's views are on this and what assumptions they are using. I think theres' a lot of room for misunderstanding b/c people can work with some very different assumptions in this case due to the lack of real evidence on how the confrontation went. We know they somehow got eye to eye, it seems reasonably true at some point Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and the rest is open to interpretation.

I am saying his going from neighborhood "watch" to neighborhood "action" by pursuing him lead to what happened. I understand self defense if you are on your property, it just gets dicey to me when there are only two people, in public, and one ends up dead, especially with no witnesses. I will admit I don't know the technicalities of the law, I just have always felt that Zimmerman went to far, made decisions based on previous frustrations and without those decisions this never happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTcatfan

I am saying his going from neighborhood "watch" to neighborhood "action" by pursuing him lead to what happened. I understand self defense if you are on your property, it just gets dicey to me when there are only two people, in public, and one ends up dead, especially with no witnesses. I will admit I don't know the technicalities of the law, I just have always felt that Zimmerman went to far, made decisions based on previous frustrations and without those decisions this never happens.

---

Very fair answer, and exactly what I was wondering. I'm not going to take a "right or wrong" position here, it's a gray area by definition, just curious what particulars are leaning people one way or the other.

Your basic take is very consistent with what little I understand of the law. Castle doctrine has different limits in different states, but those various lines are all about balancing the presumption of self defense against people overreacting and otherwise creating dangerous confrontations. So in Kentucky for example I can defend myself with presumption of great bodily harm if they are in my house or trying to get into my house, but I don't have that presumption at law if they are just standing in my yard. In some states it covers your yard, in some it doesn't cover people just trying to get into your home.

I suspect if Zimmerman were on HIS property and walked out his door and confronted Martin most who think he's guilty of something may have a different view, IF he were on his property versus just in his own neighborhood. that innate sense of property and rights I find interesting. I don't disagree with that view per se, I just find it very interesting.

It's inherently a gray area. Most may say it's OK for me to see someone walking into my back yard and I follow them and confront them. What if I start out after him and before I catch up he's in the neighbor's back yard? What if like Zimmerman it's more "in the area"? Clearly as you move away from your property and direct interests you have less leeway to confront someone who may be engaging in criminal behavior. That's fairly consistent with the law as I've read it, but where you draw that line is tough.

My only problem with convicting him of something like manslaughter is that there is more than reasonable doubt IMO about the crucial confrontation itself, so you are saying that him just getting out of his vehicle is the basis for his reckless or maliced act, and that makes me uncomfortable. that's too broad a restriction IMO, but to convict on the basis of anything else is to just "believe" he did something else wrong and there's no evidence of that. Then you're convicting someone when you still have reasonable doubt.

That's the crux of the decision itself: everything after he left the vehicle and the 911 call has lots of doubt. we have at least a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started any physical confrontation, no evidence he threatened Martin etc. So to convict beyond reasonable doubt all that is left is to convict him for choosing to confront Martin. Being convicted of manslaughter for choosing to confront someone verbally, that the act of confronting him is thus inherently reckless or filled with malice, seems a chilling overreach to me, but that's the only way I can get to that verdict. He may be guilty of something for getting out of that vehicle, just not sure it's manslaughter. That chain of events becomes pretty long to get there.

Of course we can say in this case his wannabe cop status sways us past reasonable and in another case that may not be in place, but it's a stretch IMO. He hasn't done anything wrong in pursuing a career as a LEO, and is far from the only person who may like to be an officer.

According to the defense's closing Treyvon Martin had 4 minutes to walk less than 100 yards to his destination after calls were made to police dispatch....and did not.

To me that is very telling as to why this happened. As much so as Zimmerman getting out of his car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

According to the defense's closing Treyvon Martin had 4 minutes to walk less than 100 yards to his destination after calls were made to police dispatch....and did not.

To me that is very telling as to why this happened. As much so as Zimmerman getting out of his car.

---

At the end of the day it was two people more than happy to have a confrontation with someone. One of them knew it was a potential gun fight, one didn't. The guy who didn't bring one lost, but they were both spoiling for a confrontation. Zimmerman was tired of 'criminals getting away', Martin was angry he was being followed by a "crazy ass cracker".

Zimmerman took steps to have a confrontation, and so did Martin by not just continuing home and leaving the situation. They highlighted Zimmerman's wannabe cop thing, but Martin had a wannabe thug thing going. Both just a little too pretend bad ass for their own good.

Not guilty according to news reports.

14 people (including myself) guessed correctly.

Saw where they asked for a clarification on manslaughter, but that doesn't really tell us much. Could have been b/c 5 wanted it could be b/c one wanted it could be none wanted it and wanted to be sure of something they were using to dismiss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock

14 people (including myself) guessed correctly.

---

Glad I was wrong, twice. At least overall glad, but given that I think Zimmerman made mistakes as well I can't say "glad" in a "happy" way, just in a "I think it was the best of the 3 choices before the jury" way.

Don't know if the jurors will do any interviews but I bet it was the closing argument with the 4 minutes he let them sit through that did it. It highlighted that while Zimmerman had a choice to not get out of the vehicle and follow Martin, Martin had choices as well to avoid that confrontation.

If you see those two as canceling out it becomes very hard to convict Zimmerman.

I am glad they didn't find for murder. That charge never fit at all, was politically motivated IMO. Manslaughter OK, that's an arguable position whether you agree or disagree, but 2nd degree murder requires a level of malice they came no where near proving.

And now I get to watch Twitter melt down as people who do not understand how the American justice system works complain about the American justice system.

Nicely done, KSR populace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock

And now I get to watch Twitter melt down as people who do not understand how the American justice system works complain about the American justice system.

---

The greatest travesty would have been for political desires to be placed before justice. Given the facts presented and the laws of Florida this was the only appropriately legal outcome.