Zimmerman not guilty

[TheCalvinator24]

I just heard on the local news that the Zimmerman jurors, B-37, said that even though the stand your ground law wasn't used in court she based her verdict on it. That would seem to warrant a mistrial.

Once the jury renders a not guilty verdict, that's it. No mistrial; no appeal.

If Zimmerman had filed a motion for immunity on self defense charges and the judge had granted it, the state could have appealed, just as they can appeal a motion to suppress.

I may have been influenced by fiction, but you're saying that if a juror was found to have accepted a bribe to vote not guilty there's no way a mistrial would be declared?

In the event of proven jury-tampering, a Not Guilty verdict can be set aside, so sss did overstate the law a tad, but this situation is so rare that his mistake is understandable. A juror saying that the jury may have considered things they shouldn't have is possible grounds to overturn a conviction, but not an acquittal.

[silverscreenselect]

Oh, and one more thing: One juror said the rest had to convince one juror not to leave the trial due to family problems because that would have caused a mistrial. Florida doesn't have alternate jurors?!

In Florida, for six-person juries (which hear most felonies other than capital cases like the Anthony case), they usually have two alternates. The Zimmerman trial had four alternates, but one was dismissed during the trial.

Once deliberations start, the remaining alternate jurors were dismissed and no longer sequestered. By law, they can't be brought back in after that because they haven't been party to the deliberations. At this point, if one of the six jurors were to be dismissed for any reason, the judge would have had to declare a mistrial, because, constitutionally, a six-person jury is the minimum for a criminal case.

[Bob Juch]

Oh, and one more thing: One juror said the rest had to convince one juror not to leave the trial due to family problems because that would have caused a mistrial. Florida doesn't have alternate jurors?!

In Florida, for six-person juries (which hear most felonies other than capital cases like the Anthony case), they usually have two alternates. The Zimmerman trial had four alternates, but one was dismissed during the trial.

Once deliberations start, the remaining alternate jurors were dismissed and no longer sequestered. By law, they can't be brought back in after that because they haven't been party to the deliberations. At this point, if one of the six jurors were to be dismissed for any reason, the judge would have had to declare a mistrial, because, constitutionally, a six-person jury is the minimum for a criminal case.

Thanks, they didn't say if it was during the trial or the deliberation that juror wanted to leave. I figured it was the trial because the deliberations were so short. You'd think that for an important trial like this they'd have eight jurors just in case.

[tlynn78]

Oh, and one more thing: One juror said the rest had to convince one juror not to leave the trial due to family problems because that would have caused a mistrial. Florida doesn't have alternate jurors?!

In Florida, for six-person juries (which hear most felonies other than capital cases like the Anthony case), they usually have two alternates. The Zimmerman trial had four alternates, but one was dismissed during the trial.

Once deliberations start, the remaining alternate jurors were dismissed and no longer sequestered. By law, they can't be brought back in after that because they haven't been party to the deliberations. At this point, if one of the six jurors were to be dismissed for any reason, the judge would have had to declare a mistrial, because, constitutionally, a six-person jury is the minimum for a criminal case.

That's interesting. Here, alternates are excused at the time deliberations begin, but are specifically instructed to remain under the same 'rules' as the actual jury as far as reading articles, discussing the case, etc., until the verdict is reached, at which time they are contacted and formally released.

t.

[silverscreenselect]

That's interesting. Here, alternates are excused at the time deliberations begin, but are specifically instructed to remain under the same 'rules' as the actual jury as far as reading articles, discussing the case, etc., until the verdict is reached, at which time they are contacted and formally released.

t.

I don't think the issue is as much sequestration as it is the fact that alternates are not privy to the ongoing deliberations and don't have the benefit of the discussions that went on until they are called in.

[tlynn78]

That's interesting. Here, alternates are excused at the time deliberations begin, but are specifically instructed to remain under the same 'rules' as the actual jury as far as reading articles, discussing the case, etc., until the verdict is reached, at which time they are contacted and formally released.

t.

I don't think the issue is as much sequestration as it is the fact that alternates are not privy to the ongoing deliberations and don't have the benefit of the discussions that went on until they are called in.

Here, they can be called back in, regardless, if one of the 12 (or 6) should somehow be unable to continue.

t.

[a1mamacat]

Just stop sucking up to the NRA, get the guns out of the hands of untrained rambo wannabees like Zimmerman and a lot fewer innocents would die.

[flockofseagulls104]

Just stop sucking up to the NRA, get the guns out of the hands of untrained rambo wannabees like Zimmerman and a lot fewer innocents would die.

Next time let's just do away with pesky trials. They waste too much time and cost too much money. And the goshdarn obsession with those 'fact' things and that 'reasonable doubt' crap that trials have to go through just gets in the way of real justice. Let's just do whatever Sharpton, Jackson, Holder and NBC want.

And let's take all the guns away from law abiding people (cause they're the only ones affected by gun laws anyway), and just give them to people that already don't obey any gun laws that are on the books and won't obey any gun law that our fine lawmakers can dream up (Even if they would enforce them). We can all be like the south side of Chicago. That'll make us safer.

[silverscreenselect]

And let's take all the guns away from law abiding people (cause they're the only ones affected by gun laws anyway), and just give them to people that already don't obey any gun laws that are on the books and won't obey any gun law that our fine lawmakers can dream up.

Well, they might not obey gun laws, but the right new laws would give us a lot better chance of arresting them when they try to buy some illegal guns in sting operations (which is how we catch the would-be terrorists, when they try to buy explosives from informants or undercover agents). And, I worry a lot more about getting shot by "law abiding people" like George Zimmerman than about the criminals that are out there.

[BackInTex]

And, I worry a lot more about getting shot by "law abiding people" like George Zimmerman than about the criminals that are out there.

If someone who appears to be watching you or following you, as long as you don't ambush them, sucker punch them and throw them to the ground you don't have much to worry about.

I'll wager you $1,000 that I can by the end of the month give you a verified list of people shot and (not or) murdered by criminals that is 5 times the verified list you can provide me of people shot (not even murdered, just shot, accidently, purposefully or not) by someone not intending to commit a crime.

Let me know if you to wager.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

a1mamacat wrote:Just stop sucking up to the NRA, get the guns out of the hands of untrained rambo wannabees like Zimmerman and a lot fewer innocents would die.

silverscreenselect wrote:And, I worry a lot more about getting shot by "law abiding people" like George Zimmerman than about the criminals that are out there.

Compare and contrast, George Z v. A Texas School District cop.

"In violation of NISD police department procedures, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting the patrol car," the complaint states. "With his gun drawn, he rushed through the gate and into the back yard. Within seconds from arriving at the residence, Alvarado shot and killed the unarmed boy hiding in the shed."

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... g-woodshed

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Our local Federal Courts draw an 8 person jury and everybody participates on the verdict, unless you get below six and then there is a mistrial.

[flockofseagulls104]

And let's take all the guns away from law abiding people (cause they're the only ones affected by gun laws anyway), and just give them to people that already don't obey any gun laws that are on the books and won't obey any gun law that our fine lawmakers can dream up.

Well, they might not obey gun laws, but the right new laws would give us a lot better chance of arresting them when they try to buy some illegal guns in sting operations (which is how we catch the would-be terrorists, when they try to buy explosives from informants or undercover agents). And, I worry a lot more about getting shot by "law abiding people" like George Zimmerman than about the criminals that are out there.

"the right new laws"
A. What are the right new laws? How will they differ from the old new laws? Will they be better enforced or something? Would the new gun laws have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook? Would the new gun laws have done anything to prevent what happened to Travon Martin? How exactly would that be?

"a lot better chance of arresting them when they try to buy some illegal guns in sting operations"
B. Why can't they be arrested now if they are buying illegal guns in sting operations? What about when they try and buy illegal guns where there is no sting operation? What if they steal illegal guns? What if they are given illegal guns by the US Government through the Fast and Furious program?

"I worry a lot more about getting shot by "law abiding people""
C. Can't help you there. I tend to like to associate more with law abiding people rather than criminals, and very few of them have ever shot me.

[silverscreenselect]

"I worry a lot more about getting shot by "law abiding people""
C. Can't help you there. I tend to like to associate more with law abiding people rather than criminals, and very few of them have ever shot me.

Most people are shot by "law abiding people" who have never commited a crime up until the time they pull that trigger. Hopefully, you'll never have to see what happens when a "law abiding citizen" gets drunk some night, or leaves his gun where one of your children or grandchildren might play with it, or decides you look suspicious, or decides to end it all and take everyone in the vicinity with him, or just gets angry because of your driving.

[silverscreenselect]

just shot, accidently, purposefully or not) by someone not intending to commit a crime.

Of course, they were shot by someone intending to commit a crime at the time they were shot. It's when the obtained the gun that matters. The guy who shot my neighbor Ray intended to shoot him. He didn't buy the gun with the express intention of using it to shoot Ray or anyone else.

[Bob Juch]

Just stop sucking up to the NRA, get the guns out of the hands of untrained rambo wannabees like Zimmerman and a lot fewer innocents would die.

Next time let's just do away with pesky trials. They waste too much time and cost too much money. And the goshdarn obsession with those 'fact' things and that 'reasonable doubt' crap that trials have to go through just gets in the way of real justice. Let's just do whatever Sharpton, Jackson, Holder and NBC want.

And let's take all the guns away from law abiding people (cause they're the only ones affected by gun laws anyway), and just give them to people that already don't obey any gun laws that are on the books and won't obey any gun law that our fine lawmakers can dream up (Even if they would enforce them). We can all be like the south side of Chicago. That'll make us safer.

You apparently missed that Chicago now has concealed carry.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Just stop sucking up to the NRA, get the guns out of the hands of untrained rambo wannabees like Zimmerman and a lot fewer innocents would die.

Next time let's just do away with pesky trials. They waste too much time and cost too much money. And the goshdarn obsession with those 'fact' things and that 'reasonable doubt' crap that trials have to go through just gets in the way of real justice. Let's just do whatever Sharpton, Jackson, Holder and NBC want.

And let's take all the guns away from law abiding people (cause they're the only ones affected by gun laws anyway), and just give them to people that already don't obey any gun laws that are on the books and won't obey any gun law that our fine lawmakers can dream up (Even if they would enforce them). We can all be like the south side of Chicago. That'll make us safer.

You apparently missed that Chicago now has concealed carry.

Chicago now has a concealed carry law no one has been issued a permit.

[flockofseagulls104]

"I worry a lot more about getting shot by "law abiding people""
C. Can't help you there. I tend to like to associate more with law abiding people rather than criminals, and very few of them have ever shot me.

Most people are shot by "law abiding people" who have never commited a crime up until the time they pull that trigger. Hopefully, you'll never have to see what happens when a "law abiding citizen" gets drunk some night, or leaves his gun where one of your children or grandchildren might play with it, or decides you look suspicious, or decides to end it all and take everyone in the vicinity with him, or just gets angry because of your driving.

I don't want to make light of it, SSS, but these kinds of things are tragic, but they don't happen with much frequency. And the gun doesn't cause it. It's the choice of the PERSON.

I question your accuracy. I am really skeptical about your claim.

[BackInTex]

Most people are shot by "law abiding people" who have never commited a crime up until the time they pull that trigger.

[I question your accuracy. I am really skeptical about your claim.

No need to question it Flock. Its complete BS. It a made up fact that fits his warped view of this country and his view of mankind.

Most people who are shot are shot by a criminal...someone who was a criminal prior to the shooting. Criminals are a small percentage of our society. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. 100 crimes doesn't equate to 100 criminals. Or unfortunately 100 victims. For the victims, many are repeat victims because of where they live. They live in an area of high crime. But many or most do little to change their lot in life. They are afraid of the criminals and the police. So they do nothing, or only complain.

The criminals are emboldened to commit even more crimes, against the same weak victims. When someone does try to step up and do something, such as George Zimmerman, well, you've seen the result. They are called racists or 'wannabe cops' (remember the demonization of Richard Jewell?). Those that George was seeking to protect, those that asked him to watch out for them, choose to hide inside their home, scared to speak out on his behalf, to say 'Thank You', because they are weak, they are cowards. They are scared of being attacked but also scared of being called names by the name callers, such as SSS. They are selfish. They refuse to do what's right, to say what's right to help others or to even help someone who helped them. They go along with the noise makers who choose to condemn someone as a 'wannabe cop' while ignoring the other party who was a 'wannabe thug'. Apparently being a 'wannabe thug' is a higher moral character trait than being a 'wannabe cop'.

Chicago exceeded 200 murders for the year over the July 4th weekend. No way 101 of the murderers never committed a crime prior to then. They either stole something (many the weapon involved), vandalized something, assaulted someone prior, sold drugs, or previously murdered someone. They were thugs before they committed the murders.

We don't need to fear the George Zimmermans. We shouldn't persecute the George Zimmermans. George Zimmermans are not perfect. None of us are, but George Zimmermans are what make/made this country one of the best to live in, now or ever. They do for others; they take personal risks to benefit others. They take risks to hold others accountable rather than stay quiet, safe and comfortable.

Do George Zimmermans have a 'hero complex'? Sure, maybe. But we need people with that trait. Almost every great person in history had that complex. That is what drives many of them to go beyond the basic call of duty. Not all who have a 'hero complex' can be rise to be a George Washington or Eisenhower or Patton. Some only rise to be a marine corporal. Some only rise to be a police officer. Some only achieve the level of neighborhood watch. But they are needed at each level. And, they do it for others.

[silverscreenselect]

Those that George was seeking to protect, those that asked him to watch out for them, choose to hide inside their home, scared to speak out on his behalf, to say 'Thank You', because they are weak, they are cowards. They are scared of being attacked but also scared of being called names by the name callers, such as SSS. They are selfish. They refuse to do what's right, to say what's right to help others or to even help someone who helped them.

Well, if you'll read the interviews with the neighbors, you'll find that they weren't all that keen on having Zimmerman's type of "watching out for them." He creeped them out, the black ones residents more than the others. They didn't like his going around handing out flyers about suspicious people; they didn't like his making a nuisance of himself.

The cops themselves didn't want Zimmerman's brand of help because he had been rejected on multiple occasions. He was a hothead with a gun and a cop complex who also had a fixation on crimes being committed by young black men. Read the articles I posted and the many others out there instead of indulging in your own fantasies.

And I repeat the question I asked earlier, would you want one of your daughters dating a man like George Zimmerman?

[silverscreenselect]

No way 101 of the murderers never committed a crime prior to then. They either stole something (many the weapon involved), vandalized something, assaulted someone prior, sold drugs, or previously murdered someone. They were thugs before they committed the murders.

You mean people like George Zimmerman who assaulted a police officer and his ex-fiancee before he killed Trayvon Martin. You may have a point there.

[flockofseagulls104]

No way 101 of the murderers never committed a crime prior to then. They either stole something (many the weapon involved), vandalized something, assaulted someone prior, sold drugs, or previously murdered someone. They were thugs before they committed the murders.

You mean people like George Zimmerman who assaulted a police officer and his ex-fiancee before he killed Trayvon Martin. You may have a point there.

Bigotry takes many forms.

[BackInTex]

Well, if you'll read the interviews with the neighbors, you'll find that they weren't all that keen on having Zimmerman's type of "watching out for them." He creeped them out, the black ones residents more than the others. They didn't like his going around handing out flyers about suspicious people; they didn't like his making a nuisance of himself.

What interviews? The FBI hasn't posted theirs, as far as I know. Interviews by the media are suspect and if the folks being interviewed are identified, then, well, their public opinions are suspect do to their fears of reprisal or name calling by you name callers.

The FBI reported 35 interviews of neighbors and friends showed no racial bias by Zimmerman.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Suspicious activites of Zimmerman attract attention of police

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/bi ... egend.html

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Well, if you'll read the interviews with the neighbors, you'll find that they weren't all that keen on having Zimmerman's type of "watching out for them." He creeped them out, the black ones residents more than the others. They didn't like his going around handing out flyers about suspicious people; they didn't like his making a nuisance of himself.

What interviews? The FBI hasn't posted theirs, as far as I know. Interviews by the media are suspect and if the folks being interviewed are identified, then, well, their public opinions are suspect do to their fears of reprisal or name calling by you name callers.

The FBI reported 35 interviews of neighbors and friends showed no racial bias by Zimmerman.

Bit this is how you get there

VI. Today on a law professor listserv I frequent, one of the members was fulminating about how Zimmerman had once called 911 because he was afraid of a seven-year-old black boy, and this shows how racist Zimmerman is, and so forth and so on. The professor cited to this blog post at breakingbrown.com. The post cites to a Daily Beast post about Zimmarman’s interactions with the police. The first thing that raised my suspicion was the Beast made it clear that the call was to the police non-emergency number, not 911. The Beast reported the call log as:

April 22, 2011 – 7:09 p.m. Type: TEL Subject: Suspicious activity
Report: Juvenile black male “apprx 7–9” years old, four feet tall “skinny build short blk hair” last seen wearing a blue t-shirt and blue shorts.

This presented me with two possibilities: this was either strong evidence that Zimmerman was truly a paranoid racist nutjob, or the “suspicious activity” he reported was something along the lines of an unsupervised child. So I spent less then a minute googling and found the more detailed police description of his call (page 37 of the link), which paraphrased Zimmerman as follows: “Advsd is walking alone & is not supervised on busy street compl concerned for well-being.”

And thus a call from Zimmerman expressing concern for the safety of a young boy walking alone on a busy street gets turned into Zimmerman calling 911 on a seven year African American boy that he feared because of his racist paranoia. Unfortunately, lots of people seem to be only reading websites like BreakingBrown and not bothering to check on what they read so long as it fits the narrative they’ve already adopted. As noted, even law professors, who one would think would try to investigate before spreading libelous rumors, aren’t immune (though I should note based on blogs and social media I’ve seen, most crim law and evidence professors, including most liberal ones, think that the jury came to the correct conclusion based on the evidence presented).

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/a-few- ... ted-notes/