Saturday, July 13, 2013

Zimmerman Jury in Deliberations

PHOTO: George Zimmerman wipes his face in the courtroom for  his trial at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, in Sanford, Fla., July 12, 2013.


The jury considering murder charges against George Zimmerman deliberated for more than three hours today before adjourning for the night without reaching a verdict.

The jury of six women, who have been sequestered for more than three weeks during the trial, will resume their deliberations Saturday at 9 a.m.

The panel retired from the courtroom to begin their discussions about 2:30 p.m. and after a couple hours asked the court for a list of evidence. At 6 p.m. they quit for the night.

They were given the case after an impassioned final round of arguments in which Zimmerman's lawyer insisted he did not commit a crime when he shot Trayvon Martin, and a prosecutor said Zimmerman "had hate in his heart" when he fired his gun.

I think it's possible that they'll convict him of manslaughter. Earlier I thought not,  but now I figure it could go either way.

What do you think?


  1. I agree that bringing manslaughter into the mix puts Zimmerman in a much more precarious position. It shouldn't, because if there's reasonable doubt that the shooting was not self-defense--and there's plenty such doubt--then he is just as innocent of manslaughter as he is of murder, but I wouldn't want to bet on the jury seeing it that way.

    1. You could have taken the bet.

    2. You could have taken the bet.

      As it turns out, yes, but I don't mind erring on the side of prudence. That's my nature.

  2. I don't think it matters anyway. Even if the jury returns a NOT GUILTY verdict, the judge can overrule the verdict, say the jury is wrong and claim the defendant guilty, according to some obscure Florida law.

    So the Chris Farley in drag look a like judge, being a die hard liberal, will most likely do just that.

  3. I still maintain that we'll never know if justice was done here, but every, single rational person can agree that "good jurying" prevailed.

    That's about the best that can be hoped for.

    The bad news is that racial hatred is not dead in America, and the verdict may very well provoke a large percentage of America's racists to violence.

    I am therefore upping my ammo load by a few. No one comes out of a violent encounter wishing he'd had less ammo, after all.

    1. "Good jurying?" You must be joking, unless of course you base that on the decision, which, in spite of all your protestations to the contrary, is just what you wanted all along.

      "Jurors needed to decide only that Mr. Zimmerman put himself in a situation that culminated in Mr. Martin’s death."

      Those white chicks had lots of reasonable doubt about that I suppose.

    2. The jury did exactly what they were supposed to do.

    3. . . . in spite of all your protestations to the contrary, is just what you wanted all along.

      As I have explained to you before (reading comprehension problems much?), I've never claimed impartiality about the verdict--at least not after seeing how pathetically weak the prosecution's case was (Rachel Jeantel was their "star witness"? Good Lord). I have been quite open in my position that the enormous amount of reasonable doubt makes a not guilty verdict the only rational and ethical possibility.

      What I do not have an opinion on is Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. He may well be guilty, but you can't imprison people for "may well."

      And "white chicks," Mikeb? You imply racial prejudice while simultaneously tossing a sexist pejorative around? Besides, what does their skin color have to do with anything? Are defendants supposed to face a jury of their alleged victims' peers? How many half-Peruvians were on the jury, anyway?

      I just hope the identities of those honest, courageous women are protected. The racist hatemongers want blood, and I don't think they care to limit themselves to Zimmerman's.

    4. "Chicks" is a "sexist pejorative?" Maybe, but a pretty mild one, wouldn't you say?

      The reason the identities of the jurors has been kept quiet is not for fear of gun control folks. It was in case the verdict when the other way, your fanatical friends are the dangerous ones.

    5. So help me out here, Mikeb--what am I saying that violates your "rules"? Since you don't contest the fact that "chicks" is a sexist pejorative (if only admitting to a "mild one), I assume you don't object to being called a "mild" sexist for having used it.

      Do you deny frequently presenting yourself as a Defender of Women, and is it wrong to note the irony of your donning such a mantle, while still casually tossing around sexist terms?

      Or are you troubled by my rebutting your silly fantasy (that the jurors would ever have faced danger from gun rights advocates), by noting that it's the race baiting hatemongers who are screaming death threats at Zimmerman, and even at the jurors?