The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[Mister Earl]

And it begins.

Idiot kid threatens mass killing if Zimmerman is acquitted.

 

[Mike!]

Media called back to courtroom...

 

[Cylinder]

The jury has a question.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Jury Question-"May we have a clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter"

 

[This is The End]

At least one jury member is clearly pushing for manslaughter.

 

[Mike!]

At least one jury member is clearly pushing for manslaughter.

I think that's clearly pushing the boundaries of clarity. As nothing is certain, yet.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The only thing I think is for certain at this point is that at least one member of the jury thinks this is nowhere as clear cut as some of us do, since they are still deliberating. And that can actually apply whether you think it's clear cut that he's guilty or clear cut that he's innocent.

BTW, I just read some interesting "times it took jurors to decide" article on CNN. The only really famous case in the article that was fast was OJ which only took 4 hours. The rest all took 2-3 days (Casey Anthony etc.).

 

[shuize]

The jury instructions given in the case:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/new...fn/2013/7/12/zimmerman_jury_instructions.html

 

[Cylinder]

The question "explain manslaughter" wouldn't have prompted a recess - the statute explains manslaughter. There has to be more than that. I agree that it's likely they have at least one juror looking at manslaughter. Remember though that if they are following the jury instructions, they answer 2nd degree murder first, manslaughter next, then self defense - so this may mean just that. All are equally likely, IMO.

If someone is arguing against the others for manslaughter are the others at 2nd degree or are they at self defense? That's unknowable right now.

 

[shuize]

The question "explain manslaughter" wouldn't have prompted a recess - the statute explains manslaughter. There has to be more than that. I agree that it's likely they have at least one juror looking at manslaughter...

You're probably right. Although, it could also be a matter of, "Is this even manslaughter?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Floridians are schizophrenic when it comes to gun violence.

No duty to retreat when you pick a fight, lose and then shoot to kill, but then there is the 10-20-life mandatory sentencing that the judge in this case said applied and O'Mara freaked out about to no avail.

Seems to me the legislators/voters imagine the law will always be applied to the good guys and bad guys correctly but in reality that isn't possible.

 

[12AX7]

Zimmerman jury has question about manslaughter charge

After deliberating all day on Saturday jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial asked for clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter.

A manslaughter verdict would mean jurors rejected Zimmerman's claim he killed in self defense and "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death" of Trayvon, according to Florida's definition of the charge.

 

[Cylinder]

OK - the question was "clarify manslaughter." The recess was to word a response to allow them to ask a more specific question.

"Can we get a clarification of the instruction of manslaughter." [This is not the correct quote. I corrected it below.]

 

[Freddy]

The question "explain manslaughter" wouldn't have prompted a recess - the statute explains manslaughter. There has to be more than that. I agree that it's likely they have at least one juror looking at manslaughter. Remember though that if they are following the jury instructions, they answer 2nd degree murder first, manslaughter next, then self defense - so this may mean just that. All are equally likely, IMO.

If someone is arguing against the others for manslaughter are the others at 2nd degree or are they at self defense? That's unknowable right now.

Not that you've been guilty of excessive speculating, but I would caution everyone reading this thread that nothing can be inferred from the question with any confidence, except perhaps that they have probably rejected murder 2 already if they are discussing the manslaughter instructions. Which should surprise no one. I agree that it sounds like they are going through the instructions in order, rather than starting with the self defense instructions, as O'Mara suggested. (Not taking his suggestion on that score is also no indication of anything).

 

[Cylinder]

"May we please have a clarification on the instruction of manslaughter," is the actual quote as read by Judge Nelson.

 

[Ranb]

OK - the question was "clarify manslaughter."

This is not surprising at all considering the attention the jury knows this trial is getting. While the judge's instructions to the jury no doubt contain the meaning of certain terms like manslaughter, they may still need to know more detail.

I was on a jury this week and we asked the judge if endorsing a check meant it was an attempt at completing it. One of the jurors claimed it was using her "special knowledge" as a bank employee. The judge said no.

Ranb

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The 2012 Florida Statutes

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 13, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2388; GS 3213; RGS 5043; CGL 7145; s. 719, ch. 71-136.

GZ claims he felt his life was threatened, but the prosecutor proved he told self-serving lies about everything and his injuries weren't life threatening.

The prosecutor proved GZ profiled and followed TM.

The prosecutor proved the attack did not occur the way GZ claims, it was impossible GZ pulled the gun the way he claims. The gun had to be out sooner.

If he was afraid of Martin, he wouldn't have gone after him. His gun says he was not afraid. TM was shot on the grass not by the sidewalk so GZ could not have been having his head slammed on the cement at the time of the shot.

I fail to see how the jury is required to find reasonable doubt under those circumstances just because GZ claims he feared for his life when all the evidence proves by circumstances he did not.

 

[Ranb]

GZ claims he felt his life was threatened, but the prosecutor proved he told self-serving lies about everything and his injuries weren't life threatening.

A person does not need life threatening injuries to feel threatened.

His gun says he was not afraid.

Quite the powers you are attributing to an inanimate object.

Your post and my reply probably do not belong in this thread.

Ranb

 

[Cylinder]

I guess the obvious question is why the court did not allow the jury to be instructed on the aggressor statute if the state proved Zimmerman was the aggressor. It's a rhetorical question, though.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

deleted.