Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

To tell a jury that if they think it's, "Highly unlikely that it's self-defense," they should vote not guilty is to me almost misconduct. If you think it's "highly unlikely" a defendant was acting in self defense than you vote guilty. Come on! If you don't think it was "highly unlikely," than you vote not guilty.

That's the law. The jury instruction makes clear that the only burden that satisfies a verdict of guilt is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The chart Mark O'Mara displayed is standard kit for a criminal defense attorney. If, after weighing the evidence, a juror's believes it highly unlikely that the defendant acted legally and no other conclusion is present, then the juror should vote not guilty by virtue of the state failing to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[johnny karate]

It doesn't matter what the jurors say outside the courtroom, because they are no longer jurors.

It might matter as long as some people perpetuate the fallacy that a "not guilty" verdict is a sacred edict from on high unequivocally proclaiming Zimmerman's absolute innocence.

 

[12AX7]

It doesn't matter what the jurors say outside the courtroom, because they are no longer jurors.

It doesn't matter from a legal view. From a societal view, it makes a lot of difference.

 

[ABC10]

It might matter as long as some people perpetuate the fallacy that a "not guilty" verdict is a sacred edict from on high unequivocally proclaiming Zimmerman's absolute innocence.

It's the Constitution that states "Innocent until proven guilty' and Zimmerman was not proven guilty by a jury of his peers.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It might matter as long as some people perpetuate the fallacy that a "not guilty" verdict is a sacred edict from on high unequivocally proclaiming Zimmerman's absolute innocence.

From a legal perspective it is. Remember the whole Innocent until proven Guilty thing? Thus if not Guilty, Innocence must be assumed.

 

[Dissolution]

It doesn't matter from a legal view. From a societal view, it makes a lot of difference.

Makes rather a large difference from a financial view, too. Specifically from their financial point of view, rather unsurprisingly.

 

[Mumbles]

First of all, you are wrong because no one denies he is a killer. No one denies that GZ killed Trayvon Martin. Perhaps you have the definitions of murderer and killer mixed up?

Secondly, you are technically wrong because on of the jurors said after the trial that they do consider GZ to be a murderer.

That would be "Maddy", who said, repeatedly, that Florida law allowed Zimmerman to get away with murder. Another juror (B37) said that Zimmerman just "got in over his head", but the other four jurors released a press statement stating that she did not speak for them.

At the end, I'm still not sure what Martin was supposed to have done. And I don't mean the fictional world where Zimmerman was just looking for a street sign, when Martin suddenly jumped out of the shadows and started bashing him around like the Hulk did to Loki. I mean the real world, where Martin was walking home from the store and talking on his cell phone, when some random dude started chasing him around, and refused to explain why.

 

[This is The End]

From a legal perspective it is. Remember the whole Innocent until proven Guilty thing? Thus if not Guilty, Innocence must be assumed.

That is the exact opposite of the US Legal system. You could not be wronger.

People are specifically found Not Guilty. They are never found Innocent.

That is the beauty of reasonable doubt. You never want an innocent person to be found guilty. But the other side of that is that many people who are not innocent end up being found not guilty.

 

[johnny karate]

It's the Constitution that states "Innocent until proven guilty' and Zimmerman was not proven guilty by a jury of his peers.

That phrase appears exactly nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

From a legal perspective it is. Remember the whole Innocent until proven Guilty thing? Thus if not Guilty, Innocence must be assumed.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle which determines how trials are conducted. The trial is over. Zimmerman was found "not guilty". He wasn't found "innocent". Zimmerman is no longer owed any assumptions.

 

[Dissolution]

That would be "Maddy", who said, repeatedly, that Florida law allowed Zimmerman to get away with murder. Another juror (B37) said that Zimmerman just "got in over his head", but the other four jurors released a press statement stating that she did not speak for them.

At the end, I'm still not sure what Martin was supposed to have done. And I don't mean the fictional world where Zimmerman was just looking for a street sign, when Martin suddenly jumped out of the shadows and started bashing him around like the Hulk did to Loki. I mean the real world, where Martin was walking home from the store and talking on his cell phone, when some random dude started chasing him around, and refused to explain why.

Highlighting mine.
Any evidence to back up the claim that Zimmerman chased Martin around and refused to explain why?

 

[This is The End]

Highlighting mine.
Any evidence to back up the claim that Zimmerman chased Martin around and refused to explain why?

I believe the "refused to explain why" is referring to "refused to explain why to Trayvon". Which is evidenced by Z's own story.

I have a feeling you are reading it as "refused to explain why" to everyone else but Trayvon.

 

[Mumbles]

Highlighting mine.
Any evidence to back up the claim that Zimmerman chased Martin around and refused to explain why?

You mean aside from the location of the fight, the remarks of every witness, and Zimmerman's recording of himself getting out of his car and chasing Martin while spewing curse words?

 

[eirik]

That phrase appears exactly nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.



"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle which determines how trials are conducted. The trial is over. Zimmerman was found "not guilty". He wasn't found "innocent". Zimmerman is no longer owed any assumptions.

So what do you think not guilty mean? Guilty?

 

[beren]

So what do you think not guilty mean? Guilty?

It means "not proven guilty." Which is different than innocent.

 

[Dissolution]

I believe the "refused to explain why" is referring to "refused to explain why to Trayvon". Which is evidenced by Z's own story.

Could you clarify this please, as it doesn't appear to match any statement that Zimmerman made that I've seen.

You mean aside from the location of the fight, the remarks of every witness, and Zimmerman's recording of himself getting out of his car and chasing Martin while spewing curse words?

Leaving aside your rather creative version of events, none of those things is evidence for your assertion that Zimmerman chased Martin around and refused to explain why.

 

[johnny karate]

So what do you think not guilty mean? Guilty?

It means "not proven guilty." Which is different than innocent.

Yeah, it's just that simple.

O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" of the murder of Ron Goldman.

It was never proven or established in the criminal trial that Simpson had anything to do with Goldman's death. Simpson claimed he wasn't even at the scene when the murder happened. And the jury acquitted him.

And yet Simpson was later found liable for Ron Goldman's wrongful death.

That's because a "not guilty" verdict does not mean "innocent".

 

[PhantomWolf]

It means "not proven guilty." Which is different than innocent.

Incorrect, the US legal system has no definition of "not proven guilty". It has two settings "Guilty" and "Innocent". When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed.

 

[johnny karate]

Incorrect, the US legal system has no definition of "not proven guilty". It has two settings "Guilty" and "Innocent". When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed.

Wrong.

 

[KatieG]

Incorrect, the US legal system has no definition of "not proven guilty". It has two settings "Guilty" and "Innocent". When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed.

No, you're off one. It's "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". The courts don't pronounce "Innocence".

 

[This is The End]

Incorrect, the US legal system has no definition of "not proven guilty". It has two settings "Guilty" and "Innocent". When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed.

That is the exact opposite of the truth.

I just pointed that out the last time you said it a week ago:

From a legal perspective it is. Remember the whole Innocent until proven Guilty thing? Thus if not Guilty, Innocence must be assumed.

That is the exact opposite of the US Legal system. You could not be wronger.

People are specifically found Not Guilty. They are never found Innocent.

That is the beauty of reasonable doubt. You never want an innocent person to be found guilty. But the other side of that is that many people who are not innocent end up being found not guilty.

Make note of the bolded part. That is historically one of the main features of the US legal system.

This is year one law. People are found "not guilty". People are specifically not found "innocent".