VERDICT IN FLORIDA MURDER TRIAL

 

My take on this, for what it is worth, is that the prosecution made a horrendous error in going for 2nd degree murder. They should have made it manslaughter which the judge could then (my US law is very rusty so I may be wrong here) pass as a short jailing or even a suspended sentence. As it is, Zimmerman has the equivalent of a death sentence hanging over his head, because you can bet there is a black man somewhere who will see it as a jihad to take him out. LL

Why bring in the race card at all? And why are they refusing to accept the verdict? Why bother to have trials in the first place? Or are they trying to frighten juries into the verdicts of public opinion?

I stand to be corrected, LL, but as far as I can make out, under florida law, if someone younger, bigger and stronger than you is banging your head off a pavement, it's quite legal to shoot them...

Also in the forensic reports is the rather important detail that Martin had no injuries apart from the fatal bullet wound; Zimmerman had assorted cuts, lumps and scrapes consistent with his version of events.

As far as I am aware, forensic reports are colour-blind - whether people like what they say or not.

IMO, the media are to blame for a lot of the hysteria - and I do not know what Obama was thinking about, taking sides in a criminal case.

Under Florida law, there is no "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a lawful right to be. Instead, you may stand your ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

This permits you to defend yourself even up to and actually killing someone.  This is the famous stand your ground law which Zimmerman's defense was based on.  Re the bumps, cuts etc I believe 2 experts gave diametrically opposite views as to them.   Yo b truthful I have watched some reports on this but have been too busy with other matters to really delve into it.  LL

bb1 wrote:I stand to be corrected, LL, but as far as I can make out, under florida law, if someone younger, bigger and stronger than you is banging your head off a pavement, it's quite legal to shoot them...

Also in the forensic reports is the rather important detail that Martin had no injuries apart from the fatal bullet wound; Zimmerman had assorted cuts, lumps and scrapes consistent with his version of events.

As far as I am aware, forensic reports are colour-blind - whether people like what they say or not.

IMO, the media are to blame for a lot of the hysteria - and I do not know what Obama was thinking about, taking sides in a criminal case.

You are correct, Bonny.

Unfortunately, Sabot that card is played regularly. It's a shame to use it really, when you think about it. It makes a separation instead of inclusion as members of the human race.

Interesting interview with a juror:

http://news.sky.com/story/1116320/zimmerman-juror-defends-not-guilty-verdict

Quote-

A juror in the George Zimmerman trial has said the actions of both the former Florida neighbourhood watch volunteer and Trayvon Martin led to the teenager's fatal shooting.

The woman known as Juror B37 told CNN that Zimmerman made some poor decisions leading up to the shooting, but that he had not broken the law.

She added that Martin was not innocent either.

"I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into," said the juror, one of six women who made up the panel. "I think they both could have walked away."

And I would say that's just about spot-on.

And that sums it up for me too. And if they take this any further they will make a laughing stock of American Justice.

Pity those howling with outrage hadn't saved their ire for what, IMO, lay at the heart of it, Sabot - two blokes having a p*ssing contest which ended, as these things often do, in tragedy.

two blokes having a p*ssing contest which ended, as these things often do, in tragedy.

Sadly, that is what it seems to boil down to.