Really? What is your passion about race? What is Magiver’s passion regarding race? Steophan’s passion regarding race?
This thread is not peculiar to the Dope, it’s a reflection of the debate as it is being played out everywhere. In order for the debate to be so vigorus, so passionate, so contentious, so long-lasting, so acrimonious, there must be some similar degree of passion about some aspect of it on both sides, and it nonsensical to say that the Zimmerman supporters are passionately against race being made an issue.
It does make sense to say they have some degree of passion around the issue of self-defense, since that is the specific issue they have devoted so much time and energy to defending.
I hope this isn’t the case, but if they are asking about the penalties then people’s suspicions about women making this decision 100% off of emotion is correct, and convicting Zimmerman would be an affront to what this nation was founded upon. The sentencing should be irrelevant to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.
I don’t think they are asking about penalties, but just the elements of manslaughter. The judge won’t tell them the penalties, which is both good and bad. Florida’s draconian penalties for manslaughter and their gun enhancement laws mean that Z could get life in prison. In my state, he would be out in less than 4 years.
They didn’t ask about sentencing. Just for clarification on manslaughter instructions.
And the judge did suggest to them that they start at the beginning and go down, so this could mean they’ve finished deliberating 2nd degree murder and have moved on to manslaughter.
Hell, it could mean anything at all. Eventually, if they so choose, they’ll be able to talk about their deliberation.
Your bad link was presumably supposed to point here.
So how do you read in that any kind of error on the part of the prosecution in making sure evidence of Martin’s character was excluded? It’s not admissible evidence to begin with. You obviously would intend it to be offered for exactly the reason it is not admissible:
You think (really shaky, shitty, bad) evidence of Trayvon Martin having engaged in a fight with someone he knows over something specific, and or evidence of his boasting about his prowess in fights should be offered to prove that he would and did attack Zimmerman for no apparent reason.
Aside from the law itself, evidence showing that Trayvon Martin has been in fights is not evidence that Trayvon Martin would inexplicably and irrationally attack a man without preamble. That is irrational behavior, and there is no evidence anyone has brought to light demonstrating that Martin was known to behave irrationally in any way at all, much less irrationally and violently simultaneously.
I agree. It could be that all 6 are ready to convict on manslaughter and want to make sure. It could be that 1 is holding out for manslaughter and the other 5 are telling her that she’s misreading the instructions and hurry up and acquit. It could be that they are going down the checklist (and this jury has been very thorough what with their inventory list and whatnot). It could be that they want to spend another night on the state’s dime because they like the breakfast buffet at the hotel. Nobody really knows.
Some people dont’ know for sure. I know for sure, so I convict. ywtf knows for sure, she convicts. Steophan and Magiver know for sure, so they acquit.
And yes, people who don’t know for sure should acquit. That is what reasonable doubt means, exactly. But lots of people have no doubt at all about him being guilty, or about him being innocent.
No, you do not know for sure. You cannot know for sure and also state that people know for sure the opposite. Either you think we are wrong, or you do not know for sure.
If you think our view that he is not guilty is reasonable (and you’ve indicated that you do), then you have reason to doubt his guilt, and would be obliged to acquit.
I can only hope you never serve on a jury, given your declared willingness to convict someone who has not been proved guilty. It’s clear you do not know what “reasonable doubt” entails.
The whole injury issue is not that big a matter for me, but I was pleased to see the prosecution point out the obvious. When it is pointed out that Martin’s one minor scrape on his hand is hardly consistent with multiple punches to Zimmerman’s face, the response is that it is possible to hit someone without damaging one’s hands.
Yes. So pointing to Zimmerman’s lack of damaged hands doesn’t prove he didn’t hit back. In addition, he could have been hitting Martin in the gut (especially with the height difference) and Martin died before any evidence of such blows could manifest. And blows to the gut are less likely to damage Zimmerman’s hands because there are no bony areas.
Just sayin’… some consistency of reasoning would be nice.
<nitpick.
should be all the elements on the list.
</nitpick>
Hypothetically the jury could find the prosecution did prove all of the elements but one for a given charge. In such a case the proper verdict is ‘not guilty’ as to that charge.
Read everything I wrote: I would arrived at the same place if I’d only heard the evidence through the trial* and that was my point.
I didn’t form my opinion about what happened based on air the first time I heard that a man named George Zimmerman shot a younger man named Trayvon Martin. I formed my opinion based on all the same evidence that the jury heard. And only that, because I don’t believe this is a big race issue (at least, not in terms of GZ’s actions; I don’t think he’s a raging racist at all and I never did, so the other ways I do believe race has been an issue have no bearing on GZ’s guilt or innocence.) and I don’t have any problem with self-defense in general, even self-defense with guns.
I have no political or ideological dog in this fight at all, I view it in isolation as a single incident between these two individuals that has no larger meaning or purpose, and what I see is a really dangerous asshole making really fucked up decisions for really stupid reasons and lying constantly about everything that matters in relation to the case. Offhand I cannot think of anything he has claimed about the stuff that matters that strikes me as even slightly believable in context. Therefore I would find him guilty and I would sleep like a newborn baby having done so. And I know lots of people who see it precisely the same way.
*Before anyone goes there, forcing backtracking: I stated already that my knowledge of what evidence was presented to the jury over the course of the trial was filled in by listening to the closings on both sides, which referenced everything except Zimmerman’s history with the domestic violence accusations and temper flares, which never formed any meaningful part of my take on the case to begin with - I saw it without hearing about that. (I never actually knew very much about that stuff, I only heard it referred to). So I know what the jury knows, and it’s what I know, it’s actually a little more, a little better put together, and so I know that if I came in a blank slate I would have ended up right where I am.
I was about to add to my last post that the only possible doubt I might conceivably have is the M2. While I agree that he absolutely showed malice and ill-will, I view the incident as a whole as just colossal arrogance and stupidity and dick-waving turned horribly deadly, and I want Zimmerman to pay a price for the kind of hideous behavior he displayed ending in another man’s death, but I’m not 100% sure the price of an M2 conviction is necessary. I’m entirely comfy with manslaughter. Just no walking away free to continue being a lethal fool. (And Fox commentator, I’m sure.)