Posted on 07/13/2013 3:17:06 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
(CNN) -- After more than 12 hours of deliberation, the six women deliberating George Zimmerman's fate asked the court Saturday evening for clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter, the judge said.
That couldn't have even been a question a few days ago: Judge Debra Nelson ruled Thursday, over the defense's vehement objection, to include manslaughter as an option for jurors, in addition to the second-degree murder charge. Their third option would be to find Zimmerman not guilty.
The question -- which was read out in court, without the jurors present, shortly before 6 p.m. -- was the first posed by the jury since late Friday afternoon, when they requested an inventory of evidence. Afterward, lawyers from both sides approached Nelson's bench; their comments could not be heard.
How long other juries deliberated for in other high-profile cases One of 1,009 fatal shootings in Florida in 2012, Trayvon Martin's death stood out -- the various threads of the story helping to capture the public imagination.
There was, for instance, the fact that an adult had fired on an unarmed teen, soon after police told him not to follow the 17-year-old. And there was the accusation of racial profiling: that Zimmerman -- the son of a Peruvian mother and a white American father, who identifies as Hispanic -- had singled out Martin, at least in part, because the teenager was black.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/622-analysis-lab-report-zimmermans-case-part-2.html
Not at all.
Actually, during the jury selection process, the prosecution didn’t want one of the female jurors, and the defense objected asking if they could offer one reason why she shouldn’t be seated other than that she was a woman, and the prosecution couldn’t, so she is one of the jurors today. I hope she isn’t the one who wants the manslaughter charge.
I was wondering the same thing. I never did hear an explanation from the defense.
Never mind. I saw the answer several posts ago.
Some of the talking heads have said the judge’s instructions were that they should only consider manslaughter if they agreed he was not guilty of murder.
Judge’s instructions:
http://www.wsbradio.com/news/news/local/document-instructions-george-zimmerman-jury/nYnm3/
One of the talking heads on FOX said it could be a “good thing” there are no men on the jury because a man would try to take over and become the head of the jury. With all women, everyone is an equal and women are more detail-oriented than men.
Well, if they are following those directions, then they have to have found him not guilty of murder. but are they following those instructions?
“Reversal on appeal...” My thought also if it goes the way of manslaughter and if there is any “justice” left in the “system.”
The judge misstated the law
See post 45 upthread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3042577/posts?page=45#45
No, but the state kept looking for something to get on the woman or her daughter, and some time later the daughter did time for something. I don’t know the details. The woman, mother, who was on trial probably wasn’t the person who did the shooting, and by the time the trial was over, I suspected it was a third party, most likely her son. It was a case of a not so bright young man having a crush on a girl who wasn’t interested. After months of nothing but rejection, the girl invited the young man to her house. Supposedly the mother and daughter tried to tell the young man to leave her alone, and he got outraged. The panicked mother shot him numerous times with a .25 auto.
There is no evidence that he sought a confrontation. I just think, carrying a concealed weapon, he should have stayed in the car and not put himself in that situation. Of course, he has the right to get out of the car and to talk to or get a closer look at whomever he thought looked suspicious, but is that the wise thing to do? IMHO, no.
I’m not sure what that has to do with her instructions that they first have to determine that there is reasonable doubt to murder before considering manslaughter.
In that post is a link to the judge’s instructions.
He got out of the car because 911 wanted a street address. “Around the corner from the club house” wasn’t good enough. He got out to find a street sign.
There is no evidence that Trayvon Martin was doing anything illegal, despite his somewhat checkered youth. (Well, he did nothing illegal until he attacked Zimmerman). My point is: if you have a concealed weapon, you would be wise to exercise extreme caution and to be aware of your surroundings at all times. Getting out of your car while watching/following a suspicious person is not being cautious.
“... soon after police told him not to follow the 17-year-old.”
They did no such thing. Zimmerman never talked to the police. He talked to a civilian 911 dispatcher who works for the city, not for the police.
What did he do that was incautious?
He could have driven a few extra yards and gotten usable results. Hindsight is 20/20. I just think people should learn from this incident that getting out of your while near a suspicious person is probably not the smartest thing to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.