Zimmerman - what will happen next?

homeagain wrote: According to Juror B37, in part the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW was the reason (self-defense)
it was a 3/2/1 split thru the deliberation process.....per Jury B37, in the end they could ONLY
acquit because of difficulty with interpreting the law (jury instructions) and the prosecutions
NOT being able to present their case ADEQUATELY.....SO, it was a combination of several
different factors,but race, according to Juror B37 was NOT one of them...

I couldn't find a transcript of the jury instructions, but here is a video of it...

[youtube:t702rf92][/youtube:t702rf92]

The judge explains self-defense starting at about 9:47.

There is only one time she uses the term "stand your ground" and that starts around 10:55. She doesn't say we have this stand your ground law and let me explain it to you. She simply uses it as a term when she says the jury can consider that Zimmerman "had no duty to retreat and had a right to stand his ground". To me stand your ground in this context is the same as saying you have a right to defend yourself, and I think the juror was using it in the same way.

Now I'll grant you that in states that don't have stand your ground laws the instructions to the jury would be somewhat different. I assume they would be given instructions that they must consider if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to retreat from an imminent threat.

Regardless, there was zero testimony that Zimmerman had any opportunity to retreat once he recognized his life was in imminent danger or he was in danger of great bodily harm. So I still don't see how stand your ground applies to the actual trial.

One other point which is just my opinion. At first 3 jurors voted not guilty, 2 guilty of manslaughter, and 1 guilty of 2nd degree murder. I'm thinking the 2nd degree murder person got talked down to manslaughter. Then it was probably explained that if you believe Zimmerman had a right to self-defense and use of deadly force in this case, then that alone is sufficient to find him not guilty even if you think he met the criteria of one of those charges. And that too was explained by the judge starting at 10:55.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Rel ... ctions.pdf

Saw this on Facebook, "A brown man shoots a black man and the white man takes the blame?"

pineinthegrass wrote:

homeagain wrote: According to Juror B37, in part the STAND YOUR GROUND LAW was the reason (self-defense)
it was a 3/2/1 split thru the deliberation process.....per Jury B37, in the end they could ONLY
acquit because of difficulty with interpreting the law (jury instructions) and the prosecutions
NOT being able to present their case ADEQUATELY.....SO, it was a combination of several
different factors,but race, according to Juror B37 was NOT one of them...

I couldn't find a transcript of the jury instructions, but here is a video of it...

[youtube:26fqd4ys]

[/youtube:26fqd4ys]

The judge explains self-defense starting at about 9:47.

There is only one time she uses the term "stand your ground" and that starts around 10:55. She doesn't say we have this stand your ground law and let me explain it to you. She simply uses it as a term when she says the jury can consider that Zimmerman "had no duty to retreat and had a right to stand his ground". To me stand your ground in this context is the same as saying you have a right to defend yourself, and I think the juror was using it in the same way.

Now I'll grant you that in states that don't have stand your ground laws the instructions to the jury would be somewhat different. I assume they would be given instructions that they must consider if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to retreat from an imminent threat.

Regardless, there was zero testimony that Zimmerman had any opportunity to retreat once he recognized his life was in imminent danger or he was in danger of great bodily harm. So I still don't see how stand your ground applies to the actual trial.

One other point which is just my opinion. At first 3 jurors voted not guilty, 2 guilty of manslaughter, and 1 guilty of 2nd degree murder. I'm thinking the 2nd degree murder person got talked down to manslaughter. Then it was probably explained that if you believe Zimmerman had a right to self-defense and use of deadly force in this case, then that alone is sufficient to find him not guilty even if you think he met the criteria of one of those charges. And that too was explained by the judge starting at 10:55.

The STAND YOUR GROUND law was cited by the investigating police personnel,at the INITIAL
event......and Z. was released.....THEREIN is the problem....NO tox report,ect. he was
released after 4 hours of questioning...JMO......slam dunk case closed.......JMO.....I would
have liked to have seen a tox report, to TRULY understand if ADERALL was in HIS system,and
how THAT would have impacted his decisions/actions.....(the side effects of the rx he was
taking WOULD have been a factor in his decision making process.)

ANXIETY, restlessness,UNusual behavior,heart palpitations, mood issues.....SOME of the
side effects.

Two items of possible interest:

1. Zimmerman has filed (DEC 2012) a defamation lawsuite against NBC for falsely accusing him of being a raciest. He suspended it awaiting the outcome of the State's case.....the State has witheld evidence, fired a police chief, got

2. As I understand the "FLA Stand Your Ground Law", Martin's family may be liable to pay ALL of Zimmerman's legal f
bills....a nasty little detain given the State LOST.

Will be interesting.

Falsley accusing a citizen if proven can be very cxostly to the State and the accuser......VERY costly.

Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist per the prosecution's star witness? Creepy Ass Cracker now makes more sense! Trayvon hate crime?

FredHayek wrote: Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist per the prosecution's star witness? Creepy Ass Cracker now makes more sense! Trayvon hate crime?

Facts no longer matter. I listened to 760 today. Everyone has their own set of facts. The hosts should be ashamed of themselves. They let it all go.

Blazer Bob wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist per the prosecution's star witness? Creepy Ass Cracker now makes more sense! Trayvon hate crime?

Facts no longer matter. I listened to 760 today. Everyone has their own set of facts. The hosts should be ashamed of themselves. They let it all go.

I heard the same thing. It's almost like none of them paid attention to the evidence and of course the six women jurors must all be idiots.

What will happen next??

Just days after being fully acquitted for his role in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman reportedly won the $37 million Florida Lottery jackpot last night. “Yeah! All right!” said a visibly smiling Zimmerman, holding the winning lottery ticket he purchased on a whim hours after he was found not guilty for shooting and killing the unarmed 17-year-old. “I just figured why not, you know? I think I’ll probably use the money to buy a bigger house and a new car, and I’ll invest the rest. This is just fantastic. Life is good.” Zimmerman added that he’ll never have to worry about money again.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/george-zimmerman-wins-florida-state-lottery,33139/

Thank you for posting that, hilarious!