Skip to main content

View Diary: Plurality agree with Zimmerman Verdict - Huffpo/Yougov poll (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wonder (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neuroptimalian, cryonaut

    how many people who are protesting actually watched the trial.If you did a not guilty verdict is understandable.

    •  I did watch the trial and a not guilty verdict was (0+ / 0-)

      "understandable" only in a degraded context where the victim is turned into the aggressor. The Judge specifically excluded from the jury instructions the very important point that if GZ was the aggressor, he could NOT then claim self-defense during the ensuing altercation. When GZ stepped out of his vehicle, with a gun, and proceeded to track Trayvon Martin, he lost all stand-your-ground and self-defense protections.
      That was the case right there - no need to involve the choreography of the final confrontation - and it does not matter your ethnic background, armed vigilantes like Zimmerman are a clear threat to public safety.

      All the effotts by the defense to make Zimmerman appear effeminate (so his voice would match the teenage screams for help), and to emphasise how pathetic he was as a fighter, should only have reinforced the  jury's conclusions that:
      1) He had no business getting out of the car to chase after a youth in the dark
      2) That his excuse for getting out of the car (to see the street name) was a bald-faced lie, and clearly hinted at many other lies in his tale.

      GZ did not take the stand because his story was a fabrication - and his lawyers knew that. By the rationale of the GZ supporters all any mafia hitman has to argue is that he feared for his life and shot the victim (and encased him in concrete) in self-defense.

      •  Why would the judge... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        include the instuction about Zimmerman being the aggressor when it was never proven that he was?

        •  The instructions were intended to provide the (3+ / 0-)

          guidelines for how to evaluate evidence and conclusions. This instruction would say that IF a juror felt that GZ actions that night made him an aggressor - then self-defense was not a valid justification for deadly force. There are any number of other instructions in the 29 page document that only applied if a juror had come to certain conclusions after weighing the evidence AND testimony (or lack of testimony) . But here we come to one of the most troubling aspects of the way this was set up - the benefit of reasonable doubt should have been granted to the dead victim, with GZ needing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was justified.

          Before stand-your-ground GZ would have had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have retreated from the altercation, and the very fact he went looking for Trayvon would have disqualified any self-defence prior to SYG. So regardless the statements that this was NOT an SYG case, as other Kossacks have pointed out the jury instructions were critical here - so leaving out this instruction, and including instructions based upon SYG defenses of his actions allowed or encouraged the jury to let GZ get away with stalking and killing a teenager..

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site