Is this a problem

I dont think you can read A TON into it, but you might be able to read some into it.

I think it's likely they are past considering 2nd degree. 2nd degree is far more complicated of a charge, with definitions of ill will, hatred and spite.. if they are confused by manslaughter they would be confused by 2nd degree as well. The fact that they are not asking questions about that tell me they are between manslaughter and acquittal.

Here is the manslaughter charge:

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:


1. Trayvon Martin is dead.


2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the
death of Trayvon Martin.


George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent
act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Click to expand...

Clearly Trayvon Martin is dead.

Clearly Zimmerman committed an act.

So in all honesty the only thing they can be considering is how self defense either applies or doesn't apply.

They might be getting confused between an "act" such as getting out of the car vs. the self defense law which says if you are doing nothing illegal and are attacked, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. On the face those might look like contradictory statements.

So what does this mean?

You might have the jurors pretty sure about manslaughter, but they are crossing their t's and dotting their i's, making sure they have all their bases covered.

Or maybe you have 4 people saying self defense and 1 or 2 holdouts and the jury is saying "listen idiots, dont believe us? Ask the judge stupid!"

I mean after 12 hours you should have an understanding about the merits of manslaughter.
 
Pete Campbell said:
I dont think you can read A TON into it, but you might be able to read some into it.

I think it's likely they are past considering 2nd degree. 2nd degree is far more complicated of a charge, with definitions of ill will, hatred and spite.. if they are confused by manslaughter they would be confused by 2nd degree as well. The fact that they are not asking questions about that tell me they are between manslaughter and acquittal.

Here is the manslaughter charge:



Clearly Trayvon Martin is dead.

Clearly Zimmerman committed an act.

So in all honesty the only thing they can be considering is how self defense either applies or doesn't apply.

They might be getting confused between an "act" such as getting out of the car vs. the self defense law which says if you are doing nothing illegal and are attacked, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. On the face those might look like contradictory statements.

So what does this mean?

You might have the jurors pretty sure about manslaughter, but they are crossing their t's and dotting their i's, making sure they have all their bases covered.

Or maybe you have 4 people saying self defense and 1 or 2 holdouts and the jury is saying "listen idiots, dont believe us? Ask the judge stupid!"

I mean after 12 hours you should have an understanding about the merits of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I was thinking also that they're probably past the 2nd degree charge; but was asking about the manslaughter charge, just to make sure they didn't miss something they should be considering.
They could be leaning towards a not guilty verdict and just want to make sure they're correct in their decision; ie: being responsible.
 
yeah, really we can't tell. Honestly though, my intuition is saying hung jury is becoming more and more likely. The charge itself isn't complicated. They have had 12 hours.
 
I am thinking manslaughter. Self defense can only be used when there is no opportunity to escape or retreat. When Martin was circling his car....that was a threat...Zimmerman could have escaped easily by putting the car in drive and leaving.
 
Steelplate said:
I am thinking manslaughter. Self defense can only be used when there is no opportunity to escape or retreat. When Martin was circling his car....that was a threat...Zimmerman could have escaped easily by putting the car in drive and leaving.
Click to expand...

And yet; Trayvon did "escape" and instead made the decision to return and violently assault Zimmerman.
 
Steelplate said:
I am thinking manslaughter. Self defense can only be used when there is no opportunity to escape or retreat. When Martin was circling his car....that was a threat...Zimmerman could have escaped easily by putting the car in drive and leaving.
Click to expand...

for the billionth time, self defense applies to ALL charges. PERIOD.

and no, self defense is not negated because he left his car. You can say that he didn't have a reasonable fear, but the act of getting out of the car does not inherently, legally, negate self defense.
 
i know a lawyer that said this:

You can't read too much into the fact that the jury has a question.

In the self defense case I did, the jury got to 11-1 to acquit within 3 hours, and they asked about 5 questions spread over about 8 additional hours that were solely designed to refute arguments one hold-out juror was making.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet; Trayvon did "escape" and instead made the decision to return and violently assault Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

After Zimmerman got out of his car....Blowing his chance for claiming self defense and pursued Martin....which made Zimmerman the aggressor. You are only seeing this from one side...I am trying to see it from both.

I've never called Zimmerman a racist, I've even said he's not a monster...but looking at the facts...even going by Zimmerman's own words and the 911 call....Zimmerman pursued Martin when he didn't have to.
 
Steelplate said:
After Zimmerman got out of his car....Blowing his chance for claiming self defense and pursued Martin....which made Zimmerman the aggressor. You are only seeing this from one side...I am trying to see it from both.

I've never called Zimmerman a racist, I've even said he's not a monster...but looking at the facts...even going by Zimmerman's own words and the 911 call....Zimmerman pursued Martin when he didn't have to.
Click to expand...


After Trayvon made the decision to confront Zimmerman, who was no longer a "threat", he blew his chance of anyone claiming he felt threatened by Zimmerman; which made Trayvon the aggressor.

You're not trying to see it from both sides; because you've never offered anything that would say you believe Zimmerman.
All you've done is attempt to play the "he's guilty" game.

By the way; please show where Zimmerman said Trayvon was "circling" his car, other then somone else's opinion piece.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You overlooked the part where I specifically requested that your "proof" not be someone's opinion piece.
Showing me where he said it on the 911 call trascript will be sufficient.
Click to expand...

Well...where I SAW it was on the highlight reel of the court proceedings one day....when the.prosecutor was mentioning it...the defense.attorneys sat there with their teeth in their mouths....so if that was not the case, you'd THINK they would have been objecting.
 
Steelplate said:
Well...where I SAW it was on the highlight reel of the court proceedings one day....when the.prosecutor was mentioning it...the defense.attorneys sat there with their teeth in their mouths....so if that was not the case, you'd THINK they would have been objecting.
Click to expand...

So, once again you have just decided to use someone else's opinion and have nothing of substance to support it; like maybe the 911 transcript.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So, once again you have just decided to use someone else's opinion and have nothing of substance to support it; like maybe the 911 transcript.
Click to expand...

Do we have transcripts odnthe.police interviews? NO? But I'd be be willing to bet my left fucking nut that all of the attorneys do. It was brought up in trial by the Prosecutor...the defense said NOTHING. I saw it right on TV...it wasn't a commentary....it was footage.

You're being purposely obtuse.
 
Steelplate said:
Do we have transcripts odnthe.police interviews? NO? But I'd be be willing to bet my left fucking nut that all of the attorneys do. It was brought up in trial by the Prosecutor...the defense said NOTHING. I saw it right on TV...it wasn't a commentary....it was footage.

You're being purposely obtuse.
Click to expand...

The only one being obtuse, is you and your desire to have your opinion decided by the opinions of others.
That's SHEEP. with two E's.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The only one being obtuse, is you and your desire to have your opinion decided by the opinions of others.
That's SHEEP. with two E's.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think you're. Just a gun goon who refuses to see things from any.point of view other than the guy with the gun....and that's with two p's again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top