Verdict is in

[Nymeria]

reedus23[/B]

*Respectfully snipped and BBM*

Very O/T but I HAVE to ask.....
Would your name be in reference to the wonderful and quite delicious :blushing: Norman Reedus (Daryl from the Walking Dead)?

 

[jjenny]

Um, that is an accurate statement. No one found GZ innocent of anything. A juror could very easily vote not guilty in a case despite thinking that the person did it if they don't believe the state carried their burden. There is no finding of innocence. If you believe there is, I'd like to see the legal paperwork indicating as much.

While that might be true, it's also very unfair. Jury doesn't have an option to vote "innocent." So it would be impossible to find someone put on trial innocent, even if this person actually is innocent.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You have been up too long. Not guilty has NEVER meant innocent. Never.

It does to me. In this case it does.

If we don't prove them guilty they leave labeled innocent.

Personal feelings aside, Legally they are... Not guilty is not guilty..

 

[MeeBee]

When Casey was acquitted everyone was saying "not guilty does not mean innocent" especially when it seems there were jurors who do think she killed her daughter but couldn't say how so couldn't prove it. Why is it different now? I think we should wait to find out what the jury actually thinks before we declare that their decision means this or that.

 

[Truthy]

If there's nothing more to this story than this woman firing warning shots to escape from her abusive husband, this is a travesty. What is the state using to justify these charges? My God, she had a protective order against him!

She didn't know, like GZ did all too well, that you cannot pull a gun and spare the life. You have a much bigger chance of being convicted.

 

[marlap]

I know people say people found not guilty are not innocent.

But..... They are sitting there innocent until proven guilty. So technically.. They are still innocent when leaving if found not guilty.

Or have I been up entirely too long...

That's a good point...but we don't really know why the jury gave that verdict.

They may have felt he was innocent or they may have not been sure but felt the state did not prove its case.

Technically, you're right, though

Maybe the jury will tell us one day.

 

[CathyinTexas]

I disagree. Beating someone's head into the sidewalk is most certainly provocation.

I don't believe his head was beaten on the concrete. It is possible that his head hit the pavement during a scuffle. Even then, I never thought his head looked like it had been bashed on the pavement.

 

[jjenny]

There is a difference between being presumed innocent and being factually innocent. Either way, he continues to carry that presumption of innocence at this point. No one but GZ and TM know if he was factually innocent. Heck, even Geraldo said he wasn't found "innocent" but was found "not guilty" as I'm typing this. And I can't stand Geraldo. :floorlaugh:

We don't give a jury an option to find someone innocent. Only guilty or not guilty. So what Geraldo said doesn't amount to a bag of beans.

 

[reedus23]

I know people say people found not guilty are not innocent.

But..... They are sitting there innocent until proven guilty. So technically.. They are still innocent when leaving if found not guilty.

Or have I been up entirely too long...

This is an accurate statement. Personally, I was just disagreeing with the statement that there was an actual finding of innocence.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

The jurors got to see all of the evidence. Including the pics of TM on his cell phone. The jurors followed the Law. I am proud. We all should be. JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That's a good point...but we don't really know why the jury gave that verdict.

They may have felt he was innocent or they may have not been sure but felt the state did not prove its case.

Technically, you're right, though

Maybe the jury will tell us one day.

I hope they keep their anonymity. I just think it is better for them. But I would love to know..

 

[Hopeful One]

It's getting hot in here. It's been a long, hard day. Heading to bed to rest my ugly head.

Good night, all, and thanks for the company!

 

[pinkfly]

Earlier I mentioned that shooting someone in the arm or leg would be against the law because that would mean that you do not feel in imminent danger.

When in imminent danger you may only shoot to end the threat.

We cannot tolerate this idea of warning shots as that means rounds are being shot in the air and can hit a totally innocent person.

You ONLY shoot in total control at the target you intend to hit and subdue..

 

[bellaalex]

IMO if there's any blame to cast it's towards the media.

Something else that I learned in this trial is that the truth doesn't need to shout. Conviction to principles, firmness, understanding, empathy and standing up for what you believe in, can all be achieved without screaming.

Are you describing Mark OM? I was a bit worried that he wasn't passionate and boisterous enough, but his calm demeanor in presenting the facts spoke volumes. IMO

 

[Summerfun]

O/T I know this is selfish of me at this very delicate time but my cat Sammy Hagar who is 20 in cat yrs. Is very sick and the vet gave me some antibiotics but said because of her age she may have to be put down. So please pray for her. Thank you. I love you guys and pray for some peace for both sides, in this case.

Sending you huge prayers for Sammy and you.

Love and hugs Regina.

 

[ziggy]

I feel that right along with you Frayed. But the jury decided that whatever led up to the fatal confrontation between GZ and TM didn't carry any weight in determining GZ's guilt IMO. What I think they chose to consider solely in their deliberations (and MOO) is what happened from the time of the face to face confrontation and when Trayvon was shot dead. They obviously didn't find that the State proved obvious guilt on the part of George Zimmerman in that altercation.

Haven't seen you around for a while, welcome back!

I hope this is a teachable moment on the law with teens and young adults.

You cannot start a physical altercation because someone calls you names or provokes you verbally. In a state that has no duty to retreat, you can't punch someone because they are following you.

snipped:
Over the decades, hundreds of lawyers have argued that their client was provoked by words or by gestures. They have lost. Since 1975, caselaw throughout the United States has been universal: “Words and gestures alone… regarless of how insulting or inflamatory those words or gestures may be, do not constitute adequate provocation for [physical assault].”

http://ccwvslaw.org/item/848

 

[reedus23]

I would love to hear from the jury. I know they need time to digest what just happened. It would really help a lot of us to get some insight into why they made their decision.

I would absolutely love to hear from them some day down the road. I think everyone, every where, needs to give it some time though to let things decompress. I will say this, by all accounts, I was impressed with the apparent thoughtfulness that went into their verdict.

 

[gxm]

If there's nothing more to this story than this woman firing warning shots to escape from her abusive husband, this is a travesty. What is the state using to justify these charges? My God, she had a protective order against him!

From what I recall, her husband had his kids with him and they claim she shot in their direction. But I agree, it's wrong that she was convicted and received such a long sentence. I hope she is able to appeal it.

 

[Herding Cats]

WIllenfan, can you give links re: Miami and Chicago? The only thing I've seen in Chicago is a bunch of folks walking around yelling "NOT ONE MORE".

Thanks...

Best-
Herding Cats

 

[Apollo]

BBM

Not really. The Sanford LE and government showed some incompetence in interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence and securing evidence, and cowering to the political wind of the moment. Angela Corey and Rick Scott look bad. A $1 million+ trial, that should have never been charged due to lack of evidence. A sizable portion of the country outraged at Florida, because the US media, especially cable news organizations could be handled to get any of the facts of the case right from the first day.

The only good that could come out of this is better protocols to treat all homicides as worthy of a vigorous investigation, even if they may appear as justifiable at first glance. IMO

Well said! Every prosecution witness turned out to be a witness that favored the defense. Don't even get me started on that pathetic Medical Examiner. If i were the Martins, I'd be furious with the way he conducted the autopsy. Pathetic.