I'm stunned. I'm speechless. My last shred of respect for the law is all-but-gone.

[Honeycombe8]

121. Reasonable people can disagree. I believe the jurors seriously considered manslaughter, but

came down to not guilty. It was a very narrow question they had to decide. It didn't involve "should GZ have gotten out of his car." That's what people don't understand, I believe.

The question: When GZ was on bottom, being beaten up by TM (albeit not a strong "beating&quot , was it reasonable for GZ to fear great bodily harm?

I'm not sure I would've said he did have reason to fear that. But I might have, in deliberations with others who were looking at the same evidence as I was.

I'm not sure a gun was his only recourse. But then...what else could he have done? I'd prefer to hash this out in a room with other jurors.

Then, finally, there's the "walk away" thing. That GZ started this whole thing by acting unreasonably (not illegally, though) matters to me. But legally, it does not matter. If someone irritates you, that does not give you a legal right to beat the crap out of 'em. That's the law. But morally, should GZ walk away?

I would have preferred a lesser charge, where I'd be sure he got less than 10 years in prison. Or probation. Some punishment, but I don't think 30 years was warranted...he really was in a pickle at that moment.