General Discussion

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)

100. considering he lied about what happened

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 12:21 AM

Jul 2013

than as a juror I could honestly say he didn't fear for his life. Considering that I don't believe he got the injuries they way he claimed to have gotten them than as a juror I could honestly say he didn't fear for his life. Considering that it wouldn't have been physically possible for him or Martin to have gotten the gun from where he claimed it was while he was supposedly getting his insignificant injuries than as a juror I could honestly say he didn't fear for his life.

Simple. No juror would have had to ignore the jury instructions. And they can't write jury instructions that make it impossible or even nearly so to find the defendant guilty.

Were those even the jury instructions though? They should have said only if they were quite certain that Zimmerman was not REASONABLY in fear of his life. Anyone can be in fear of their life for any number of silly reasons that aren't reasonable, like I'm so paranoid at the sight of just a single drop of blood that I feared for my life so I killed him isn't a valid reason to find someone not guilty. Being that paranoid about seeing blood isn't reasonable, therefore it isn't reasonable to kill someone because you saw a single drop of blood come out of you. His fear would have had to have been a reasonable fear.

Seeing as how his injuries were insignificant and that he lied about how he got them than I'm not seeing how anyone could believe he had a reasonable fear of his life.

I'd really like to see those jury instructions. I don't believe they actually went with the law.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

145 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would *you* ignore instructions to a jury? [View all] MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 OP

In this case, I would. Mr. David Jul 2013 #1

If he was on top of Zimmeman, straddling Zimmerman, then, in my view, Zimmerman could not have JDPriestly Jul 2013 #113

Just curious...what do you think the scenario was? Stardust Jul 2013 #126

I think that Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin with his gun drawn. Trayvon tackled JDPriestly Jul 2013 #129

I agree with your theory, but the hoodie being 4 inches from the bullet Stardust Jul 2013 #141

Wrestling on the ground it could have wound up anywhere. badtoworse Jul 2013 #143

Yes NoOneMan Jul 2013 #2

As a juror you have the ultimate right to judge the law and defendant. ileus Jul 2013 #3

Not really. The function of a jury is only to determine issues of fact. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #42

Once you're on the jury, it's up to you. Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #47

If you can't or won't follow the law you shouldn't be on that jury. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #49

Right. Here, however, the jury, considering the length of the trial and the extent of the evidence, JDPriestly Jul 2013 #114

I know you're talking about the Zimmerman case, but... Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #131

This is true. However, juries sometimes nullify a verdict to reach justice. The prosecution or Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #56

The reason the prosecution didn't appeal was because they couldn't. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #58

I wondered about that. But they made statements in the documentary. Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #61

Lies are not facts... lame54 Jul 2013 #62

It's up to the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #70

Then they're suckers lame54 Jul 2013 #71

Maybe so. But that's the risk you run with any jury trial. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #74

Technically the defendants story may not be entirely accurate but that doesn't matter. ... spin Jul 2013 #108

but the jury, like the voter hfojvt Jul 2013 #68

What if this jury "nullified" the law to acquit Zimmerman? The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #72

but you do the same thing with democracy hfojvt Jul 2013 #111

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #138

In order to deliver justice, I would "interpret broadly". nt Bonobo Jul 2013 #4

Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. Yes. n/t Avalux Jul 2013 #5

I wouldn't have to ignore those instructions because I don't believe Zimbo feared for his life. pacalo Jul 2013 #6

Bingo. He had a gun AND he knew the police were on their way. arcane1 Jul 2013 #10

That is Really the Best Argument On the Road Jul 2013 #52

With our alleged justice system? You bet I would. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author TDale313 Jul 2013 #8

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #9

As sad as it is, ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #11

No laws say "Did so and so do something stupid ... therefore murder." DirkGently Jul 2013 #12

I believe stupid->death is involuntary manslaughter MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #18

Okay, but FL has that. DirkGently Jul 2013 #21

"Without lawful justification" MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #38

I suspect that would be pretty universal. DirkGently Jul 2013 #50

culpable negligence DonCoquixote Jul 2013 #78

Yes. The duty of reasonable care. DirkGently Jul 2013 #84

That is what should have applied. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #119

Lawyers I have spoken to agree. DirkGently Jul 2013 #120

Do you think that Zimmerman could have pulled his gun out of his holster and shot JDPriestly Jul 2013 #117

Last one, because it's you. I don't know. DirkGently Jul 2013 #122

Yes, I believe in juror nullification. Raine Jul 2013 #13

I have sat on a Grand Jury... rexcat Jul 2013 #14

What state do you live in? nt MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #15

SW Ohio rexcat Jul 2013 #124

I've been on a jury as well laundry_queen Jul 2013 #107

I support jury nullification. nt ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #16

What if that's how Zimmerman got acquitted? The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #76

The end result is the same. nt ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #97

Doesn't matter if Zimmerman feared for his life, mattered if that jmg257 Jul 2013 #17

it is the right of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. grasswire Jul 2013 #19

'Jury Nullification' is about refusing to convict someone for a law you think is wrong PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #28

Like what happened to O.J. Simpson? The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #43

I don't think they were nullifying the law against murder. n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #45

This message was self-deleted by its author The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #48

No, it is not. A jury's function is only to decide the facts. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #60

you are absolutely wrong grasswire Jul 2013 #63

I was a trial lawyer for 17 years and I taught constitutional law. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #64

Have you never heard of jury nullification? grasswire Jul 2013 #65

I am quite familiar with it. I just don't think it's a good idea. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #66

"I don't think it's a good idea" is quite different from... grasswire Jul 2013 #79

Jury nullification doesn't "stand between COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #85

What if the Zimmerman jury used nullification to acquit him The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #86

From one trial lawer to another - COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #82

Yeah, maybe I should give up and go to bed. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #88

I hear you. Some days it's mind numbing. nt COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #93

Don't give up anomiep Jul 2013 #136

Zimmerman Ignored The Cops otohara Jul 2013 #20

In a heartbeat. forestpath Jul 2013 #22

I believe the jury is supposed to decide of a Just Saying Jul 2013 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #27

From the instructions given to the jury... PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #35

"reasonably cautious and prudent" RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #37

CORRECT Skittles Jul 2013 #77

"a reasonably cautious and prudent person" wouldn't have been in Zimmerman's position Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #41

In this case, Yes. BlueJazz Jul 2013 #24

If I was a juror, I would be prepared to do nullification to free someone, Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #25

That's a really interesting and moral take femmedem Jul 2013 #34

I am certain someone did fear for his life Skittles Jul 2013 #26

I would have thought that if Zimmerman feared for his life dflprincess Jul 2013 #29

yes G_j Jul 2013 #30

"�The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, hedgehog Jul 2013 #31

But only if they were sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #33

A jury ignoring instructions is a jury making up it's own laws. badtoworse Jul 2013 #32

So you would have voted to acquit the Klan members Art_from_Ark Jul 2013 #87

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #36

Yes, in this case and maybe others, too... Punkingal Jul 2013 #39

Like the O.J. Simpson jury did? It's called jury nullification The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #40

I think a guilty manslaughter decision could have been reached within the court's instructions nt arely staircase Jul 2013 #44

Yes, it could have been. nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #59

Agreed; no need for nullification to convict frazzled Jul 2013 #99

In a drug case, yes. I would vote "not guilty." Period. Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #46

What if Zimmerman's jury ignored some parts of the judge's instructions The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #51

I believe the law cites whether a REASONABLE person would be afriad for their life. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #53

Zim had the gun. He did not identify himself. Atman Jul 2013 #54

I would nullify so as NOT to send someone to prison. I wouldn't so as to send someone to prison.nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #55

That's what I was thinking. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #106

Yeah, diverging from the letter of the law in order to inflict punishment certainly.. JVS Jul 2013 #135

He knew he would win RobertEarl Jul 2013 #57

I haven't heard the instructions as they were given davidpdx Jul 2013 #67

you never know until you're actually in the situation. but i would hope i would do the right thing. orleans Jul 2013 #69

I think he lied enough to convict himself Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #73

I'm neither a lawyer nor a serious student of the law but jury nullification is a serious idea.... Rowdyboy Jul 2013 #75

No. The jury's function is to determine the facts and apply the law The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #80

I fully agree that your statement is accurate Rowdyboy Jul 2013 #89

it is our last defense against tyranny grasswire Jul 2013 #81

You can keep repeating it until COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #91

let me guess -- you're a constitutional lawyer too? nt grasswire Jul 2013 #94

I am a trial lawyer. I also taught some Con COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #96

I am wondering where all this libertarian claptrap is coming from. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #95

Actually, my theory is that it's probably COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #98

no, the scope of the juror is the law via the judge's instructions nt markiv Jul 2013 #83

... alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #90

In this case probably not. rrneck Jul 2013 #92

considering he lied about what happened TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #100

No. I have been on a jury in the past and I followed the instructions. ... spin Jul 2013 #101

How's that working for ya? n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #105

In recent years it doesn't seem to make much difference who we elect. ... spin Jul 2013 #109

Watch the 1933 film Duck Soup. Floriduh is as it has always been. Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #115

I happen to like the climate in Florida. I grew up in the snow belt. ... spin Jul 2013 #125

But the clouds are so much prettier in the west. Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #134

It's a little too hot and dry for me out west. (n/t) spin Jul 2013 #137

But they didn't ignore anything, they were simply confused Rex Jul 2013 #102

Jury nullification? In a heartbeat. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #103

It's called jury nullification, it's not illegal, and it happens often enough. nt MADem Jul 2013 #104

Convicting people by ignoring the law is not jury nullification. JVS Jul 2013 #123

Ignoring the letter of the law when reaching a verdict is jury nullification. MADem Jul 2013 #128

That's wrong. Webster's has the following. JVS Jul 2013 #133

Nullification refers to ignoring the law. The person might be innocent, but be an asshole. MADem Jul 2013 #140

No. The standard was beyond a reasonable doubt. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #110

Reasonable is a very big word in a courtroom... cynatnite Jul 2013 #118

yes I would. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #112

No... cynatnite Jul 2013 #116

I would possibly engage in jury nullification for acquittal (particularly on drug charges) JVS Jul 2013 #121

Try Reasonable Doubt. elleng Jul 2013 #127

not to send a perso. away Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #130

Wouldn't have to ignore instructions to convict in my opinion. ornotna Jul 2013 #132

OP, have you ever tussled with someone 40 pounds lighter than you? Ash_F Jul 2013 #139

of course it can be. It all depends on the skills and what kind of shape cali Jul 2013 #144

I've done it - ignored an instructed verdict & hung the jury Justitia Jul 2013 #142

Juries are allowed to disregard what they do not find believable/credible Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #145