George Zimmerman acquittal reactions

[Gaybutton]

you can't have all three

Is that so? I'm taking all three anyhow. I think the prosecution failed. Of course the prosecution failed. If the prosecution had succeeded, then Zimmerman would have been convicted. The jury failed, in my opinion, because I think Zimmerman should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge. The system failed because murder and manslaughter were the only two conviction options the jury had. That's all three.

The only part of your original question I didn't answer was: "do you believe in trial by a jury of your peers, on presumption of innocence and the need for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt?" My answer is yes.

[Bob]

I think the prosecution failed. Of course the prosecution failed. If the prosecution had succeeded, then Zimmerman would have been convicted. The jury failed, in my opinion, because I think Zimmerman should have been convicted on the manslaughter charge. The system failed because murder and manslaughter were the only two conviction options the jury had.

Disagree with you on all counts.

The fact that a prosecution failed to secure a conviction is not a determination that the prosecutors did anything wrong or anything other than their job. They were competent people (as were defense counsel) and presented the best case they could under the rules of evidence. I can only applaud them for doing their job well.

Every credible legal analyst in the US (and there were many of them who waded into this controversial case) said they saw reasonable doubt all over the place. If that was the case (I happen to agree with that notion, having watched a fair amount of the key testimony myself), the jury should only be applauded for doing exactly what they were supposed to do - acquit if they determined any reasonable doubt existed.

Having a fair understanding of the rules regarding the presentation of lesser-included options to a jury, I don't understand your comment that the "system failed." What other options are you talking about? And would you happen to agree that this particular defendant would have been entitled to plead self-defense as a defense to your proposed other options? And do you understand that it was the prosecution's duty to disprove the claim of self-defense?

[The "stand your ground" issue was not directly presented in this case; however, the issue of the expansion of self-defense law was present. Historically, one could legally use lethal force (if fearing death or grievous bodily harm) without any duty to retreat only if you were in your home. Some states, including Florida, have extended this concept outside the home - and that is an expansion that I don't agree with as it only increases the chances of deadly confrontations (especially given the insanity of allowing every Tom, Dick & Harry to pack a handgun). In my view, Florida self-defense law ought to be amended back to the historical standard - thus requiring Zimmerman to retreat (rather than use lethal force) if he had any reasonable option to do so; however, that's not the law in Florida and the jury was correctly told by the judge that Zimmerman had no legal duty to retreat.]

[Gaybutton]

Disagree with you on all counts.

I didn't say the prosecution did anything wrong or anything other than their job. I said the prosecution failed. The prosecution did not get a conviction. That's not my idea of success.

I saw reasonable doubt too - on the murder charge. I saw none on the manslaughter charge. While the legal analysts might be absolutely right, I have my own opinions too. If I was on the jury I would have wanted to convict on the manslaughter charge. The jury had to reach their decision without the presence of legal analysts in the room with them. I've also seen credible legal analysts on the news shows saying the jury was wrong. As far as I can tell, the legal analysts are split down the middle.

I said the system failed because the only options for the jury were to convict on murder charges, manslaughter charges or acquit. I think they should have had lesser charge options too, but they had no such options. That's why I think the system failed. Self defense or not, there would have been nothing to self defend about if Zimmerman had done what he was supposed to do in the first place. He had no business confronting Trayvon Martin at all. He wasn't a police officer, wore no uniform, and even he makes no claim to have identified himself as some sort of official when he initially confronted Trayvon Martin. From Trayvon Martin's point of view, he had no reason to think anything other than some jerk was trying to harass him and then cause God-knows-what kind of trouble. Zimmerman initiated the trouble, not Trayvon Martin. When a Neighborhood Watch person sees someone suspicious, he's supposed to call the police and let them handle it. He was even instructed by the police not to follow or leave his car. He did anyway. If Zimmerman had done what he was supposed to do and had listened to the instructions of the police, then nobody would have ever heard of Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin.

One thing nobody is disputing is that Trayvon Martin was doing absolutely nothing wrong. He was completely unarmed and merely walking home, but ended up dead at the hands of Zimmerman. The fact that Zimmerman got to just walk out of the courtroom door tells me that something is really wrong.

I also think it is a failure of the system in that state and federal charges don't have to be tried under one umbrella. While I disagree with the jury in this case, I don't think it's right for federal charges to be filed later and Zimmerman could end up, and probably will end up, being tried again for the same incident. I think the system should get one shot at a defendant and that's all. And I think that should include lawsuits or the defendant could end up tried a third time. I think Zimmerman should have been found guilty on the manslaughter charge, but since he wasn't, I think that should be the end of it.

[Bob]

If I was on the jury I would have wanted to convict on the manslaughter charge.

I too personally wanted Zimmerman to be convicted of something; however, what I wanted (or what any juror wants) isn't part of our system. They hear the evidence, they're told the elements of a crime, and ultimately it's their job is to totally disregard their personal desires and biases and then proceed to determine if the elements were proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Inserting their personal desires, wants, or biases would be a violation of their duties and oath.

And we view "failure" and "success" differently when viewing either a prosecution (or defense) or the ultimate outcome of a trial. Both sides doing their job competently with a judge impartially controlling the proceeding is nothing but a success for the system regardless of the outcome. Good prosecutors might express disappointment at a given outcome but neither they nor the system view a "not guilty" as a failure. The Zimmerman prosecutors did indeed express disappointment at the verdict but they also clearly and calmly said they accept it. That's how the system is supposed to work.