George Zimmerman acquittal reactions

[Gaybutton]

Now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the Trayvon Martin killing case, what is your reaction?

[lvdkeyes]

Let me be the first here to say that I think he got away with murder. Defense attorneys said it was self defense, but if Zimmerman had followed the advice of the 911 dispatcher to hold his ground there wouldn't have been a need to defend himself. He chose to pursue the boy which led to the altercation and death.

[Gaybutton]

My take on it is I believe the jury might have convicted Zimmerman on lesser charges, but may have felt they could not convict on murder or manslaughter charges.

It remains to be seen as to whether he's out of the legal woods yet. He could still be brought up on federal charges. He could also be sued for wrongful death. Actually, I would be opposed to that. To me, that's tantamount to double, even triple jeopardy.

I too think he committed a crime and should have had to go to jail for something, but since he was acquitted, in my opinion that's where it should end and now the world should leave him alone.

[painai2]

One thing for sure, his defense lawyers did a magnificent job defending him. Anything less he would wouldn't have stood a chance.

[lvdkeyes]

He could also be sued for wrongful death. Actually, I would be opposed to that. To me, that's tantamount to double, even triple jeopardy.

I can't agree with this. Ron Goldman's family successfully sued OJ and rightfully so, IMHO. I do believe Zimmerman will have further run-ins with the law. Time will tell.

[Gaybutton]

I do believe Zimmerman will have further run-ins with the law.

I think so too, but I don't like it. I see it as a serious flaw in the American judicial system. My feeling is if someone is accused of a committing a crime that could include both state and federal charges, then he should be tried jointly on all the state and federal charges. Otherwise, to me it's the same as saying, "Ok, we couldn't get him this way, so now let's try to get him another way." I thought that kind of thing is what the USA is supposed to be against. I don't like it at all, considering it's perfectly obvious no matter what "legalese" is used, a person ends up being tried twice for the same crime. And if that doesn't work, now we can still go after him with lawsuits. A third trial for the same crime.

While I too believe Zimmerman is completely responsible for causing the entire incident, a larger issue of fairness is also involved - beyond specifically Zimmerman. I always thought the idea of no double jeopardy is supposed to mean if someone is tried for a crime, but a jury's decision is a not guilty verdict, then that's the end of it. I just don't like the idea that a belief that the jury got it wrong now means it's acceptable to use legal loopholes to try a person yet again for what amounts to a second trial for the same crime. Right or wrong, I think if criminal charges are appropriate, then all charges related to the crime, state and federal, should be brought forward at the same time and all the issues be tried at the same time, and if not, then they've lost their chance to bring further charges later on.

In my opinion Zimmerman should have been found guilty of manslaughter. Unfortunately, he wasn't. But if now he ends up arrested and tried yet again on federal charges, charges that have not even been made yet - charges that would be brought against him motivated by an opinion that the jury got it wrong, then what's the point of having a jury at all?

For me the bottom line is a criminal case should be an all or nothing trial. Any charges related to that case, state and/or federal, should be tried under a single umbrella. I dislike the system by which a person can be tried again and again until he is finally found guilty of something. I also feel that if lawsuits related to the same case are to be involved, then if the lawsuit has not been filed by the time such a case goes to criminal trial, plea bargain, or charges are dropped, then the opportunity to file such lawsuits should also be lost.

[bkkguy]

Let me be the first here to say that I think he got away with murder.

I too think he committed a crime and should have had to go to jail for something

is this based on what you read in the media or on the evidence presented in the court by the prosecution in this case?

or are you saying the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence presented?

do you believe in the US judicial system with criminal cases based on trial by a jury of your peers, on presumption of innocence and the need for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt - in this case did the jury fail, the system fail or did the prosecution fail in their task?

and surely the next legal action is a civil case where the standards of evidence are different with no double jeopardy implications

bkkguy

[Gaybutton]

is this based on what you read in the media or on the evidence presented in the court by the prosecution in this case?

or are you saying the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence presented?

For me, all three.

in this case did the jury fail, the system fail or did the prosecution fail in their task?

For me, also all three.

and surely the next legal action is a civil case

What makes you so sure about that? Why couldn't the next legal action be Zimmerman brought up on federal charges? So far, if the parents have said so much as one word about filing a civil case, I've missed it.

[bkkguy]

in this case did the jury fail, the system fail or did the prosecution fail in their task?

For me, also all three.

you can't have all three - if the prosecution failed then the jury and the system did not fail!

I go back to my original question - is your conclusion of guilt based on what you read in the media before the trial or on the evidence actually presented in the court by the prosecution in this case? and 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?

bkkguy

[Bob]

The system worked exactly as it was designed to work in my opinion. It's difficult for me to believe that anyone who watched any significant portion of the trial could conclude that the Zimmerman fellow was guilty of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. There was reasonable doubt all over the place. He was found not guilty - meaning that the case presented against him wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That verdict wasn't and never would be a finding of "innocence" or any lack of moral culpability.

I have no use for "neighborhood watch" type people nor the obvious profiling that occurred in the Zimmerman matter. I also have no use (in spite of the fact I'm a gun owner) for the loose laws in the US allowing just about anybody to carry a handgun. A true tragedy happened here - a 17-year-old kid was walking home in a perfectly lawful manner and, as Trayvon probably accurately stated, a "creepy ass cracker" was following him and probably scaring the kid a bit. Trayvon, once near home, probably physically attacked Zimmerman (the independent witness(es) seemed to verify that the kid was on top of Zimmerman in the scuffle) and, in reality, nobody other than the participants really knew what happened in that scuffle (other than Zimmerman was bloodied up a little and shot Trayvon through the heart).

I believe the jury faithfully did their job.