jgalt wrote:grousemaster wrote:mnmike59 wrote:I've been watching the trial live. Even if I try very hard to see the prosecutions side. THERE IS NO WAY IN HE!! they can convict him. Unless of course the jurors have been toldthreatened they better get a conviction or there will be riots.
I can't figure out how a judge even allowed this trial to proceed...are we missing something? Maybe JeremiahMN can explain? He seems to think there is a case to be made against ZImmerman here.
JeremiahMN & Heffay both explained themselves pretty clearly, and their position mirrors closely what the mainstream media has been saying all along. Zimmerman followed Martin - since he initiated contact, he is not able to claim reluctant participant status, and therefore is unable to claim self defense.
This view is flat-out wrong (jshuberg explained why pretty well), but it is a very common one, so you shouldn't be surprised that folks who see it that way would want the prosecution to go forward.
+1 and agreed with you on that.
Now to play Devil's Advocate a minute.........
Above your post, I said:
"+1 on that what jshuberg said, however, can the jury not make up it's own mind and decide even if it counters the law? Granted, it may get appealed, go into another court, but a jury is a power unto itself, so I've heard. This is one reason Jury Nullification works. IANAL, but that's my understanding."...now I want to elaborate on that with an example.
I'm not lawyer, so I have a layman's understanding of the law.... Let's say someone follows another person, doesn't break the law, skirts the edge, lives in the gray area and does things that aren't illegal, yet could be considered stalking/harassment by the average person even if it doesn't fit the legal definition of it.... most people will think "If it were me, how would I feel? Can I see myself doing that or feeling that way like the victim might be?" ...and if they feel that in the same situation that they would feel stalked/harassed; then as a juror, regardless of what the law says, they will likely vote according to their feelings since they resonate with it.
Likewise, even if someone escalates a situation, the other person somehow regains this "reluctant" status as a participant, as a juror, I'm also going to look at the entire thing, not just one part and think "Well, since he did XYZ, he's now reluctant again." As a juror, I'll use the law as a loose guideline, but I will never adhere to it verbatim or even a majority of what the law says... I'd vote based on my own thoughts, feelings, logic, taking in all of the data into account.
If for instance, someone gets busted for a bag of weed and I was on the jury, I'd use Jury Nullification since I don't think weed should be illegal. I disagree with the law. Nope. People should smoke and shoot guns, drive cars, etc, just like with booze, but booze is legal. If you drink too much, you die. Smoke too much, and you order a movie and 5 pizzas, maybe smoke yourself straight. Too much booze and people want to fight, too much weed, they go to sleep.
My Devil's Advocacy is that neither JeramiahMN's point and stance is as solid as Jshuberg's is because you have the human element involved.
Based on what I know about GZ/TM, I think GZ should be acquitted with prejudice and his record cleared, gun rights restored.
))
