Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Its not about being "dim". Its about the prosecution making its case for anything from 1st Degree Murder to Manslaughter "beyond a reasonable doubt." Folks like you, noone, had already decided this case when the story first broke and before all of the facts had been fully vetted. You'd probably never have sat in the jury box for this case because you'd never have survived jury selection if you'd answered the questions truthfully about whether you could keep an open mind during the trial. But if you had sat in the jury box, you'd have to listen to hours of testimony, and you'd have to decide whether all of the fact could lead you to a conclusion that - beyond a reasonable doubt - Zimmerman committed a crime as defined by the law.
I have no idea what the jury will decide in this case. I see some of you are already attempting to advance a narrative that suggests that an acquittal on anything but murder one might mean that the jury was "dim". However, there are a number of reports that I've heard that suggest an objective analysis of the trial leaves a lot of room for the jury to acquit, because the prosecution did not make their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...2#.UdnkHz7DVoY |
Murder one? Not even on the table, Mike. Noone is right, Zippy has by his own words convicted himself of manslaughter and in light of the testimony that I've heard that is the most likely outcome here.
The real criminals in all of this is A.L.E.C., the sumbitches over at the N.R.A. who wrote this shit assed SYG law.