Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutt
For me and I would expect the jurors it will come down to believing Zimmerman's version of the story where Martin went for Zimmerman's gun and uttered a death threat - who started the fight to me is irrelevant, I don't believe in a brawl where two people are on the ground without weapons that anybody is in mortal danger, therefore I don't buy the self defense defense. I definitely have reasonable doubt whether Zimmerman's account is the truth. But I also believe Zimmerman's story could be true, 50/50 for me true or bullshit. So if I was on the jury would my opinion that Zimmerman's account *could* be true be 'reasonable doubt' which would compel me to find him not guilty on any charges? Or do I have to believe Zimmerman's account is the truth beyond a reasonable doubt?
I'd have no problem convicting him of manslaughter UNLESS the judge instructed me that my doubt that Zimmerman might be lying about Martin going for the gun doesn't mean I still don't have reasonable doubt which means I should vote to acquit.
So armchair judges - if I only believe that Zimmerman's story might be true, say 50%, is that 'reasonable doubt'?
|
Well it's tough to say because the law and case is pretty unusual. There is no possibility for reasonable doubt that GZ shot and killed TM. The whole issue is whether it was Justifiable Force. It's not like a normal crime in that way then. You have to try to figure out what was in GZ's head and then you also have to look at whether GZ committed any actions which were unlawful.
The jury was instructed not to hold this against GZ but for me his lack of taking the stand would be something I would have to consider secretly. For most of the events he is the only witness still alive. His testimony and reenactments to the police may have helped fill in some of the story but his not taking the stand would make me think he has something to hide or that he is afraid to be questioned. A normal responsible citizen who just shot an unarmed teen under these circumstances would usually feel it their duty to help set the record straight and to open themselves up for questioning.
So you could say that your not being sure whether to believe him or not is partially his own fault due to his not taking the stand as a normal responsible innocent person would.