Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Jojo the circus boy]

I didn't read who made the comment, so if it's Jo Jo, forgive me...we can move on.

The Omission strikes again!

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

what's with the moment of silence? has to be some lawyer trick, right?

It's the timeframe he just pointed out between rachel's phonecall ending and somebody's 911 call.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So who wants to guess that defenses sidebar this morning was warning the judge and prosecutors that'd he'd be taking a 5min break but not really, so don't interrupt it?

Ha love it, that's how long Trayvon had to run, about 4 minutes, yet chose not to.

 

[The Commish]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

the anti-Zimmerman crowd was going with "There's no black people on the jury!" before the trial even started in case they found him innocent.

Good for them?? I wasn't really around prior to the trial. I found the comment above particularly interesting given the beatdown that happened yesterday and the day before when it came to the law and how wrong jon was about it....nothing more.

 

[jon_mx]

jon putting on an irony clinic

So are we back to trying to suggest this is a SYG case again?!?!?!?! I didn't read who made the comment, so if it's Jo Jo, forgive me...we can move on.

If by dropping SYG eliminates the fear of bodily harm from the equation, the defense lawyers were morons for just voluntarily dropping it.

 

[Arizona Ron]

what's with the moment of silence? has to be some lawyer trick, right?

I can't believe the Defense thought this is a good idea. No ####, if you stare at a clock for X mins it's going to seem like a long time.

Stupid IMO

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

I am not following your reasoning for removing the fear of great bodily harm from the equation.

Nobody is removing fear of great bodily harm from the equation. What the instruction suggests, however, is a way for the jury to define "great bodily harm." Which is the type of harm likely to result from the use of deadly force. I disagreed with the judge's decision to leave a complete definition out of the instructions, but I still think the instructions themselves are inconsistent with the idea that the jury could perceive a broken nose or the injuries commonly sustained in a fist fight as "great bodily harm."

They'd have to credit the out of court statements of Zimmerman that he felt he was being suffocated or that Martin saw his gun which have much less evidentiary support.

 

[timschochet]

This guy is really a poor speaker. They should have gone with Don West.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

Doesn't the deadly force in that section apply to the force GZ did to TM?

It does, but the meaning of words don't magically change when you put them in the next sentence. What the instructions reflect is a proportionality concept.

 

[The Commish]

I didn't read who made the comment, so if it's Jo Jo, forgive me...we can move on.

The Omission strikes again!

It's stuff like this that makes you who you are....don't change a thing!!!

It's not uncommon when someone is losing an argument to resort to name calling such as nimrod, Klingon opera, etc...

I get why you want to know WHO said something over WHAT was said....but I generally take the other approach. It's less biased that way.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

ratings booster!

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I didn't read who made the comment, so if it's Jo Jo, forgive me...we can move on.

The Omission strikes again!

It's stuff like this that makes you who you are....don't change a thing!!!

It's not uncommon when someone is losing an argument to resort to name calling such as nimrod, Klingon opera, etc...

I get why you want to know WHO said something over WHAT was said....but I generally take the other approach. It's less biased that way.

Dirty Hands

 

[The Commish]

I didn't read who made the comment, so if it's Jo Jo, forgive me...we can move on.

The Omission strikes again!

It's stuff like this that makes you who you are....don't change a thing!!!

It's not uncommon when someone is losing an argument to resort to name calling such as nimrod, Klingon opera, etc...

I get why you want to know WHO said something over WHAT was said....but I generally take the other approach. It's less biased that way.

Dirty Hands

abc123

 

[jamny]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

Doesn't the deadly force in that section apply to the force GZ did to TM?

It does, but the meaning of words don't magically change when you put them in the next sentence. What the instructions reflect is a proportionality concept.

I guess I'm confused. It seems to me that the last section means that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force because he reasonably believed that such force was

necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

what's with the moment of silence? has to be some lawyer trick, right?

I can't believe the Defense thought this is a good idea. No ####, if you stare at a clock for X mins it's going to seem like a long time.

Stupid IMO

I don't know if it's stupid, but yea sitting in silence feels a lot longer than if you were running or walking for the same amount of time.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

Doesn't the deadly force in that section apply to the force GZ did to TM?

It does, but the meaning of words don't magically change when you put them in the next sentence. What the instructions reflect is a proportionality concept.

I guess I'm confused. It seems to me that the last section means that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force because he reasonably believed that such force was

necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

Yes. That's what it says.

Zimmerman is justified in using force "likely to cause death or great bodily harm" if he reasonably believes he is in danger of sustaining injuries causing "death or great bodily harm" to himself.

The phrase "great bodily harm" is used twice. It should mean the same thing in both instances.

So let's leave the second part out of it for now. When the instructions say that "deadly force" is force "likely to cause death or great bodily harm" do you think they're talking about justifying punching someone in the nose? Or even getting in fist fight? If the phrase doesn't mean that when it is first used, it shouldn't mean that in the second instance.

Which is simply a way of saying that the defendant would have to reasonably fear injuries that are more severe than what Zimmerman sustained. The defense has argued that Zimmerman did, but I still think a proper construction of those instruction should present a problem.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

Doesn't the deadly force in that section apply to the force GZ did to TM?

It does, but the meaning of words don't magically change when you put them in the next sentence. What the instructions reflect is a proportionality concept.

Ramsay, correct me if I am wrong, but in the previous self-defense statute that you cited, there was language stating that an aggressor had a duty to retreat and was subjected to a higher burden before being allowed to resort to deadly force, right? How was this not an element of one of the jury instructions; If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was the aggressor, then he had a duty to . . . . If you have doubt that GZ was the aggressor then [current jury instruction incorporating SYG language] . . . .

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

Doesn't the deadly force in that section apply to the force GZ did to TM?

It does, but the meaning of words don't magically change when you put them in the next sentence. What the instructions reflect is a proportionality concept.

Ramsay, correct me if I am wrong, but in the previous self-defense statute that you cited, there was language stating that an aggressor had a duty to retreat and was subjected to a higher burden before being allowed to resort to deadly force, right? How was this not an element of one of the jury instructions; If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was the aggressor, then he had a duty to . . . . If you have doubt that GZ was the aggressor then [current jury instruction incorporating SYG language] . . . .

This is true. If the Defendant is found to be the "aggressor" he must prove that he had no reasonable alternative (including retreat) to the use of deadly force. I don't know why that didn't make the instructions since the State has certainly tried to argue that Zimmerman was the aggressor because he followed Martin (I don't really buy that argument, but it's one they are making).

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

You think the female jurors like an arrogant man? This guy is basically talking down to the jury. He's not doing a good job with this closing.

Seems like he's just calmly walking the jury through the evidence...... unlike Sam Kinnison yesterday.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You think the female jurors like an arrogant man? This guy is basically talking down to the jury. He's not doing a good job with this closing.

Seems like he's just calmly walking the jury through the evidence...... unlike Sam Kinnison yesterday.

= Sam Kinnison smilie

 

[UCFOleboy]

Guess I've never been in decent shape. Don't think I can run a mile in 4 minutes.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

pretty cool that MOM is not trumpeting out all of the slurs that Martin and DiDi talked about in describing Zimmerman - he says Martin was 17 - who cares what they said, O'Mara's above that - [unlike the State attorneys].

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Guess I've never been in decent shape. Don't think I can run a mile in 4 minutes.

Wuemeka does not approve

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

The bolded is why he won't be convicted of manslaughter, imo.

I'm not sure I understand.

Here is an excerpt of the jury instructions that were given (which are admittedly, in whole, favorable to the defense):

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

I think if the jury had to believe that GZ was in fear of being killed that's one thing. How can they possibly not believe that he feared great bodily harm? Of course, that is, if you believe it was him screaming and was on the bottom with TM raining blows down on him.

Because the force that was being used against him was (likely) not what I would consider "deadly force," based on the extent of Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries.

Doesn't the deadly force in that section apply to the force GZ did to TM?

It does, but the meaning of words don't magically change when you put them in the next sentence. What the instructions reflect is a proportionality concept.

Ramsay, correct me if I am wrong, but in the previous self-defense statute that you cited, there was language stating that an aggressor had a duty to retreat and was subjected to a higher burden before being allowed to resort to deadly force, right? How was this not an element of one of the jury instructions; If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was the aggressor, then he had a duty to . . . . If you have doubt that GZ was the aggressor then [current jury instruction incorporating SYG language] . . . .

This is true. If the Defendant is found to be the "aggressor" he must prove that he had no reasonable alternative (including retreat) to the use of deadly force. I don't know why that didn't make the instructions since the State has certainly tried to argue that Zimmerman was the aggressor because he followed Martin (I don't really buy that argument, but it's one they are making).

It seems that if the prosecutor's two main arguments were 1) GZ was the aggressor from either following, confronting, and/or initiating contact by grabbing or pushing (the bump Rachel hears) and/or 2) that he was not justified in using deadly force due to not reasonably fearing imminent death or great bodily harm, that both instructions and their definitions should have been the main things they fought for. I do not recall any discussion about an instruction about an aggressor other than wanting to state whether following was legal/illegal. What was the point of that discussion if there was no jury instruction about what being the aggressor does to duties under the law? I feel like I missed something, or it's in there somewhere? If it's not, it seems like a big error to me, or am I over thinking or stating this?

 

[Slapdash]

Just saw a commercial on AMC:

Bronson: What's the problem?

Thug 1: We're stealing a car...what's it to you?

Bronson: It's MY car.

Thug 2: Now you gonna die! [flicks open a switch blade]

Bronson: Pulls gun and blasts.

Death Wish Marathon this weekend.

Kinda appropo, no?

Not at all.

 

[timschochet]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

MOM: Hands outstretched pointing, "You have two dots this far away, can you PLEASE connect the dots?" when talking about the State's case.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I think it is your frame of mind. Try listening from the perspective that you are George Zimmerman.

 

[timschochet]

What stucco guy? How irrelevant is that? What George said was, "these guys always get away!" He never said, "These guys always get away and somebody else catches them."

What an absurd argument.

 

[timschochet]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I think it is your frame of mind. Try listening from the perspective that you are George Zimmerman.

Is that what you do?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It seems that if the prosecutor's two main arguments were 1) GZ was the aggressor from either following, confronting, and/or initiating contact by grabbing or pushing (the bump Rachel hears) and/or 2) that he was not justified in using deadly force due to not reasonably fearing imminent death or great bodily harm, that both instructions and their definitions should have been the main things they fought for. I do not recall any discussion about an instruction about an aggressor other than wanting to state whether following was legal/illegal. What was the point of that discussion if there was no jury instruction about what being the aggressor does to duties under the law? I feel like I missed something, or it's in there somewhere? If it's not, it seems like a big error to me, or am I over thinking or stating this?

I'll be honest. It's tough to figure out the prosecution's argument. From the close, it seemed to me to be something to the effect of:

"George Zimmerman has constantly lied about this incident, and we know we know he didn't like people like Trayvon Martin, so we can't really believe anything he said. Who's to say he didn't initiate confrontation? Who's to say he didn't set out to confront Martin."

To an extent, I understand that. Jurors aren't lawyers. They're more concerned with a narrative than mechanically trying to satisfy every element of a crime.

But yes, I would have offered an instruction on the aggressor. And I think my theme in closing would have been something like this:

"There is no dispute that George Zimmerman shot an unarmed man. There is no dispute that George Zimmerman sustained no injuries grave enough to require his hospitalization. The defense has offered several contradictory and self-serving accounts of how this incident occurred, but none of those accounts dispute these essential facts. You have heard evidence of Zimmerman's motivations and evidence that he has contradicted himself on several occasions, but more fundamentally you have heard evidence that George Zimmerman shot an unarmed victim."

 

[Arizona Ron]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I strongly agree and said the same earlier. The Jury has written instructions yet he felt the need to basically read it to them.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I would always reference the written instructions in a closing. The jury is tasked to apply the law to the facts they find. The best structure for a close, IMO, is to illustrate how the evidence introduced at trial relates to the law as illustrated by the jury instructions.

 

[jamny]

What a surprise. People like or dislike closing arguments based on which side they are for.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What stucco guy? How irrelevant is that? What George said was, "these guys always get away!" He never said, "These guys always get away and somebody else catches them."

What an absurd argument.

That's the State's argument.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I think it is your frame of mind. Try listening from the perspective that you are George Zimmerman.

Is that what you do?

Do you hear anyone else #####ing about MOM's delivery?

 

[jon_mx]

I am not watching. But if I was the defense I would lay out clearly what the prosecution promised in their opening and what they delivered. I would stress what their burdon of proof is and where they failed. I was say the words reasonable doubt about 100 times. I would stress it is not the defense's burdon to prove the case, but the prosecution.

 

[The Commish]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I think it is your frame of mind. Try listening from the perspective that you are George Zimmerman.

Right....that's not biased in any way How about try listening from a JUROR'S perspective....that's all that matters and the least biased approach you have.

 

[timschochet]

What a surprise. People like or dislike closing arguments based on which side they are for.

Other than the knock knock joke, I really liked Don West's opening argument. He didn't talk down to the jury. This guy really does.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I haven't watched as closely, but I think the defense has been more effective and focused. Again, by biases are significantly different than a jurors. I value coherence and thematic consistency. I think the defense has done that well.

 

[jamny]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I think it is your frame of mind. Try listening from the perspective that you are George Zimmerman.

Right....that's not biased in any way How about try listening from a JUROR'S perspective....that's all that matters and the least biased approach you have.

I would imagine most, if not all, of the jurors are already leaning one way or another and are listening to closing arguments with a bias as well.

 

[jamny]

What a surprise. People like or dislike closing arguments based on which side they are for.

Other than the knock knock joke, I really liked Don West's opening argument. He didn't talk down to the jury. This guy really does.

I don't sense that at all. Seems just matter-of-fact. If anything a little more emotion might be nice.

 

[The Commish]

I haven't watched as closely, but I think the defense has been more effective and focused. Again, by biases are significantly different than a jurors. I value coherence and thematic consistency. I think the defense has done that well.

Genuine question.....is there ever a worry from a lawyer's perspective that they will ever get selected for a jury? It doesn't seem like either a prosecutor or defender would want a lawyer on the stand for any reason

 

[Swing 51]

Can someone please link me up to the potential jail time Zim could be looking at? Did I hear 30 years is a possibility?

 

[ArbyMelt]

Do these writers even watch the trial before the post such trash?

http://www.freep.com/article/20130711/COL10/307110159/Rochelle-Riley-Trayvon-Martin-s-death-should-inspire-better-laws

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I haven't watched as closely, but I think the defense has been more effective and focused. Again, by biases are significantly different than a jurors. I value coherence and thematic consistency. I think the defense has done that well.

Genuine question.....is there ever a worry from a lawyer's perspective that they will ever get selected for a jury? It doesn't seem like either a prosecutor or defender would want a lawyer on the stand for any reason

My understanding is that is true in general, but not really in jurisdictions where there are lots of lawyers. I have jury duty in August. I'll report back.

 

[jon_mx]

I haven't watched as closely, but I think the defense has been more effective and focused. Again, by biases are significantly different than a jurors. I value coherence and thematic consistency. I think the defense has done that well.

The prosecution had little choice. Any coherent story they tried to tell would have gaping holes and thus easy to find reasonable doubt.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I haven't watched as closely, but I think the defense has been more effective and focused. Again, by biases are significantly different than a jurors. I value coherence and thematic consistency. I think the defense has done that well.

Genuine question.....is there ever a worry from a lawyer's perspective that they will ever get selected for a jury? It doesn't seem like either a prosecutor or defender would want a lawyer on the stand for any reason

My understanding is that is true in general, but not really in jurisdictions where there are lots of lawyers. I have jury duty in August. I'll report back.

I'm a lawyer, and I've been chosen for jury duty in what I believe is your lawyer-heavy jurisdiction. I hadn't done any criminal work since law school, though.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Can someone please link me up to the potential jail time Zim could be looking at? Did I hear 30 years is a possibility?

I believe this sums it up nicely:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-07-11/news/os-george-zimmerman-trial-charges-20130711_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-second-degree-murder

What's the difference between second-degree murder and manslaughter?

Orlando criminal defense attorney Richard Hornsby summed it up in a word: Malice.

In a second-degree murder case, prosecutors must prove the defendant killed the victim and had malice toward or disliked him.

In manslaughter cases, prosecutors must prove the defendant committed an act that caused someone's death.

How much time could Zimmerman face if convicted of second-degree murder?

Up to life in prison.

How much time could he face if convicted of manslaughter?

A maximum of 30 years.

What's the likely prison sentence range Zimmerman would face if convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter?

Calculating sentences is a complicated procedure that considers multiple factors, and ultimately the judge has the final say.

But Hornsby speculated Zimmerman would face a minimum of 17 years to life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder.

If Zimmerman is found guilty of manslaughter, he could face 10 to 30 years in prison, Hornsby said.

How could Florida's 10-20-Life law impact the sentencing?

The law brings enhanced penalties to crimes that involve a firearm. The jury will have to make a finding about if and how a gun was used on a special verdict form.

Here are the charges jurors will consider during deliberations:

Second-degree murder, which could result in a sentence of up to life in prison

Manslaughter, which could result in a maximum 30-year prison sentence.

 

[The Commish]

Man is it just me or is this guy not only a really poor speaker but he seems to be going out of his way to talk down to the jury? He is extremely patronizing, and when he says "I'm not going to let you get away with..." if I were on the jury that would really piss me off.

I think it is your frame of mind. Try listening from the perspective that you are George Zimmerman.

Right....that's not biased in any way How about try listening from a JUROR'S perspective....that's all that matters and the least biased approach you have.

I would imagine most, if not all, of the jurors are already leaning one way or another and are listening to closing arguments with a bias as well.

Don't disagree....leaning one way or the other <> firmly entrenched. I'd hope these ladies have started forming opinions because the approaches from both sides have been less than desirable IMO.