Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(52,075 posts)
29. this is the key question, which seems missed in much of du discussion
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 03:24 PM
Jul 2013

many, many threads about what amounts to did violate the law or not

very, very few thread about can any such violation be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

personally, it seems to me that the preponderance of evidence is that he is guilty; but of course that is the standard for a civil trial, and this is a criminal trial.

it also seems clear to me that zimmerman brought an unreasonable person's fear into the situation, but that doesn't prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a reasonable person would have acted differently.

on the other hand it's hardly an open-and-shut case because there's plenty of blanks to fill in regarding exactly what transpired.

i don't envy the jury's job here. it's actually a tough call.

Under Florida law, Jenoch Jul 2013 #1
That Is What The "10-20-Life Law Says In Florida ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #2
The Florida legislature might Jenoch Jul 2013 #3
No, Guess I Missed It. ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #10
Her name is Marissa Alexander. Jenoch Jul 2013 #11
You Know, While Reading The Statutes... ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #14
I read where a Florida legislator Jenoch Jul 2013 #15
Probably WAS Said... ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #16
When these laws are debated before they are enacted Jenoch Jul 2013 #19
May not get 2nd degree murder ..may get manslaughter....5 years SummerSnow Jul 2013 #4
Here... Google The 10-20-Life Law And ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #9
let's not get ahead of ourselves CatWoman Jul 2013 #5
2-5 years. kentuck Jul 2013 #6
I have not read anywhere Jenoch Jul 2013 #12
I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. reflection Jul 2013 #7
I thought manslaughter was off the table? Callmecrazy Jul 2013 #8
No...it's a lesser included. dkf Jul 2013 #28
Absent any compelling evidence of a crime, it's looking like an acquittal cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #13
this is the key question, which seems missed in much of du discussion unblock Jul 2013 #29
If I had to guess...15 yrs. Just a guess. For manslaughter. But juries can't be second guessed.nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #17
zero years. I don't think he will be found guilty rollin74 Jul 2013 #18
If they convict on Negligent Homicide - 25 years. nt avebury Jul 2013 #20
The choices are 2nd degree murder and manslaughter, I thought. ? Not negl. homicide. nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #21
You are correct, I got it wrong. avebury Jul 2013 #23
I said 15 yrs, for manslaughter. I think they'll find he was criminally responsible, but "depraved Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #24
I'd bet one way or another you'll see him on the street 5 years from now. 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #22
Not long enough, IMO. nt raccoon Jul 2013 #25
Two words Brother Buzz Jul 2013 #26
I give him at least a 50-50 chance of walking scot free DFW Jul 2013 #27
I think he'll walk olddots Jul 2013 #30
And how many here will scream bloody murder when he is acquitted? Bake Jul 2013 #31
You can bet there will be plenty of those. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #32
kick rollin74 Jul 2013 #33
This jury will hang OmahaBlueDog Jul 2013 #34
No sentence. Acquittal. Reasonable doubt. nt bike man Jul 2013 #35
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #36
+1, I agree, wish for retribution. uppityperson Jul 2013 #37
I think he is guilty of manslaughter ripcord Jul 2013 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How long do you think Zim...»Reply #29