I frankly hate the criminal justice system but I have no idea what the answer is. If I lived in Sanford, if they could look past the whole black male thing, hahaha, I am definitely smart enough to get on that jury and there is literally nothing I would hear that would make me vote not-guilty. I think Zimmerman is a dangerous sociopath who has hurt people before and he will hurt again, prisons are filled with people more redeeming and congenial than George Zimmerman. In the same light there are hundreds or thousands, if not millions of people like KSUW that would gladly serve on that jury and acquit Zimmerman for ridding the nation of thugs the likes of Trayvon Martin.
If there is literally nothing that could get you to vote not - guilty, then your opinion is pretty similar to ksuw, who would probably never vote guilty no matter the evidence. It's kind of disturbing to me that someone as intelligent as you would take this stance.
Please don't lump me in with MIR. If I was on the jury, I'd consider all the evidence and apply it to the law. From what I've seen so far, the relative lack of eye witness testimony in favor of the state, coupled with the fact that much of the eye witness testimony, GZ's injuries, etc are consistent with his theory of self defense, make it very very unlikely that the state can meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is TONS of doubt. We haven't even got into the defense's witnesses yet. This is all coming from people the state put on.
I just get a little irritated by all the internet tuff guys around here who want to pretend they'd act differently if they were pinned to the ground taking punches to the face.
Probably the biggest divide upon which reasonable people can disagree is I don't think there was anything wrong with GZ approaching TM to ask "what are you doing here" and I don't think that justified getting jumped. If you want to disagree on whether that's what actually happened, fine. Nobody can know for sure.
