George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[Rams]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

[steve dave]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

ksuwildcats has turned to "the law's not fair" from his previous stance of "he has a legal right to shoot the kid".

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

ksuwildcats has turned to "the law's not fair" from his previous stance of "he has a legal right to shoot the kid".

The law is perfectly fair. A compromise verdict is not. No matter how weak the state's case, the jury is always the wild card.

[michigancat]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

ksuwildcats has turned to "the law's not fair" from his previous stance of "he has a legal right to shoot the kid".

The law is perfectly fair. A compromise verdict is not. No matter how weak the state's case, the jury is always the wild card.

the law allows for "compromise verdicts".

[steve dave]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

ksuwildcats has turned to "the law's not fair" from his previous stance of "he has a legal right to shoot the kid".

The law is perfectly fair. A compromise verdict is not. No matter how weak the state's case, the jury is always the wild card.

the law allows for "compromise verdicts".

well obviously that part of the law isn't fair

[Trim]

Completely out of context, but lol:

https://vine.co/v/hZvXX9nTmK2

[Trim]

Not specific to this case, but I've always found it weird that the term "manslaughter" is for a lesser offense than "murder."  Like "slaughtering a man" feels like an extra mumped up beyond murder. 

Not as bad as quarterback/halfback/fullback.

[steve dave]

Completely out of context, but lol:

https://vine.co/v/hZvXX9nTmK2

lol wut

[steve dave]

Not as bad as quarterback/halfback/fullback.

yes, this is straight out of retardville and mumped with tiny lil steve dave's mind for years until he just gave up and accepted it

[Trim]

Not as bad as quarterback/halfback/fullback.

yes, this is straight out of retardville and mumped with tiny lil steve dave's mind for years until he just gave up and accepted it

I want gE to become big enough that we can make it right.  Like, in 12-15 years maybe?

[Trim]

Completely out of context, but lol:

https://vine.co/v/hZvXX9nTmK2

lol wut

She was quoting what Zimmerman said on the 911 call.  She even prefaced it by warning the viewers she was about to quote it.

But it's a lot funnier the way I cut it.

[steve dave]

Completely out of context, but lol:

https://vine.co/v/hZvXX9nTmK2

lol wut

She was quoting what Zimmerman said on the 911 call.  She even prefaced it by warning the viewers she was about to quote it.

But it's a lot funnier the way I cut it.

yes, absolutely

[Cartierfor3]

Not specific to this case, but I've always found it weird that the term "manslaughter" is for a lesser offense than "murder."  Like "slaughtering a man" feels like an extra mumped up beyond murder. 

Not as bad as quarterback/halfback/fullback.

[sys]

So we're going to ignore what we know about the pursuit as fact because of what the defendant said he did or didn't do?

i don't know anything about the pursuit.  what is it that you claim to know that falsifies the defendant's story?

[Rams]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

ksuwildcats has turned to "the law's not fair" from his previous stance of "he has a legal right to shoot the kid".

The law is perfectly fair. A compromise verdict is not. No matter how weak the state's case, the jury is always the wild card.

setting aside my own controversial views on juries in general, what exactly do you find unfair about "compromise verdicts?"

[SkinnyBenny]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

ksuwildcats has turned to "the law's not fair" from his previous stance of "he has a legal right to shoot the kid".

The law is perfectly fair. A compromise verdict is not. No matter how weak the state's case, the jury is always the wild card.

setting aside my own controversial views on juries in general, what exactly do you find unfair about "compromise verdicts?"

He just finds it unfair when it punishes his guy.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The guy should absolutely get manslaughter

What the jury doesn't know is that in FL, the sentencing for manslaughter with a gun is basically the same as for second degree murder. Talking 20 to 30 years. That's why a compromise verdict would be especially outrageous in this case.

B) it's not their job to decide how long he should be in jail. their only job is to decide whether he's guilty of a crime based on the definition set forth in the statute.

Exactly. But there is a real risk that the jury may "compromise" with a holdout by voting manslaughter if they think it's a more typical 3-5 year sentence. Manslaughter doesn't sound nearly as bad as murder, and it usually isn't, but FL law is different. Which is why I said that a compromise guilty verdict would be especially bad in this case.

that's a risk you take when you shoot someone with a gun.

ksuwildcats has turned to "the law's not fair" from his previous stance of "he has a legal right to shoot the kid".

The law is perfectly fair. A compromise verdict is not. No matter how weak the state's case, the jury is always the wild card.

setting aside my own controversial views on juries in general, what exactly do you find unfair about "compromise verdicts?"

The jury is instructed that they must consider each charge independently, and must reach a unanimous verdict on each charge. A compromise verdict violates both these principles, and thus violates the defendant's right to due process of law.

Just as an example, as one court puts it:

a compromise verdict is a "verdict which is reached only by the surrender of conscientious convictions upon one material issue by some jurors in return for a relinquishment by others of their like settled opinion upon another issue and the result is one which does not command the approval of the whole panel," and, as such, is not permitted.

[steve dave]

he walks

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

Oh man

[Institutional Control]

Man, K-S-U-Wildcats should have gone to law school.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

Good

[kim carnes]

this crap cray

[kim carnes]

ksuwildcats just popped a bottle of champagne

[SkinnyBenny]

Can't say I'm gonna feel bad when someone doles out some vigilante street justice.

[kim carnes]

Can't say I'm gonna feel bad when someone doles out some vigilante street justice.

no one is going to do anything