"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:09:55 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

.. If Zim had not followed and did as the police told him, this would not
have happened. But since it did, the case came to trial and the jury
was instructed.

At the least, Zim is guilty of being a cocky asshole, but that was not
the charge.

The directions for volunteer watchers in Sanford probably are the same as
where I live.(Sarsota county)

No weapons while patrolling
Call dispatch or 911 as required
Remain in your vehicle
Do not approach
Do not attempt to detain
Wait for officer

I would vote to convict on charge of negligent homicide

On 07-15-2013 12:21, Charlie wrote:
I would vote to convict on charge of negligent homicide

I'm still not going to second-guess the people who heard all the
testimony. But as far as I know, they weren't offered that option.

--
Wes Groleau

Words of the Wild Wes
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

In article ,
Wes Groleau wrote:

On 07-15-2013 12:21, Charlie wrote:
I would vote to convict on charge of negligent homicide

I'm still not going to second-guess the people who heard all the
testimony. But as far as I know, they weren't offered that option.

They weren't. There was murder two and some flavor of manslaughter.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:21:34 -0400, "Charlie"
wrote:

I would vote to convict on charge of negligent homicide


So you would gloss over the evidence, and ignore Zimmerman's right to
self defense. Got it.

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:58:15 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:21:34 -0400, "Charlie"
wrote:

I would vote to convict on charge of negligent homicide


So you would gloss over the evidence, and ignore Zimmerman's right to
self defense. Got it.

The judge tell the jury what they can consider. Charges are usually
pretty narrow. If the evidence makes the case, it is easy to convict.
If it does not, you must acquit even if you think the defendant is
guilty of something. Jurors don't get to figure that out.

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:16:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:58:15 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:21:34 -0400, "Charlie"
wrote:

I would vote to convict on charge of negligent homicide


So you would gloss over the evidence, and ignore Zimmerman's right to
self defense. Got it.

The judge tell the jury what they can consider. Charges are usually
pretty narrow. If the evidence makes the case, it is easy to convict.
If it does not, you must acquit even if you think the defendant is
guilty of something. Jurors don't get to figure that out.

I understand. Self Defense is included in the jury instructions. As I
mentioned before, O' Mara made a smart tactical move in closing
statements when he suggested the jury to start (first consider) with
the SD portion of the instructions.

If SF was true the 2nd / manslaughter would not apply (paraphrased).

http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2012/07/12/zimmerman-jury-instructions-for-second-degree-murder-and-self-defense/

"...All state and federal trial courts use sets of pattern
instructions that are submitted to juries to follow during their
deliberations. The instructions define legal terms, the elements of
the crimes charged and the relevant defense claimed by the defendant.
They also include a presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and
definition of reasonable doubt instruction that is given in all
criminal cases."