I am somewhat concerned

davidtaylorjr said:

I can believe that seeing as how we elected Obama twice. Uninformed and ignorant.

Click to expand...

Sadly, I believe you're right. However, I think the jury will be more educated and informed than a lot of Obama voters... at least I hope so.

Silverwolf said:

I think that’s a pretty valid concern. Honestly, I’ve wondered that myself. I have no doubt that if he’s acquitted there will be protesters (people have gotten far too involved in this case for that not to happen) but it’s hard to say how violent they might get.

Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain the govt will be well prepared locally to respond quickly. However, an acquittal of GZ could very well provide those who are already angry/hateful with enough rage to incite riots and loot elsewhere. Hey... we're talking serious racial politics, so anything is possible including violence

CalGun said:

I asked this a few months ago and it seemed like everyone said riots, nooo. Now people are not so sure. However based on the inability of Zimmerman to use pertinent evidence (my opine) I think the fix is in against him anyway and he's headed for 20 years of life behind bars.

Click to expand...

I agree the state is doing all they can to convict which is their job after a charge is files. But that shouldn't include withholding evidence, judges rulings this far, and feeding the media with negatives about GZ. Call me naive but I just can't see a conviction of M2. IMO... Worst case scenario is Manslaughter. Hopefully, a mistrial or not guilty.

Superfly said:

I've avoided this section of the forum, for obvious reasons :lol: . I have my own way to look at this issue, and no amount of arguing is going to change that.

My concern, however, is this. Do you think if Zimmerman is found not guilty, will there be a riot, like with the Rodney King verdict? This is such an explosive issue - if he walks, I'm concerned that it will get ugly. I have to think that this is also in the backs of the minds of potential jurors, the Judge and the attorneys. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Click to expand...

Not really the same as the King trial, where we all saw video of the beating and abuse, then watched the cops who did it go free.

This is trickier... it's a "he said, he dead" situation. I haven't kept up with the evidence, but without eyewitnesses and slam-dunk dna proof of who did what to whom, and who did it first, a jury might really be hesitant to convict. That said, an unarmed kid with a bag of snacks and a drink was shot dead by an armed civilian playing Neighborhood Watch for real. It should never have happened.

DiAnna said:

Not really the same as the King trial, where we all saw video of the beating and abuse, then watched the cops who did it go free.

This is trickier... it's a "he said, he dead" situation. I haven't kept up with the evidence but without eyewitnesses and slam-dunk dna proof of who did what to whom, and who did it first, a jury might really be hesitant to convict. That said, an unarmed kid with a bag of snacks and a drink was shot dead by an armed civilian playing Neighborhood Watch for real. It should never have happened.

Click to expand...

That's your issue

Reason why, the misguided post

Adhere to the evidence

DiAnna said:

Not really the same as the King trial, where we all saw video of the beating and abuse, then watched the cops who did it go free.

This is trickier... it's a "he said, he dead" situation. I haven't kept up with the evidence, but without eyewitnesses and slam-dunk dna proof of who did what to whom, and who did it first, a jury might really be hesitant to convict. That said, an unarmed kid with a bag of snacks and a drink was shot dead by an armed civilian playing Neighborhood Watch for real. It should never have happened.

Click to expand...

This is the common sense reasoning that all reasonable people would apply.