Charles Shaughnessy's thoughts on the trial of George Zimmerman

Charles Shaughnessy @C_Shaughnessy on Twitter

"As "unfair" as it seems, what happens in court has to follow strict, narrow , unemotional guidelines or we ALL lose.  

Laws must change, procedures, prejudices...but not the cold objectivity of the juries.  The prosecution failed Trayvon, not the jury.


What do you think about the verdict of Not Guilty for George Zimmerman?


  1. I'm too upset, Trayvon or at least his grieving family deserves better. I just hope I never had to go to court on anything, because I may fail me.
    If there is a uproar coming in this country, I wouldn't be surprise.
    I just to baffled and angry to comment more

  2. I have to say that I have not followed this very closely. However, I was shocked at the verdict. No matter what happened in the end Trayon Martin is dead and cannot be brought back. There are no winners here. Right or wrong the jury tried to follow the instructions of the court, and also does anyone believe George Zimmerman's life will ever be the same? The reaction of violence is not the answer. The whole situation is very sad. I wonder if George Zimmerman wishes today that he had never picked up that gun.

  3. I have to admit, I haven't read or heard all the particulars in this case. One reason for that is I don't think we can ever, in any situation, believe everything in the media, whether in the paper or on TV.

    Personally, I want truth and fairness for ALL people!!! I can only hope and pray that the jury came to their decision based on truth. I feel for the families of all involved, not just Trayvon or Zimmerman. They and their families are all victims.

    I will not sit here and be outraged or content with the verdict, being that I was not on the jury, nor do I have all the information that the jury had. The prosecutions job is to convict, whether guilty or not. The defense attorney's job is to get an innocent verdict, whether guilty or not. The jury's job is to take into consideration all that they are presented with and make a conclusion based on that information. Is that truth??? We may never know, but the jury can not base their findings on anything other than what is presented to them. So truth for the jury in this case was "not guilty".

    Charlie, my son sent me this article that you and your readers may, or may not find interesting. I think, no matter how we feel, that we must be able to see all sides of the issues. Here is the link:

    Charlie, thanks again for always giving us all a chance to speak freely no matter how much we may differ.

    Blessings Always,

  4. POST FROM Heather Mehudar ON FACEBOOK:

    I think the same thing about this verdict as I do for O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. A guilty person goes free and there is no justice for the victim.

    "Stand Your Ground" does NOT mean - disobey police dispatchers, track a suspect on foot, instigate an altercation then use deadly force as 'self-defense'. If Zimmerman had listened to dispatchers in the first place "We don't need you to do that, sir." - then Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

    Even if Zimmerman, who disobeyed police orders, had identified HIMSELF as "Neighborhood Watch" and inquired of Trayvon Martin "Where are you going? What are you doing here? Where do you live?" - then Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

    IF the purpose of Neighborhood Watch is to observe and report without confrontation, then WHY does Zimmerman carry a loaded firearm when on patrol, follow then confront Trayvon Martin?
    #FloridaJurorsEpicFail #ZimmermanGuiltyOfManslaughter

    As a Republican and long-standing member of the NRA, I can tell you the 2nd Amendment and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law were NOT intended for. #SadDayInTheUSA

  5. I couldn't agree more, Wende. There should be outrage and action against what we all suspect was racial profiling, innate prejudices, a climate of vigilantism and police bias. BUT the jury HAS to ignore ALL that unless it is part of the evidence and is proven. Otherwise each decision will be based on the subjective "beliefs", bias or "moral certainty" of fallible human beings. If the roles had been reversed, we would want the jury to find the same way, wouldn't we? Innocent, unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The confused and contradictory witnesses, the "possible" self-defence, the initial police report, under-performing prosecution...all add up to a sliver of reasonable doubt...and that's all it takes. We must all change our preconceptions, prejudices, reactive "profiling" and laws that permit such vigilantism in the first place...but NOT the objectivity of a jury system that does, whether we agree with the verdicts on moral, ethical, emotional or "good sense" grounds, actually work.

  6. Heather, I have to disagree, we don't know what would have happened if Zimmerman would have stayed in his car. Also, he was on trial for murder, not disobeying a police dispatcher or for carrying a gun.

  7. I was shocked by the verdict but not surprised. The prosecution did not prove their case at all! They were so many mistakes made by the forensic teams due to both a lack of training, experience and funding! So, I agree that it is the fault of the prosecution and not the jury. I also feel that they went for too much! Perhaps if they had gone for Manslaughter, the outcome may have been different! Though, as in so many other cases, it seems impossible to get a conviction!!


Post a Comment

Popular Posts