Firearms & The Zimmerman Jury

CNN has a piece on the role that familiarity with firearms may play in regards to the jury in George Zimmerman’s trial. It features one of the “tests” that Zimmerman’s attorney used in selection proceedings and also features a few comments by a firearms attorney from Florida on the value of women on the jury in this case.

Sorry for nearly all video content today. I’m playing stuff in the background as I put together materials for a gun show table this weekend. Being a “real world” activist is sometimes distracting from blogging. :)

9 Responses to “Firearms & The Zimmerman Jury”

  1. Dave says:

    You know, the latest edition of American Riflemen has the board nomination petition in it. Maybe it’s time for some new media activists to get on the board.

    Just saying, it’s something to think about….

  2. Archer says:

    A big part of the outcome will depend (obviously) on how each side spins the meaning of the evidence. I’ve been following the selection/winnowing of prospective jurors on the Legal Insurrection site, and of the 40 people who passed the first (media exposure) round: (source here)
    – 30% (12) own or have owned guns
    – 30% MORE have close family who own or have owned guns
    – 100% (40) say that they believe there is crime in their communities
    – 35% (14) have been the victims of crime
    – 10% (4) have been the victims of violent crime
    – 25% (10) have Neighborhood Watch programs in their communities that they’re NOT personally involved in

    Given that, it’d be impossible for either side to use their discretionary (“without cause”) dismissals to eliminate all gun owners (or people familiar with guns), all crime victims, or everyone with a Neighborhood Watch program.

    I think the gun owning jurors may or may not play a huge role. Individually, it could go several ways (again, depending on which side gives a more believable spin), some of which are: a) Gun owners are aware of the defensive utility of firearms, and may side with Zimmerman; or b) Gun owners are aware of the responsibility to stay out of questionable situations, and may side with the State.

    Similarly, I wouldn’t read too much into the all-female jury. It could go several ways, too, not the least of which are: a) As CNN says, they, especially the crime victims, are aware of the defensive utility of guns against a more-physically-able attacker; or b) The mothers in the group sympathize with the Martin family against Zimmerman, who the prosecution will try to paint as a “bully”, “wannabe-cop”, “vigilante”, and “profiler”. (All scare-terms the judge is allowing, although they’re forbidden to use “racially profile”)

    It’s going to be interesting.

    • Archer says:

      Forgot the disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above comment is my thoughts about the case, based on what I’ve seen and read, and my completely subjective instincts. YMMV (and Zimmerman’s certainly will).

    • Thomas says:

      I’m expecting a mistrial. Lets see what happens.

  3. NUGUN Blog says:

    I actually think the all female jury is extremely relevant. In the past, guns were sadly associated mainly with men. Sure there was Annie Oakley and a few others.

    But times they be a changing. And a lot more women are pro-gun and gun owners than they used to be.

    And that’s good…

    • Bitter says:

      Just because there are more pro-gun women doesn’t mean that a majority of women are pro-gun. If you’re looking for favorable to Zimmerman being determined by likely gun ownership or gun acceptance, then you’d want an all male jury.

      • Neon says:

        True, but it depends on how the victimizations stance is played. Women are often more favorable to a victim having to defend themselves if they themselves see this as how easily they could have been a victim. It could go either way but with the audio screaming expert testimony being kept out, I would give Zimmerman an extra point.

  4. tincankilla says:

    while i support the right to carry, i think anyone who views Zimmerman as a model is foolish. he killed a kid. there was one adult in that situation, one person with a gun, and one person with the police on the phone.

  5. Geodkyt says:

    Um, Zimmerman withdrew from the situation, and was unilaterally attacked on his way out, by an attacker who had to take a different path from the one ZImmerman last saw him on. When attacked, he was faced by deadly force (head + concrete = deadly).

    THAT’S what the physical evidence shows.

    Circumstantially (and although not admissable UNLESS the State tries to paint Martin as an angelic little kid) is the fact that the attacker was a self described thug.