Another Juror, B29, speaks out.

[NYcarbineer]

Well, yes, he may have. If the act itself fits the definition of a murder,

then he was a murderer. Lack of evidence does not equate to the lack of a crime being committed.

If you shoplifted something, no one saw you do it, that doesn't mean you're not a shoplifter.

It means you're a shoplifter who got away with it.

Simplicity at Its finest. Nice job sir.

Wrong--Zimmerman killed someone. 2nd degree murder is a legal term and the entire jury found him Not Guilty meaning he did not commit 2nd degree murder.

No, it means they don't know if he committed 2nd degree murder or not. Second degree murder is the act of killing someone under certain circumstances. If someone shoots someone, it was either an act of 2nd degree murder or it wasn't,

regardless of what verdict a jury returns.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You bunch of morons. If a guy is texting while driving and runs over someone, he isn't guilty because it was an "accident" and he didn't mean to kill anyone "intentionally"??????

You take Zimmerman's word and what's so hilarious, he didn't testify.

White wingnuts "debating" law is even more funny then when they debate "science". They are "Master Debaters", legends in their own tiny minds.

I take the word of the 6 jurors who found him not guilty, what have you got?

I've got OJ not killing anybody, by your logic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

SO you want to judge someone based on feelings? You people are sick.

 

[rdean]

"Zimmerman got away with murder" [he carried a loaded gun with one round in the chamber] from the OP quoting juror B-29. Zimmerman didn't set out to hurt anyone, and Trayvon Martin attacked him in a fit of pique. [ Tragic and avoidable. It is my sense here that Martin overreacted to being followed by Zimmerman. Zimmerman had every right to follow someone he thought suspicious, given the fact he had been assaulted by blacks previously. And Martin had no right to lash out and attack Zimmerman physically. How apropos of this whole incident. Perhaps, if Martin was so concerned, he could have called the police or sought out help from the neighbors instead of charging Zimmerman like a angry child. That's my thought on this, anyway. I don’t think "stand your ground laws" are wrong here. Not in the least.

LOL

"Trayvon Martin attacked him in a fit of pique"

"Zimmerman had every right to follow someone he thought suspicious, given the fact he had been assaulted by blacks previously"

"Martin had no right to lash out and attack Zimmerman physically"

"I don’t think "stand your ground laws" are wrong here. Not in the least"

LOL

Anyone, Right, Left or Center want to defend this post?

David French is a constitutional lawyer who served as a judge advocate during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He writes regularly for National Review Online and the website Patheos.

He's a well known conservative. This is what he wrote:

« Conservatives and the Trayvon Martin Case Commentary Magazine

Contra John Lott, citizens do not have a blanket right to “investigate a strange person in [their] neighborhood.” No such broad right exists in the Constitution, relevant statutes, or common law. Zimmerman’s alleged right to investigate is certainly limited by Martin’s right to walk in public spaces free from threats or threatening behavior. Were Zimmerman’s actions reasonable or unreasonable? Could Zimmerman have been reasonably viewed as a threat to Martin, and did Martin thus have the right to “stand his ground” rather than Zimmerman? Those questions will be critical at trial, and it will not be settled by the assertion of any “right” to investigate Martin.

Third, conservatives should be the last people in America to support or defend reckless behavior with a lawfully carried firearm. Whatever the verdict, an unarmed teenager is dead because an armed citizen behaved at best foolishly. He wrongly profiled a kid as a threat (it’s not known whether the profiling had a racial component), followed him on foot (at least for a time), and shot him after apparently losing a fistfight. Second Amendment activists—including, most notably, the National Rifle Association—put their commitment to safety, sobriety, and responsibility in gun ownership at the center of their advocacy. Liberalizing gun laws is not supposed to mean liberalizing behavior. In fact, one of the best arguments for concealed-carry laws is that concealed-carry permit holders have excellent conduct (for example, in Texas, concealed-carry permit holders are substantially less likely to commit a crime, in any category).

In short, conservatives realize that the problem isn’t the gun itself, but the mind-set of the person using it. But is anyone ready to argue that Zimmerman had the right mind-set for a concealed-carry permit holder when he initiated the chain of events that led to Martin’s death?

The facts as known—viewed in light of the three principles above—paint a worrisome picture. Yet Zimmerman was originally exonerated after a cursory investigation when the prosecutor actually overruled the lead investigator’s charging recommendation. This is the opposite of the Duke lacrosse and Tawana Brawley cases. In both those cases, there was no actual victim (no one was actually raped or assaulted), and yet there was a rush to judgment. In this case there is unquestionably a victim and there was a rush to exonerate.

If conservatives continue to cast their lot with this killer of an unarmed man, they risk damaging their own credibility and further embolden those who would marginalize conservative voices in matters of race, crime, and justice.

-------------------------------------------

Not used to a "thoughtful" conservative. These days they are very rare indeed.

 

[Sunshine]

"Zimmerman got away with murder" [he carried a loaded gun with one round in the chamber] from the OP quoting juror B-29. Zimmerman didn't set out to hurt anyone, and Trayvon Martin attacked him in a fit of pique. [ Tragic and avoidable. It is my sense here that Martin overreacted to being followed by Zimmerman. Zimmerman had every right to follow someone he thought suspicious, given the fact he had been assaulted by blacks previously. And Martin had no right to lash out and attack Zimmerman physically. How apropos of this whole incident. Perhaps, if Martin was so concerned, he could have called the police or sought out help from the neighbors instead of charging Zimmerman like a angry child. That's my thought on this, anyway. I don’t think "stand your ground laws" are wrong here. Not in the least.

LOL

"Trayvon Martin attacked him in a fit of pique"

"Zimmerman had every right to follow someone he thought suspicious, given the fact he had been assaulted by blacks previously"

"Martin had no right to lash out and attack Zimmerman physically"

"I don’t think "stand your ground laws" are wrong here. Not in the least"

LOL

Anyone, Right, Left or Center want to defend this post?

David French is a constitutional lawyer who served as a judge advocate during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He writes regularly for National Review Online and the website Patheos.

He's a well known conservative. This is what he wrote:

« Conservatives and the Trayvon Martin Case Commentary Magazine

Contra John Lott, citizens do not have a blanket right to “investigate a strange person in [their] neighborhood.” No such broad right exists in the Constitution, relevant statutes, or common law. Zimmerman’s alleged right to investigate is certainly limited by Martin’s right to walk in public spaces free from threats or threatening behavior. Were Zimmerman’s actions reasonable or unreasonable? Could Zimmerman have been reasonably viewed as a threat to Martin, and did Martin thus have the right to “stand his ground” rather than Zimmerman? Those questions will be critical at trial, and it will not be settled by the assertion of any “right” to investigate Martin.

Third, conservatives should be the last people in America to support or defend reckless behavior with a lawfully carried firearm. Whatever the verdict, an unarmed teenager is dead because an armed citizen behaved at best foolishly. He wrongly profiled a kid as a threat (it’s not known whether the profiling had a racial component), followed him on foot (at least for a time), and shot him after apparently losing a fistfight. Second Amendment activists—including, most notably, the National Rifle Association—put their commitment to safety, sobriety, and responsibility in gun ownership at the center of their advocacy. Liberalizing gun laws is not supposed to mean liberalizing behavior. In fact, one of the best arguments for concealed-carry laws is that concealed-carry permit holders have excellent conduct (for example, in Texas, concealed-carry permit holders are substantially less likely to commit a crime, in any category).

In short, conservatives realize that the problem isn’t the gun itself, but the mind-set of the person using it. But is anyone ready to argue that Zimmerman had the right mind-set for a concealed-carry permit holder when he initiated the chain of events that led to Martin’s death?

The facts as known—viewed in light of the three principles above—paint a worrisome picture. Yet Zimmerman was originally exonerated after a cursory investigation when the prosecutor actually overruled the lead investigator’s charging recommendation. This is the opposite of the Duke lacrosse and Tawana Brawley cases. In both those cases, there was no actual victim (no one was actually raped or assaulted), and yet there was a rush to judgment. In this case there is unquestionably a victim and there was a rush to exonerate.

If conservatives continue to cast their lot with this killer of an unarmed man, they risk damaging their own credibility and further embolden those who would marginalize conservative voices in matters of race, crime, and justice.

-------------------------------------------

Not used to a "thoughtful" conservative. These days they are very rare indeed.

On my! Could it be, you have finally admitted that li'l Trayvon was a grown man. Progress has been made.

 

[MaryL]

Get a rope and lynch Zimmerman. It will make everything better? 46 pages on the wall, take one down, 45 pages on the wall...Are you kidding me? I served twice as a juror both criminal and civil court, and as a witness in civil court. Proof. Thing is, Zimmerman was found "not guilty" in a in a court of law. That has got to mean something. I guess Zimmerman’s attorneys had one more page of bollocks.

 

[Sunshine]

You bunch of morons. If a guy is texting while driving and runs over someone, he isn't guilty because it was an "accident" and he didn't mean to kill anyone "intentionally"??????

You take Zimmerman's word and what's so hilarious, he didn't testify.

White wingnuts "debating" law is even more funny then when they debate "science". They are "Master Debaters", legends in their own tiny minds.

I take the word of the 6 jurors who found him not guilty, what have you got?

I've got OJ not killing anybody, by your logic.

How many whites raised hell when he was acquitted? How many rallies for the victims were there? How many crimes committed in the name of his victims. Which presidents made statements on the airwaves about the miscarriage of justice? How many presidents proclaimed what a travesty the killing was? How many whites refused to accept the jury verdict and rioted? None. Whites accepted the jury verdict in the OJ case. We knew he was as guilty as sin, but we live in a system that would rather seen 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man incarcerated. Contrast that to China which is the reverse..

A lot of you who won't accept this verdict have ancestors who were uncivilized a mere 200 years ago. Whites have been living under and obeying the rule of law for far longer than you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope. I have only been called for Jury Duty once and it was filled before I was called up to answer any questions.

But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the jury instructions, evidence, or anything else with this trial.

There was nothing confusing about anything here except as to why the Prosecutor brought the charges.

The prosecutor probably brought the charges because he believed what the jury believed,

that Zimmerman was a murderer.

Pardon me......A juror......not THE jury.

Three jurors on their first ballot thought he was guilty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You bunch of morons. If a guy is texting while driving and runs over someone, he isn't guilty because it was an "accident" and he didn't mean to kill anyone "intentionally"??????

You take Zimmerman's word and what's so hilarious, he didn't testify.

White wingnuts "debating" law is even more funny then when they debate "science". They are "Master Debaters", legends in their own tiny minds.

I take the word of the 6 jurors who found him not guilty, what have you got?

I've got OJ not killing anybody, by your logic.

I thought you were smarter than rdean, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the juror thinks he got away with murder?

lol, that seems to be slightly in conflict with the widespread opinion around here, by the Zimm fans,

that the jury found him not guilty because they believed he acted in self defense.

We knew at least one Juror felt he murdered him. The problem is as she STATED, the evidence did not support that "FEELING". Trials are not about feelings they are about facts and evidence. She KNEW he was not proven to have murdered anyone. the rest is her personal feelings and have nothing to do with the facts.

Under LAW he killed Martin in SELF DEFENSE. And no civil trial will follow or if it does the Parents will be paying Zimmerman's defense bill.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The prosecutor probably brought the charges because he believed what the jury believed,

that Zimmerman was a murderer.

Pardon me......A juror......not THE jury.

Three jurors on their first ballot thought he was guilty.

Not true.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Pardon me......A juror......not THE jury.

Three jurors on their first ballot thought he was guilty.

Not true.

No, actually that is true. The first vote was 3 Not Guilty, 2 Manslaughter, and 1 for Second Degree Murder.

 

[ScienceRocks]

SO the back of your head can be smashed in = no right to self defense. You fuckers are scary.

 

[Zona]

SO you want to judge someone based on feelings? You people are sick.

So you are saying oj was innocent?

 

[Zona]

SO the back of your head can be smashed in = no right to self defense. You fuckers are scary.

Smashed in? Can you kink us to his head being smashed in? What's scary is you believing anything they tell you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Three jurors on their first ballot thought he was guilty.

Not true.

No, actually that is true. The first vote was 3 Not Guilty, 2 Manslaughter, and 1 for Second Degree Murder.

Prove it with the actual jury ballots. The problem is that they no longer exist, so all we have is what we are told.

If that is actually true it proves that 5 jurors voted not guilty on the charge that was filed against Zimmerman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I take the word of the 6 jurors who found him not guilty, what have you got?

I've got OJ not killing anybody, by your logic.

How many whites raised hell when he was acquitted? How many rallies for the victims were there? How many crimes committed in the name of his victims. Which presidents made statements on the airwaves about the miscarriage of justice? How many presidents proclaimed what a travesty the killing was? How many whites refused to accept the jury verdict and rioted? None. Whites accepted the jury verdict in the OJ case. We knew he was as guilty as sin, but we live in a system that would rather seen 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man incarcerated. Contrast that to China which is the reverse..

A lot of you who won't accept this verdict have ancestors who were uncivilized a mere 200 years ago. Whites have been living under and obeying the rule of law for far longer than you.

If you believe OJ murdered those 2 people, say yes.

If you don't believe OJ murdered those 2 people, say no.

If you don't dare answer honestly because it will make you look like an idiot, say nothing.

 

[dilloduck]

I've got OJ not killing anybody, by your logic.

How many whites raised hell when he was acquitted? How many rallies for the victims were there? How many crimes committed in the name of his victims. Which presidents made statements on the airwaves about the miscarriage of justice? How many presidents proclaimed what a travesty the killing was? How many whites refused to accept the jury verdict and rioted? None. Whites accepted the jury verdict in the OJ case. We knew he was as guilty as sin, but we live in a system that would rather seen 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man incarcerated. Contrast that to China which is the reverse..

A lot of you who won't accept this verdict have ancestors who were uncivilized a mere 200 years ago. Whites have been living under and obeying the rule of law for far longer than you.

If you believe OJ murdered those 2 people, say yes.

If you don't believe OJ murdered those 2 people, say no.

If you don't dare answer honestly because it will make you look like an idiot, say nothing.

Help help------I'm trapped in a catch-22 !!

 

[NYcarbineer]

SO the back of your head can be smashed in = no right to self defense. You fuckers are scary.

If Zimmerman started the fight, then his injuries came from Martin acting in self-defense.

 

[MaryL]

A friend of mine, a co -worker actually, served on a jury on a murder case years ago. They found the guy guilty and was sentenced to death. There is a caveat here: a few years later, my "friend" went to the DA about some minor infraction in that same case (someone brought a bible in to the chamber despite injunctions against written material in the deliberation area ), and the murder charge was latter overturned. Not because the accused was innocent, but because of some minor technicality. It is so nice to know people are so worried about technicalities. A murderer goes free, but, little mind that. That was a black man that murdered a white woman…But, Zimmerman? Let’s say that no stone will go unturned trying to persecute him.