Black Jurist Claims On ABC That Zimmerman Got Away With Murder. Despicable.

[JoeB131]

You go to a jury because it is the fundamental Constitutional Right of every accused person to a trial by a jury of one's peers.

Actually, only 2% of criminal cases are heard by juries. 58% are plead out, most of the rest are heard by a judge. The Jury is a nice little thing we like, but mostly we don't trust it that much.

Zimmerman murdered a child and he got away with it, because he did it in a racist state.

Frankly, I don't think that speaks well for us as a country or a society, but if you are comfortable with it... then I
m kind of sad for you.

 

[JoeB131]

As an aside, I thought it was equally wrong when a mostly black jury ignored obvious evidence and acquitted O.J. Simpson because he was a rich celebrity.

 

[Kondor3]

You go to a jury because it is the fundamental Constitutional Right of every accused person to a trial by a jury of one's peers.

Actually, only 2% of criminal cases are heard by juries. 58% are plead out, most of the rest are heard by a judge. The Jury is a nice little thing we like, but mostly we don't trust it that much...

Percentages don't matter.

The defendant exercised his Constitutional Right to a trial by a jury of his peers.

That is the ONLY thing which signifies here.

"...Zimmerman murdered a child and he got away with it, because he did it in a racist state..."

Incorrect.

Zimmerman killed a near-adult teenager who was sitting on him and pounding on his head.

A near-adult teenager who - had he killed Zimmerman, instead - was old enough to have stood trial for a capital offense AS AN ADULT.

A jury of Zimmerman's peers ruled that death as Self-Defense... Justifiable Homicide... insufficient indication of any wrongdoing... Not Guilty of either Murder OR Manslaughter.

Also, there are no indications of Racism dominant in the case; despite what the Race-Baiters and Hate-Mongers such as Sharpton and Jackson have been attempting to brainwash the American Public (or a segment thereof) into believing.

Had there been sufficient indication of Racial Bias in the investigation or prosecution of the case, given its extremely high national profile, you may be sure that the Obama Administration, represented by its Attorney General, Eric Holder - both of them Black Americans - would have been on top of that situation faster than you could blink an eye.

Your unfounded suspicions and accusations ring entirely hollow.

"...Frankly, I don't think that speaks well for us as a country or a society, but if you are comfortable with it... then I m kind of sad for you."

I believe in the Rule of Law... not the Rule of the Lynch Mob.

The Rule of Law has triumphed once again, as it should have.

All persons of goodwill, irrespective of color, may take satisfaction from such a state of affairs.

The matter is now closed, at law, and fading from the public consciousness as many (including I) predicted some days ago - at the speed of light - disappearing from the media almost as quickly as it originally surfaced.

It's over.

Time to move on to other and far more important matters.

 

[The Professor]

SHe should have stood her ground, but she didn't. What she stated was the judges instructions, the ones you whined about, didn't give them much of a choice.

The law is a pesky thing. We all know you like to ignore it (especially the consitutiton) when it doesnt suit your worldview.

The laws here were actually kind of stupid, and if you had an all-minority jury instead of this one poor woman fighting against five white people, you'd have gotten a different result.

Zimmerman killed a child. Nothing else really matters.

Juror 29 also said that Zimmerman should never have gone to trail, that what the State did was just a publicity stunt. She also said that Martin's race was not a factor.

She only said Zimmerman got away with murder because she thought that whenever someone took a life he should be charged, but since Zimmerman did not have the intent to kill Martin (he acted in self-defense) she had to follow the law and vote not guilty. This juror actually supported Zimmerman!! Here's the link (check out permalink #209)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ther-juror-b29-speaks-out-14.html#post7600539

 

[PMZ]

Are you saying that Zimmerman was carrying that night because he expected to be assaulted. And was a random victim?

 

[JQPublic1]

He had a permit to carry that gun.
The gun was registered legally.
The trial proved that Trayvan wasn't innocent when he was spotted beating Zimmerman up.
It's not clear who was doing the harassing because there was no witness to that aspect.
The young man who was killed had a history of violence.
The young man who was killed had drugs in his system.
The young man who was killed had liver damage from drug use it was discovered during the autopsy.
The young man who was killed was at the time on suspension from school.
The young man who was killed should have been supervised by his father.
The young man who was killed took pictures of himself holding a gun.
The young man who was killed admitted to using "Purple Drank, Lean, Sizzurp, Texas Tea, barre, Purple Jelly" on the internet.

I wonder why a man who commited homicide was not subjected to the same biological and background scrutiny as the person he killed! GZ could have been as high as a kite when he decided to follow and harass Martin. His spontaneous "courage" and faulty rationale could certainly have been explained by a simple blood test but the SPD didn't think it was necessary at the time!

 

[Kondor3]

"...I wonder why a man who commited homicide was not subjected to the same biological and background scrutiny as the person he killed! GZ could have been as high as a kite when he decided to follow and harass Martin. His spontaneous 'courage' and faulty rationale could certainly have been explained by a simple blood test but the SPD didn't think it was necessary at the time!"

If it is Standard Operating Procedure and permissible at law for law enforcement to give a Blood Test to a person suspected of homicide within Sanford, Florida, or Seminole County, Florida, or within the State of Florida, or within the United States at large, and, if no such test was undertaken, then, you have a point.

If it is NOT Standard Operating Procedure for law enforcement to do so or permissible at law to undertake such tests, then, your point is moot, and groundless.

Are you in a position to cite the legal basis for such standard practices in this context and in the relevant jurisdiction(s)?

I'm not.

 

[JQPublic1]

The law is a pesky thing. We all know you like to ignore it (especially the consitutiton) when it doesnt suit your worldview.

The laws here were actually kind of stupid, and if you had an all-minority jury instead of this one poor woman fighting against five white people, you'd have gotten a different result.

Zimmerman killed a child. Nothing else really matters.

Juror 29 also said that Zimmerman should never have gone to trail, that what the State did was just a publicity stunt. She also said that Martin's race was not a factor.

She only said Zimmerman got away with murder because she thought that whenever someone took a life he should be charged, but since Zimmerman did not have the intent to kill Martin (he acted in self-defense) she had to follow the law and vote not guilty. This juror actually supported Zimmerman!! Here's the link (check out permalink #209)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ther-juror-b29-speaks-out-14.html#post7600539

Juror 29 was correct if she said "GZ should never have GONE TO TRAIL. " Had he not TRAILED TM this whole chain of tragic events would never have occurred! Are you prone to Freudian Slips, Prof?

Meanwhile, I am obliged to post my own permalink given in protest of your nefarious campaign to project your own distorted version of the GZ/TM drama!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/305083-black-jurist-claims-on-abc-that-zimmerman-got-away-with-murder-despicable-19.html#post7605729

 

[legaleagle_45]

Juror 29 was correct if she said "GZ should never have GONE TO TRAIL. " Had he not TRAILED TM this whole chain of tragic events would never have occurred! Are you prone to Freudian Slips, Prof?

This is what she actually said in regards thereto:

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."

"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.

George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty' - ABC News

 

[JQPublic1]

"...I wonder why a man who commited homicide was not subjected to the same biological and background scrutiny as the person he killed! GZ could have been as high as a kite when he decided to follow and harass Martin. His spontaneous 'courage' and faulty rationale could certainly have been explained by a simple blood test but the SPD didn't think it was necessary at the time!"

If it is Standard Operating Procedure and permissible at law for law enforcement to give a Blood Test to a person suspected of homicide within Sanford, Florida, or Seminole County, Florida, or within the State of Florida, or within the United States at large, and, if no such test was undertaken, then, you have a point.

If it is NOT Standard Operating Procedure for law enforcement to do so or permissible at law to undertake such tests, then, your point is moot, and groundless.

Are you in a position to cite the legal basis for such standard practices in this context and in the relevant jurisdiction(s)?

I'm not.

I am in a position to cite anything I damn well please; but for what? Court clerks are well paid to do what you are asking me to do for free.

This is not a court of law and you are not a juror to whom I have to prove anything. I suggest you take YOUR time to research the matter and get back with us to rebutt what I have said or to agree with it. To me its a matter of common sense that the mental conditon of a person that kills someone would be invaluable evidence to the prosecuton. So, it seems from the onset that there was no intention to prosecute GZ. Evidence that could have made a difference in the trial was willfully neglected. My God, GZ was bleeding already so the collecting of blood samples would not even have had to be an invasive procedure. Good luck on your research!

 

[JQPublic1]

Juror 29 was correct if she said "GZ should never have GONE TO TRAIL. " Had he not TRAILED TM this whole chain of tragic events would never have occurred! Are you prone to Freudian Slips, Prof?

This is what she actually said in regards thereto:

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."

"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.

George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty' - ABC News

Nice SNIP job. I was addressing Prof's typo/ Freudian Slip where he inadvertantly used the word TRAIL instead of TRIAL. You should have included that, it would have appeared more honest!

I don't thnk any amount of obfuscation is going to change the basic premise of what Juror 29 actually said or meant during her interview. She believes that GZ is guilty but that the state could not prove it. And, from what I saw of the evidence or lack thereof, I believe that too! One exception: The state did NOT WANT TO PROVE IT!

 

[PMZ]

One of the NRA's branding strategies is 'rule of law'. Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.

That wasn't selling enough of them. Especially given that the number of sportsmen were falling off.

So the NRA marketing people thought up the idea of extending the logic behind the second Ammendment to imply that owning multiple guns was a patriotic duty. To protect the individual from government and from ''others'' Who might threaten the establishment.

Bingo. Sales of guns and ammo are off the charts.

And cases like GZ/TM are a way to further cement the brand by making GZ out as a hero.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Nice SNIP job. I was addressing Prof's typo/ Freudian Slip where he inadvertantly used the word TRAIL instead of TRIAL. You should have included that, it would have appeared more honest!

Actually, my intent was to provide you with info as you previously posted this:

BTW, if juror B29 said words to the effect that the case should never have gone to trial ( I have found no reliable source for that) she likely was referring to the circus that emerged in the wake if an intentional imbroglio orchestrated by the SPD, The Medical Examiner, the Defense, the Prosecution and southern white friends!

Sorry if you misunderstood my intent.

I don't thnk any amount of obfuscation is going to change the basic premise of what Juror 29 actually said or meant during her interview.

Correct untill she understood what the law actually was, she thought that murder was committed merely when one person kills another and did not understand the requisite elments of the crime of murder such as intent and depraved mind. When those facts were brought to her attention it was clear that the state had not proven its case and she was lawfully obligated to find GZ not guilty. In fact she wondered why the state even bothered to bring the case to trial. This is really clear if you listen to the unedited version of the interview.

She believes that GZ is guilty but that the state could not prove it. And, from what I saw of the evidence or lack thereof, I believe that too! One exception: The state did NOT WANT TO PROVE IT!

So you obiously concur that the state did not prove its case and that GZ is not guilty. Interesting hypothesis about the state intentionally throwing the case though. You have any proof of that or is it merely conjecture?

 

[Pop23]

One of the NRA's branding strategies is 'rule of law'. Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.

That wasn't selling enough of them. Especially given that the number of sportsmen were falling off.

So the NRA marketing people thought up the idea of extending the logic behind the second Ammendment to imply that owning multiple guns was a patriotic duty. To protect the individual from government and from ''others'' Who might threaten the establishment.

Bingo. Sales of guns and ammo are off the charts.

And cases like GZ/TM are a way to further cement the brand by making GZ out as a hero.

Wait a minute

I'm throwing the BS flag on this one.

The GZ/TM case was blown out of proportion by the main stream media to destroy gun sales. And now you blame the main stream media for increasing gun sales????

It's like I say about most things the left come up with, they never consider the unintended consequences when the case blows up on them.

Create the problem then complain about the problem you create.

Boring

 

[legaleagle_45]

Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.

Where did you come up with that idea? It does not appear to be common sense to me, and it is clearly not common sense to those who wrote the 2nd Amend. Besides who says you need to express your opinion anyway? Maybe we should prevent you from expressing your opinion because you do not "need" to express same. Only politicians and members of the main stream media really "need" to express their opinion anyway. I am sure that is why it is contained in that portion of the Constituion entitled the "Bill of Needs"

 

[Kondor3]

One of the NRA's branding strategies is 'rule of law'. Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.

That wasn't selling enough of them. Especially given that the number of sportsmen were falling off.

So the NRA marketing people thought up the idea of extending the logic behind the second Ammendment to imply that owning multiple guns was a patriotic duty. To protect the individual from government and from ''others'' Who might threaten the establishment.

Bingo. Sales of guns and ammo are off the charts.

And cases like GZ/TM are a way to further cement the brand by making GZ out as a hero.

Wait a minute

I'm throwing the BS flag on this one.

The GZ/TM case was blown out of proportion by the main stream media to destroy gun sales. And now you blame the main stream media for increasing gun sales????

It's like I say about most things the left come up with, they never consider the unintended consequences when the case blows up on them.

Create the problem then complain about the problem you create.

Boring

 

[PMZ]

One of the NRA's branding strategies is 'rule of law'. Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.

That wasn't selling enough of them. Especially given that the number of sportsmen were falling off.

So the NRA marketing people thought up the idea of extending the logic behind the second Ammendment to imply that owning multiple guns was a patriotic duty. To protect the individual from government and from ''others'' Who might threaten the establishment.

Bingo. Sales of guns and ammo are off the charts.

And cases like GZ/TM are a way to further cement the brand by making GZ out as a hero.

Wait a minute

I'm throwing the BS flag on this one.

The GZ/TM case was blown out of proportion by the main stream media to destroy gun sales. And now you blame the main stream media for increasing gun sales????

It's like I say about most things the left come up with, they never consider the unintended consequences when the case blows up on them.

Create the problem then complain about the problem you create.

Boring

You are simply wrong about the MSM. When an armed white guys kills an unarmed black guy in redneck country it's news all over the country. Remember MLK? The MSM reported the news. The NRA used that fact to stir up those married to their branding to defend the right to carry as a patriotic stance. That's the BS here.

 

[PMZ]

Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.

Where did you come up with that idea? It does not appear to be common sense to me, and it is clearly not common sense to those who wrote the 2nd Amend. Besides who says you need to express your opinion anyway? Maybe we should prevent you from expressing your opinion because you do not "need" to express same. Only politicians and members of the main stream media really "need" to express their opinion anyway. I am sure that is why it is contained in that portion of the Constituion entitled the "Bill of Needs"

There are those with common sense and those that are suckers for NRA marketing because it's what they wish was true. Just like those that fall for Mercedes branding because they wish that they could buy a car that made them seem to be discriminating

 

[JQPublic1]

Nice SNIP job. I was addressing Prof's typo/ Freudian Slip where he inadvertantly used the word TRAIL instead of TRIAL. You should have included that, it would have appeared more honest!

Actually, my intent was to provide you with info as you previously posted this:

BTW, if juror B29 said words to the effect that the case should never have gone to trial ( I have found no reliable source for that) she likely was referring to the circus that emerged in the wake if an intentional imbroglio orchestrated by the SPD, The Medical Examiner, the Defense, the Prosecution and southern white friends!

Sorry if you misunderstood my intent.

I don't thnk any amount of obfuscation is going to change the basic premise of what Juror 29 actually said or meant during her interview.

Correct untill she understood what the law actually was, she thought that murder was committed merely when one person kills another and did not understand the requisite elments of the crime of murder such as intent and depraved mind. When those facts were brought to her attention it was clear that the state had not proven its case and she was lawfully obligated to find GZ not guilty. In fact she wondered why the state even bothered to bring the case to trial. This is really clear if you listen to the unedited version of the interview.

She believes that GZ is guilty but that the state could not prove it. And, from what I saw of the evidence or lack thereof, I believe that too! One exception: The state did NOT WANT TO PROVE IT!

So you obiously concur that the state did not prove its case and that GZ is not guilty. Interesting hypothesis about the state intentionally throwing the case though. You have any proof of that or is it merely conjecture?

There is no denying the state did not prove its case. ALthough the SPD failed to gather pertinent evidence which may have bolstered the possibility of a conviction, at least for manslaughter. Also, the prosecution overlooked pertinent violations by the defense in court procedure.

As for the interview with juror B29, I forced myself to watch it again and I realized how confused and lost this poor mother of 8 really was. She was barely coherent in English. I doubt that she fully understood the import of being a juro simply becasue she didn't understand the complexities of the case.

Her state of confusion was advantageous to the defense and others who fed her a line of BS about GZ having no INTENT to kill being the key to rendering a "fair" verdict of NOT guilty. ANyone watching the tele-drama knows that GZ INTENDED to kill TM. However, I did hear her say that "when GZ left his home he had no INTENT to kill TM." That statement indicated to me that his woman is a dingbat. What the hell does GZ's intentions when he left his home, before he saw Martin, have to do with ANYTHING?

This woman has made contradicting statements that do nothing to ease the confusion over what she really said or truly believes about this case! It lookis like the defense, the other jurors and the judge did a number on her and she still can't figure it out! Otherwise she would have stood her ground and been the catalyst of a hung jury!

 

[PMZ]

The differences between GZ and TM were only in their armament. One was an armed thug, one was an unarmed thug. I know which kind I'd rather have in my neighborhood.