Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh trust I don't care. Just pointing it out because the chattering class have seized upon it. The jury wasn't "diverse". One said she was culturally biased against Rachel as if not understanding ebonics is some sort of crime against humanity.
"Chattering class"?? Just what are YOU doing on here if you hold such people in so much disdain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebunny
You do know that any notes you take while on a jury are taken from you and you are not allowed to keep them, right?
But it does help you remember. Anyway, I thought the jurors were allowed to take their notes with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Also, her husband is an attorney, although probably not a criminal attorney. Still, it's hard to believe they never discussed the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebunny
How do you figure that? Were you aware that the jury was sequestered? Apparently not.
I think ellemint meant prior to her being selected for the jury. You know, like husband and wife discussing the issue at dinner???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
This is a misrepresentation. She did not say it willingly. As a matter of fact, she hesitated a good long while and then qualified the statement with other statements. Her first instinct, which is why she hesitated so long, was to say no. She did say she thought he'd learned his lesson.
She said it. You can't un-say something.
<snip>
Explain, please, how shooting the man that is bashing your head into concrete repeatedly is not justifiable? Had GZ not shot TM, GZ would dead today and it would be Trayvon on trial - and CONVICTED.
That has never been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". I have many reasonable doubts that such happened.
Travon came back and assaulted George. Why would he return to do that if he was scared? Ridiculous. When someone is following you, you run away to a safe place. Once you have left the area, you don't come back and punch him in the face - unless you're itching for a fight.
Again, never proven.
Travon didn't help himself by returning to the area, punching GZ in the face, and then bashing GZ's head into the concrete. At that point, GZ had no choice but to defend himself.
Never proven.
All the events leading up the shooting are irrelevant on the charge of murder/manslaughter. At that point, under the law, nothing matter except GZ feared for his life.
GZ is a wuss. He's the one who had the gun!
Or, would you have GZ in jail for 30 years because he followed Travon and got out of his vehicle. Really? You really believe following someone and getting out of your vehicle is worthy of what is essentially a life sentence?
You left out, followed and KILLED Trayvon. An inconvenient truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
It could and should have been. One juror disagreed. She even thought it was Trayvon's voice on 911 call. That juror should have "stood her ground" and her convictions. Hang the jury. I have served on a jury and most certainly wouldn't hesitate to do this if that was my judgment.
The prosecutor asked Rachel is using terms like "creepy ass cracker" is how "people speak in her culture," and Rachel said yes. So blame the prosecutor if you have a problem with it. We told you when she testified the jury wouldn't relate to her. You gushed about how "authentic" she was and how that's how everyone in Little Haiti speaks.
Most people can't relate to people who can't speak properly and don't read cursive.
It has nothing to do with race. I bet Captain Carter has never called anyone a creepy ass cracker.
BTW- You're wrong again all over this thread. The prosecution had challenges left. They didn't even try to challenge this juror. They weren't stuck with her, they accepted her with no challenge.
Where did you come up with that---shall we say---crap? Link please. Where exactly did Rachel say she was told to use phrases like that? I think you're making that up.
Yes, I'm saying she's a white racist. And, I also believe she would tell you in a heartbeat that she is not. I have no idea about the rest of the jurors, but will if they ever speak out. I do feel that this woman who was so eager to get on national TV and talk about HER experience, has a dominant personality and I would find it surprising if that personality changed during jury deliberations.
WHERE do you live and what experience to you have in small towns in the South with a FACTUAL and long history of white racism? With all due respect, you sound a bit naive about these things. I'm stated a number of times that it is quite clear that we DO NOT live in a POST-RACIAL WORLD. I'm wonder what world you live in and where that "wonderful" world may exist.
Who "profiled" Rachel.....people were outright, in-your-face, brutally and viciously attacking her because of her race all over social media and HERE.
People didn't poke fun of Rachel because of race as much as her clownish and arrogant demeanor. That and the fact that hardly anyone knew what she was saying have the time.
True, we don't live in a POST-RACIAL world, we never will. I'm not naive, I just don't think of everything that goes on in terms of race. Much of what goes on that is thought of as race is purely socio-demographics. Many people make fun of white folks from the Deep South just because.
The AC interview with Rachel is best described as White Guilt. It's a pretty useful trait, one that many use to get what they want. Including Rachel. Worked again.
Now if you go back to Rachel's statements before/during/after the trial, try to make sense of that. If she wants to tell a different version of the story depending on her particular mood, or who's asking the questions, then so be it.
Good for her. She put in weeks of her life on this jury. One where the lives of the jurors is threatened by vicious, racist, animals.
If a lying hate monger like Al Sharpton can exploit the death of the "child" to line his pockets, if his parents can "shake down" the HMA for their son's actions, she should certainly be able to make a few bucks for her efforts and dedication.
It could and should have been. One juror disagreed. She even thought it was Trayvon's voice on 911 call. That juror should have "stood her ground" and her convictions. Hang the jury. I have served on a jury and most certainly wouldn't hesitate to do this if that was my judgment.
If I believed it was tm screaming I'd have hung the jury. If, however, during deliberations I became unsure because of the Evidence, different story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
