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.
You feel bad for a thug who shot an unarmed teen to death and didn't go to jail? Why?
Well that's just a lie.
We've already established it was Self Defense. A thug attacked someone that night though. The thug attacked the person with the physical injuries, the eyewitness, the lie detector test and the map/time-line.
Your problem is the color of the skin, nothing else. It the roles were reversed you'd support the Black shooter.
Except that he applied to be a cop, and was turned down. That kind of means you 'want to be a cop."
He applied, once. Big deal. He also turned down an opportunity that was offered him, to have a car, complete with lights and a radio. He wasn't interested.
The prosecution tried to show he was a "wannabe cop," and expression with connotations of someone who is "gung-ho," and a "hot dog," with an attitude of superiority, and also in this case, a racist, out to shoot blacks on site, because in his view, they were all criminals.
That wasn't who Zimmerman was, and the prosecution couldn't (though they tried continually throughout the trial) come up with any evidence that Zimmerman was that kind of person. In fact, what came out was just the opposite. This worked against the prosecution, and the fact that they continued to press it, made them look even more biased and uninterested in truth.
The prosecution's opening statements were chock full of lies from the first words uttered, and could have been taken directly from the pages of the "mainstream" media in the days just following the incident, so egregious were the claims. They couldn't prove any of them. That is what the jury had to consider, and that is why they had to aquit. There was simply no evidence that Zimmerman was a man who acted out of ill will, or animosity toward blacks, and all evidence showed that it was Martin who was the aggressor, who had taken Zimmerman down, and was pounding the snot out of him, with intent to do bodily harm, or kill him.
In a perverse bit of post-trial agitprop, ABC News somehow recruited the one woman of color on George Zimmerman's "all white" jury and twisted her words to reflect the presumed editorial position of ABC News. In this clip from an exclusive Robin Roberts interview which has played just about everywhere including CBS News, Roberts says to the juror, "Some people have said, point blank, 'George Zimmerman got away with murder.' How do you respond to those people who say that?" In the edited video ABC floated about, "Maddy" answers unhesitatingly, "George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can't get away from God."
This clip led to headlines like "Juror Says Zimmerman 'Got Away With Murder'" in the New York Times. In the article by Lisetta Alvarez -- the reporter who gave the world the phrase "White Hispanic" -- there is not even a mention of the prompt by Roberts. The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago Tribune ran comparable headlines.
What none of these publications mentioned -- and kudos to Slate's William Saletan for breaking the story -- is that the producers at ABC edited Maddy's response to have her say something she never intended. In the unedited version, after Roberts asks her leading question, Maddy pauses, starts her response over, and clearly plays back Roberts' question as the stated premise to her own answer, "But you can't get away from God." In other words, this is how she would answer that question if asked. She never implied Zimmerman got away with murder, nor agreed with the premise. In fact, she stood by her decision to acquit Zimmerman.
This juror is proof positive of why professional jurors are needed, even if it is in conjunction with citizen jurors. I have no faith in average citizens to fully comprehend and analyze all of the legal jargon and nuances of the law that are thrown at them. She had the option of standing by her decision and could have made this a hung jury. Obviously, she allowed herself to be swayed by pressure. There were enough discrepancies in Zimmerman's account of what happened to justify not taking his word as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This juror is proof positive of why professional jurors are needed. I have no faith in average citizens to fully comprehend and analyze all of the legal jargon and nuances of the law that are thrown at them. She had the option of standing by her decision and could have made this a hung jury. Obviously, she allowed herself to be swayed by pressure. There were enough discrepancies in Zimmerman's account of what happened to justify not taking his word as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You and the other hard-core IAmTrayvon's will never understand.
It isn't necessary to believe Everything gz said to vote not guilty.
The testimony, even from the persecution witnesses, supported the defense claim that he was on the ground, injured, could reasonably be in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The evidence and testimony support those facts. He could be lying about The Child saying 'you're gonna die tonight,' or punching him 30 times, or The Child circling his car. Doesn't matter, unless you want to charge him for a Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire offense.
Besides, you all keep ignoring that it was Holder/Corey/Bernie/Crump's burden to prove BARD that gz did not act in self defense.
This juror is proof positive of why professional jurors are needed, even if it is in conjunction with citizen jurors. I have no faith in average citizens to fully comprehend and analyze all of the legal jargon and nuances of the law that are thrown at them.
The very last thing we need is Professional Jurors. Talk about crooked politics
I want the average person on any jury. Maybe you do have a minimum requirement such as a high school degree.
But the average man or woman has so much more common sense than highly educated fools like Obama (for example) who have never lived in the nitty gritty of the real world. Give me a man who's walked the streets at 2am headed home from work over some person who lives in an Ivory Palace and has no street smarts.
This juror looked at the evidence and the law then came to the correct conclusion.
The very last thing we need is Professional Jurors. Talk about crooked politics
I want the average person on any jury. Maybe you do have a minimum requirement such as a high school degree.
But the average man or woman has so much more common sense than highly educated fools like Obama (for example) who have never lived in the nitty gritty of the real world. Give me a man who's walked the streets at 2am headed home from work over some person who lives in an Ivory Palace and has no street smarts.
This juror looked at the evidence and the law then came to the correct conclusion.
Just gave you a rep point (why are we limited to just one?). Common sense is what we need more of, especially on juries.
The very last thing we need is Professional Jurors. Talk about crooked politics
I want the average person on any jury. Maybe you do have a minimum requirement such as a high school degree.
But the average man or woman has so much more common sense than highly educated fools like Obama (for example) who have never lived in the nitty gritty of the real world. Give me a man who's walked the streets at 2am headed home from work over some person who lives in an Ivory Palace and has no street smarts.
This juror looked at the evidence and the law then came to the correct conclusion.
If you actually read my post in its entirety or had bothered to read the link, you would have noted that I said professional jurors in conjunction with citizen jurors. When you have juries, that even judges note, could have returned with more applicable verdicts, if they really understood what was presented to them and the nuances of the law, we would not have...case in point...Casey Anthony getting off relatively scott free.
The average person you speak of does not have enough knowledge of the laws and I would rather have a few more knowledgable individuals present to insert their expertise into the deliberations.
Why did Obama come into this discussion? Perfect example of something irrelevant to the issue at hand and why there should be professionals that understand what applies in what circumstances and what does not.
If you actually read my post in its entirety or had bothered to read the link, you would have noted that I said professional jurors in conjunction with citizen jurors. When you have juries, that even judges note, could have returned with more applicable verdicts, if they really understood what was presented to them and the nuances of the law, we would not have...case in point...Casey Anthony getting off relatively scott free.
The average person you speak of does not have enough knowledge of the laws and I would rather have a few more knowledgable individuals present to insert their expertise into the deliberations.
Why did Obama come into this discussion? Perfect example of something irrelevant to the issue at hand and why there should be professionals that understand what applies in what circumstances and what does not.
BTW...Professional does not equate to political.
"Professionals" will be lobbied, just as are the "political". Anyone with influence is a target of lobbyists.
We've already established it was Self Defense. A thug attacked someone that night though. The thug attacked the person with the physical injuries, the eyewitness, the lie detector test and the map/time-line.
Your problem is the color of the skin, nothing else. It the roles were reversed you'd support the Black shooter.
I'm afraid that's a problem with a lot of people. Those that are vindictive towards Zimmerman never mention Trayvon's fighting and behavior. To do so, would be an admission that his temperament makes it likely he was an aggressor. Rachel said she had no doubt Trayvon punched George first, no doubt at all.
But you're right, it's mostly about color. If both men were black, you'd not hear a peep from anyone. If the roles were reversed, and Trayvon were white, the liberals would not care, certainly nobody at a state or national level would even notice. If Trayvon were white and shot Zimmerman, the liberals would be saying he deserved it, and would protest if Trayvon were arrested.
In the other case talked about, where the large black dude shot an unarmed white kid, these folks were absent. They pick and choose their topics, based on skin color, social themes, and whatever the benefit of the day for free is.
This particular juror......interesting to say the least.
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.
