Juror says Zimmerman got away with murder

The only ones with an unlimited budget was the prosecution. They failed miserably so your assertion is moot.

 

What, didn't Martha Stewart have enough cash?

 

Exactly! This woman has 8 kids to feed and they need their momma to survive and be safe.

 

Here is a witness that believes that Zimmerman murdered Martin but she wasn't given enough evidence to side with murder as a trial juror.

This should make any possible civil case interesting since the standard of proof is lower. If a judge believes, based on the evidence, that Zimmerman's actions either intentionally, unintentionally or negligently resulted in Martin's death, Zimmerman will be paying back the Martins until the day he dies. All of this is assuming O' Mara doesn't get immunity for Zimmerman.

It seems that, in Florida, you can follow and bother a boy and legally shoot him if you get scared at any time from the resulting conflict that you started. Floridians shouldn't stand for this because it really does seem as if it's getting away with murder.

Does anyone else agree that Zimmerman got away with Murder?

 

Hey Pardy I think someone already posted this in another thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the link

http://www.politicalforum.com/zimmerman/313725-juror-b-29-talks.html

 

Actually, yes she did. That's why she was able to get such a light sentence.

 

Witness to a trial just like a few hundred others yes.

No but you can legally shoot somebody who has attacked you for no reason at all and you feel your life is threatened (ie: the thug has broken your nose and is bashing your head on the ground.)

Not I but, had Zimmerman not been armed Trevon would have more than likely.

 

He absolutely unequivocally got away with MURDER!!!!!!!
What makes this sadder is that people are unaware that once you get in the room deliberating as a juror by law you can find a person innocent or guilty for any reason you want. You don't have to consider any evidence, follow any judges instructions, be intimidated or coerced by your fellow jurors , or give any explanations for your decision and there's nothing anyone can do about it. You can say I vote innocent or guilty and set there and not say another word without explaining anything to anyone. It is important people learn this in case they're ever on a jury. Judges and prosecutors absolutely don't want potential jurors having this information.

 

I'm thinking this 'Maddy' is a wack-job. She'd be a perfect fit here no doubt.
She says she's convinced George "murdered" T in one breath. Then "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.
She makes as much sense as the wack-job who claims she heard three gun shots and still believes George shot T in the back and that pubescent boys voices do not change.

 

Right, I just don't get it. The actual problem for them is that George did not take to being jumped so nonchalantly and instead of meeting the lovely child blow for blow, he took more than a few and then finally defended himself against someone who knew he was screaming for help and anyone could see them and didn't care, he was intent on beating. Trayvon was a violent human being bottom line. If you think proper justification of being watched is attacking someone, we don't need you in society, arrivederci no limit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

"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.
She's as nuts as the witness who is still convinced T was shot in the back three times.
She claims George got away with "murder" but she goes on to say she didn't think the case should have gone to trial and it was a "publicity stunt". Which is it dear?

 

That would have been second degree, they also found not guilty on the manslaughter. Why? Every juror who has spoken said there was no evidence to support murder or disprove Zimmerman's affirmative defense of justifiable homicide. As was noted throughout the trial there was no evidence to support the claim he committed murder. As has been noted to you for months the evidence shows he was indeed acting in self defense. Even now you can't refute what I posted as fact that the evidence proved Zimmerman acted in self defense, that Martin after fleeing the scene returned and assaulted Zimmerman and was on top of him beating him and threatening him with serious bodily harm.

Try to do so with the evidence as presented at trial and not supposition and conjecture or emotion.

 

to me she came off as more than slightly weird . I mean how do you reconcile these two statements

and later on

to me the interview came off as a publicity stunt

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

 

Now, don't get all righteous on me and make me show the rule 10 proof link, but I heard that after Bernie, John Guy, Mantei, and Angela Nifong all get fired, before trial they are going to be making this into a play and taking it to summerstock to raise funds for their upcoming trials. They are all going to be naked during the play, because John Guy is just so dreamy, and they thought a bunch of women were going to be all sweaty and hot over him so they would forget why they were actually there, because thats what libs do. The libs tried to tell us that Don Wests joke, lost the jury right there. The use of the word (*)(*)(*)(*) during Guys opening was applauded as the best opening these legal heads had ever seen.

 

"Does anyone else agree that Zimmerman got away with Murder?"

Taxcutter says:
Only racist fools.

 

SYG had nothing to do with this incident. What would you have changed in the law that would have effected this case? Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground".

Stand your ground comes into play when someone comes at you with an ax when you are not in your home and you instead of turning to try and flee, shoot them. What would you change about the law?

- - - Updated - - -

ROFL the law is a mere technicality now? How was it murder, what evidence proved it was murder?

 

This is really just an overall statement on how F'd up SYG actually is. The law needs to be revisited and rewritten and have some common sense injected into it.

 

"...a mere technicality..."

Taxcutter says:
If the law is a mere technicality, why bother with it. Just descend into the mob rule of ancient Athens and be done with it.

I'm sure the Nazis, Klan, Jacobins, and Soviets felt the law was a mere technicality.

 

I was on a jury in a civil case once in fact the foreman on this one. It was a dispute between a consignment shop owner and someone who had place a couple on things in the store and had not shown up for a year and suddenly did and wanted to know where his stuff was. The owner pointed to the sign about merchandise left over 90 days would be sold if not reclaimed and readmitted. It was on the doc's he signed. There were several women on they jury who said yes they had been in that store and it like others had the normal 90 day policy.
One gentleman on the jury started talking about how he didn't like the way the owner ran her business and thought we should find for the plaintiff but only give him $1 to send a message to the owner she should run her business differently. At that point I spoke up saying we should only judge the case based on the law and the contract signed which was quite clear, we were not there to judge how she ran her business.

After we found for the defendant the judge came back to answer any questions we had, as they do in our local court, and told us that the guy had sued in small claims court and lost, then in a lower court and lost and now in the circuit court. The judge agreed that the guy did not have a case and the owner had followed the law.

 

Seems to be the prevalent mentality in the Obama administration.

 

There was no stalking and the law doesn't empower people to stalk other people.

While there was no pursuit, which implies capture, the law certainly enables someone to kill someone one if that someone is beating them and threatening them with serious bodily harm, a legal tenant which goes back centuries through English common law. You don't think we have a natural right to protect ourselves from imminent serious harm?

So you would eliminate laws for self defense?

- - - Updated - - -

REDRUM

 

"But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

A second voting juror who seems to have their head up their bung.

 

You still don't know this had nothing to do with SYG?

- - - Updated - - -

That is everywhere, if I shove you and then you pull out a knife I can pull out my gun, but then Zimmerman didn't start the fight Martin did.

 

I'm actually glad she she didn't try to hang the jury...let that monster free so some real justice can go down. She did the right thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The "Law" as it's written has a double meaning when a White kills a Black.

Understand that soldier.