Juror says Zimmerman got away with murder

Actually it's the people who posted stupid pics from Google as their replies who are the trolls.

Oh... and those who get tamp-banned for trolling.

Fit the category much ?

 

Tell me something I don't already know.

 

He was committing a forum suicide and only got a temp ban. Now he is right back at it. And we wonder why this forum has problems.

 

Well I would start with a provision, that if you were in a situation where you could have avoided conflict by retreating or not following a suspected person, and felt it necesarry to use deadly force to protect your life, and the lead homicide officer, medical examiners and forensic specialist all determine that your wounds were indeed NOT life threatening....tough luck.

We also have to get beyond this whole concept that if we can even for a second entertain the most miniscule chance that the shooter may have very well been kinda justified in his concern for his life....that this is the same thing as having a "reasonable fear".

 

She was wrong when she said he didn't shoot Martin intentionally. Zimmerman most certainly did shoot him intentionally, to get him to stop beating his head on the concrete. Most interesting was when she said it should have never made it to trial.

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "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."

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.

 

The old law of use of deadly force was predicated on the retreat you speak of. The SYG was specifically created so that you don't have to retreat, hence the name "Stand Your Ground". Why should I have retreat or run away scared because some thug wants to be all up in my face, or worse?

I see you added the "follow" part in there. Again, nothing illegal about it. So what.

Here's a question for you...when is it right or legal to physically attack someone following you?

The wounds were not life threatening because GZ STOPPED the attack before they reached that level. That's is exactly the point. Why should someone have to be a victim of a thug AND then suffer grave wounds BEFORE they can use necessary force to stop the attack? That's asinine at best.

 

Self defense is not murder.

If you are ever chosen for jury duty, please tell the prosecuting/defense attorneys this info.

Then enjoy your ride home that afternoon.

 

When he shows you his gun?

 

The legal system is amazing. I guess it's justified that a juror needs evidence to completely prove that a person is guilty -- despite the fact that they personally KNOW that the person is guilty -- but it's frustrating. I was just as frustrated when OJ was acquitted due to lack of evidence, even though we all knew that he was guilty.

I'm glad that she finally came out and told the world that she had to find Zimmerman not guilty despite believing that he was.

 

Ah yes the gun that the two witnesses who saw Martin beating up Zimmerman didn't see.

Possible? Barely but not probable, not likely and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again you fail at standards of proof.

 

Do you also take issue with women that walk around in seedy areas, scantily dressed, creating a situation where they might get raped?

Are they too blamed if they are assaulted?

 

She apparently felt compelled to jump through the hoops that were arranged for her. She should have stuck to her guns.

 

The retreat portion was there, not so you'd have to run away from "thugs"...but more to prevent confrontations from being solved by gunfire.

theres nothing legal about it either. you don't have a legal right to follow anyone.

when the following has become more than coincidence and they refuse to address you with information about who they are and why they are following you.

wholllllle lost of supposition in the above statement.

 

That's because we have a court system based on evidence, thankfully it is not based on a belief system. Can you just imagine how (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up that would be.

The jurors decided not guilty because of George fearing for his life as he was being beat, so the decision was obvious. If he would have had malice he would have emptied the clip

 

Ah yes, the two witnesses who never saw TM beating on Z's face or slamming his head into the ground.

 

I'm not saying that the systems is wrong. I'm just saying that it's still surprises me that a person on a jury is compelled to find a person innocent even if they believe that they're guilty.

I agreed with you up 'till this point. Why did he have handcuffs and a loaded gun? He seems to have been expecting trouble. He found what he was looking for, and he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life. Vigilantism is never a good idea.

 

Only to a fool. To suggest that because you cant see fists hitting face means that they didn't see Martin pummeling Zimmerman is to insult the jury's intelligence. The prosecution would have been better off if they hadn't tried to make the argument.

 

She's in crisis mode. Now that it's clear shes "black enough" and not a hispanic how is she going to return to the black community? She has to feed the mob to placate it.

 

Jurors aren't supposed to prove anything. Wtf legal system are you talking about ?

And yes... evidence has value in court cases... welcome to Earth.

"Personally KNOW" ?

So they were there ?!

Why were they on the jury and not on the witness stand then ?

Prosecutors are bigger failures than we thought, eh...







Do people think before they type ?

 

Bingo.

She needs acceptance, and fears for her life (as she should).

The interview circuit and book deal are just a bonus.



"I HAD to vote that way! I think he did it!! Don't kill me!"

- - - Updated - - -

$50 in your PayPal account if you can show me that law.

lol.... goof

 

NO proof that happened.

There is AMPLE PROOF that the drug-abusing, theiving, chronic discipline problem, violent , racist, self-described "No Limit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" Martin DID assault and batter Zimmerman, which, for the umpteenth time, is what goth the "No Limit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" shot.

Do you Trayvonites plan to suck on SOUR GRAPES FOREVER, because you were PROVEN COMPLETELY WRONG, by the EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY, in a court of law?

 

Not only did they not see it, they didn't hear any "thuds" you might expect from fists hitting face or heads hitting concrete...

That's 2 for 2.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying the gun never came out?

 

You've put a stop to paparazzi and private investigaters single handedly!

 

They saw arms and hands moving in a downward motion. To argue that isn't punching is to insult the jury's intelligence. You are too smart by half if you think that is a good argument.

 

Arms and hands moving up and down without impact sounds imply a struggle...like over a gun.