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

[Kondor3]

"...Not innocent. Fact"

The law, and a jury of peers, disagrees with you. That is all that is required in this world.

 

[Katzndogz]

The killing was "justified".
Fact.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Please note: the purpose of Neighborhood Watch is NOT follow, confront, and murder unarmed residents and visitors of the neighborhood who are innocently doing what the have a right to do in a place they have a right to be. Neighborhood Watch programs advise and request their volunteers to observe only, to contact the police and let the police handle any possible problems, and NOT to carry guns. Zimmerman broke all of those principles and ended up murdering someone who was not armed and was no threat to the neighborood. He needs to pay for what he has done. Poor judgment is not an excuse for taking a life.

Please note: Zimmerman was on his way to Target and was not on official Neighborhood Watch duty at the time the incident occurred... so regardless of the merits of your argument which apparently relies upon a faulty assumption concerning the binding legal effect of a private organizations rules of conduct and further relies upon an inaccurate and factual false version of the events... it is totally irrelevant.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The juror in question is ignorant and ill informed and dopey.

It IS possible to think "Ok. The defendant may be guilty. Hell. He's probably guilty. BUT the STANDARD is not 'proof to a probability.' It is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' And the State didn't provide adequate evidence to satisfy that standard of proof. Therefore, in keeping with the legal instructions and my oath, I must vote 'not guilty.'"

However, the juror is still a moron. Because objectively, the State provided NO evidence whatsoever that it was anything other than a justified shooting. Accordingly, it is just plain dopey to even start the "analysis" with the claim that he is "probably" guilty or that he "got away with" murder.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Justice will be served when Zimmerman goes to prison.

Zimmerman had a criminal record. Trayvon did not.

Since when, under the rule of law and due process, has a criminal record proven guilt in another case? Are you suggesting that it should have?

Hypothetically speaking, if the roles were reversed, and TM was the one with a criminal record, would you be singing the same tune?

What happened on that night was a tragedy, pure and simple. If you want to blame somebody, blame the prosecution. They had equal say in jury selection, plus they overcharged the case. Had they gone for manslaughter like they should have they probably would have gotten a conviction, and people on the left wouldn't be nearly as upset.

Due process is a defining pillar our Constitution and our way of life. It is not perfect, and given that human beings are involved, nor should it be. But it was served nonetheless.

By the way, the idea that an all-black jury would have convicted Zimmerman (and they might have) is irrelevant except in a world ruled by emotion rather than law.

Zimmerman had no criminal record. That's how come he could get a concealed weapons permit.

The prosecution DID go for manslaughter and it was one of the charges against him

There will be no federal prosecution and there won't be a civil case either.

I didn't know that, nor bothered to look it up. I was just mystified by Joe's concept that any person's criminal record would equate to guilt of another crime.

I should probably pay closer attention to the details of the story. It was my understanding that he was charged with murder and not manslaughter and that was one of the issues of the case. My apologies for any irresponsible reactions on my part.

 

[mudwhistle]

Please note: the purpose of Neighborhood Watch is NOT follow, confront, and murder unarmed residents and visitors of the neighborhood who are innocently doing what the have a right to do in a place they have a right to be. Neighborhood Watch programs advise and request their volunteers to observe only, to contact the police and let the police handle any possible problems, and NOT to carry guns. Zimmerman broke all of those principles and ended up murdering someone who was not armed and was no threat to the neighborood. He needs to pay for what he has done. Poor judgment is not an excuse for taking a life.

Please note: Zimmerman was on his way to Target and was not on official Neighborhood Watch duty at the time the incident occurred... so regardless of the merits of your argument which apparently relies upon a faulty assumption concerning the binding legal effect of a private organizations rules of conduct and further relies upon an inaccurate and factual false version of the events... it is totally irrelevant.

Uh, I don't know of any official duty schedules in any neighborhood watch program. They're always supposed to observe and report.

Epic fail

 

[Kondor3]

"...The prosecution DID go for manslaughter and it was one of the charges against him..."

And the jury (obviously) either (a) perceived the last-minute introduction of the lesser charge as an inappropriate fallback position because the prosecution knew they had blown the case or (b) struck the jury as perilously close to 'double jeopardy' and a malicious and unfair afterthought - sufficiently so as to preclude them from acting upon that lesser charge.

"...There will be no federal prosecution and there won't be a civil case either."

Quite so.

And all the Uber-Liberal and Pro-Martin hand-wringing and hyper-emotionalism and lamentation in the world is not going to change that.

The law has had its day, and the law has had its say; functioning exactly the way that it is intended to function.

Not Guilty.

Case closed.

The Pro-Martin side in this case has lost.

It's over.

 

[mudwhistle]

The juror in question is ignorant and ill informed and dopey.

It IS possible to think "Ok. The defendant may be guilty. Hell. He's probably guilty. BUT the STANDARD is not 'proof to a probability.' It is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' And the State didn't provide adequate evidence to satisfy that standard of proof. Therefore, in keeping with the legal instructions and my oath, I must vote 'not guilty.'"

However, the juror is still a moron. Because objectively, the State provided NO evidence whatsoever that it was anything other than a justified shooting. Accordingly, it is just plain dopey to even start the "analysis" with the claim that he is "probably" guilty or that he "got away with" murder.

In an attempt to justify her decision to her friends and family she decided to allow ABC to manipulate her and make a total spectacle of her.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Uh, I don't know of any official duty schedules in any neighborhood watch program. They're always supposed to observe and report.

Epic fail

The rules regarding the carrying of a firearm relate only to official watch duty.

Epic fail.

 

[mudwhistle]

Uh, I don't know of any official duty schedules in any neighborhood watch program. They're always supposed to observe and report.

Epic fail

The rules regarding the carrying of a firearm relate only to official watch duty.

Epic fail.

Show me a link or you're still failing.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I think it's clear that this jurist lied to get on the jury, because she felt deep down that Zimmerman was guilty but she couldn't convict him because there was no evidence of it. If she had more support from the other jurists she probably would have made sure he was convicted regardless of the evidence.

It's easy to imagine how the jury made its decision. The rest of the jurist made up their minds early that the verdict was "not guilty." However, this one was a hold-out who wanted to vote guilty. The rest of the jurors had to wear her down until she finally caved in and voted "not guilty."

But, but...in her heart she knew Zimmerman was guilty, despite the fact that there was no evidence to support a guilty verdict.
One big liberal downfall: they don't think, they feel.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The killing was "justified".
Fact.

An acquittal is not proof of 'justification'. If that were true, OJ could now say he was justified in killing Nicole and Goldman.

 

[dilloduck]

The killing was "justified".
Fact.

An acquittal is not proof of 'justification'. If that were true, OJ could now say he was justified in killing Nicole and Goldman.

OJ didn't claim self defense. try again

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The killing was "justified".
Fact.

An acquittal is not proof of 'justification'. If that were true, OJ could now say he was justified in killing Nicole and Goldman.

^ moron.

The OJ DEFENSE was NEVER "justification," you idiot.

The defense of justification is "I did the deed, but I was justified under the law in doing so."

The OJ defense was "I didn't fucking DO it."

His acquittal came DESPITE the massive and conclusive proof that he DID do it.

The SOLE basis for the Zimmerman acquittal HAD to be (could ONLY BE) that when he did it, he was justified.

Why? Because the State had the burden of disproving justification, beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not meet that burden. Therefore, the basis of the verdict was that Zimmerman was justified.

 

[Zona]

I think it's clear that this jurist lied to get on the jury, because she felt deep down that Zimmerman was guilty but she couldn't convict him because there was no evidence of it. If she had more support from the other jurists she probably would have made sure he was convicted regardless of the evidence.

It's easy to imagine how the jury made its decision. The rest of the jurist made up their minds early that the verdict was "not guilty." However, this one was a hold-out who wanted to vote guilty. The rest of the jurors had to wear her down until she finally caved in and voted "not guilty."

But, but...in her heart she knew Zimmerman was guilty, despite the fact that there was no evidence to support a guilty verdict.
One big liberal downfall: they don't think, they feel.

Was OJ guilty?

 

[gallantwarrior]

[

If you're wondering why this case became so public it's because of the details of the case. From the git-go the media lied to the public about the details. Turns out this is exactly why people should be allowed to carry a weapon. Simply to prevent getting your head bashed in.

Zimmerman showed a light on the truth but you and others like you refuse to open your eyes. All you care about is the lie that Trayvan was a baby and the lie that it is criminal even to own a gun much less carry one on your person.

Guy, I would have a lot more respect for your understanding of this case if you didn't consistantly misspell Trayvon's name.

If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have gone stalking this kid. If he hadn't stalked this kid, this kid would not have reacted to a potential threat.

This case shows exactly why guns should be limited. A guy like Zimmerman, who once assaulted a cop, who once broke a woman's leg at a party after manhandlinger her as a bouncer, was the last guy you ever wanted out there with a gun, because eventually, he was going to do exactly what he did.

I'm curious. On one hand, you constantly condemn Zimmerman for failing to back down after he contacted the police. Yet, you find it perfectly acceptable that Martin reacted violently to a perceived threat. Why is it wrong for Zimmerman to have performed his duties as a Neighborhood watch officer, following and identifying a possible threat to the community, but Martin is excused for not simply going to his father's house as quickly and directly as possible? Once Martin turned and assaulted Zimmerman, Zimmerman was justified in using self defense to nullify the physical harm Martin inflicted on him.

 

[Papageorgio]

Since when, under the rule of law and due process, has a criminal record proven guilt in another case? Are you suggesting that it should have?

Hypothetically speaking, if the roles were reversed, and TM was the one with a criminal record, would you be singing the same tune?

What happened on that night was a tragedy, pure and simple. If you want to blame somebody, blame the prosecution. They had equal say in jury selection, plus they overcharged the case. Had they gone for manslaughter like they should have they probably would have gotten a conviction, and people on the left wouldn't be nearly as upset.

Due process is a defining pillar our Constitution and our way of life. It is not perfect, and given that human beings are involved, nor should it be. But it was served nonetheless.

By the way, the idea that an all-black jury would have convicted Zimmerman (and they might have) is irrelevant except in a world ruled by emotion rather than law.

Zimmerman had no criminal record. That's how come he could get a concealed weapons permit.

The prosecution DID go for manslaughter and it was one of the charges against him

There will be no federal prosecution and there won't be a civil case either.

I didn't know that, nor bothered to look it up. I was just mystified by Joe's concept that any person's criminal record would equate to guilt of another crime.

I should probably pay closer attention to the details of the story. It was my understanding that he was charged with murder and not manslaughter and that was one of the issues of the case. My apologies for any irresponsible reactions on my part.

Why pay attention, no one else seems to. Hell, Joe just makes shit up!

 

[dilloduck]

It's easy to imagine how the jury made its decision. The rest of the jurist made up their minds early that the verdict was "not guilty." However, this one was a hold-out who wanted to vote guilty. The rest of the jurors had to wear her down until she finally caved in and voted "not guilty."

But, but...in her heart she knew Zimmerman was guilty, despite the fact that there was no evidence to support a guilty verdict.
One big liberal downfall: they don't think, they feel.

Was OJ guilty?

oh lord----for the zillionth time--the jury said he was not guilty.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's easy to imagine how the jury made its decision. The rest of the jurist made up their minds early that the verdict was "not guilty." However, this one was a hold-out who wanted to vote guilty. The rest of the jurors had to wear her down until she finally caved in and voted "not guilty."

But, but...in her heart she knew Zimmerman was guilty, despite the fact that there was no evidence to support a guilty verdict.
One big liberal downfall: they don't think, they feel.

Was OJ guilty?

He was "found" not guilty.

But he was, of course, guilty.

Which question are you attempting to ask, Bodey?

 

[Papageorgio]

It's easy to imagine how the jury made its decision. The rest of the jurist made up their minds early that the verdict was "not guilty." However, this one was a hold-out who wanted to vote guilty. The rest of the jurors had to wear her down until she finally caved in and voted "not guilty."

But, but...in her heart she knew Zimmerman was guilty, despite the fact that there was no evidence to support a guilty verdict.
One big liberal downfall: they don't think, they feel.

Was OJ guilty?

Which trial, what was the evidence, you, know DNA, circumstantial. How does Zimmerman and OJ even equate? Different trials, different circumstances. Had Goldman, come upon OJ, killing Nicole, and he used deadly force in stopping OJ, would you have objected? It seems Goldman might be alive today, if he would of had a gun. That's assuming it happened the way the prosecution said it happened.