Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You go to a jury because it is the fundamental Constitutional Right of every accused person to a trial by a jury of one's peers.
You go to a jury because it is the fundamental Constitutional Right of every accused person to a trial by a jury of one's peers.
Actually, only 2% of criminal cases are heard by juries. 58% are plead out, most of the rest are heard by a judge. The Jury is a nice little thing we like, but mostly we don't trust it that much...
"...Zimmerman murdered a child and he got away with it, because he did it in a racist state..."
"...Frankly, I don't think that speaks well for us as a country or a society, but if you are comfortable with it... then I m kind of sad for you."
SHe should have stood her ground, but she didn't. What she stated was the judges instructions, the ones you whined about, didn't give them much of a choice.
The law is a pesky thing. We all know you like to ignore it (especially the consitutiton) when it doesnt suit your worldview.
The laws here were actually kind of stupid, and if you had an all-minority jury instead of this one poor woman fighting against five white people, you'd have gotten a different result.
Zimmerman killed a child. Nothing else really matters.
Mudwhistle said:He had a permit to carry that gun.
The gun was registered legally.
The trial proved that Trayvan wasn't innocent when he was spotted beating Zimmerman up.
It's not clear who was doing the harassing because there was no witness to that aspect.
The young man who was killed had a history of violence.
The young man who was killed had drugs in his system.
The young man who was killed had liver damage from drug use it was discovered during the autopsy.
The young man who was killed was at the time on suspension from school.
The young man who was killed should have been supervised by his father.
The young man who was killed took pictures of himself holding a gun.
The young man who was killed admitted to using "Purple Drank, Lean, Sizzurp, Texas Tea, barre, Purple Jelly" on the internet.
"...I wonder why a man who commited homicide was not subjected to the same biological and background scrutiny as the person he killed! GZ could have been as high as a kite when he decided to follow and harass Martin. His spontaneous 'courage' and faulty rationale could certainly have been explained by a simple blood test but the SPD didn't think it was necessary at the time!"
The law is a pesky thing. We all know you like to ignore it (especially the consitutiton) when it doesnt suit your worldview.
The laws here were actually kind of stupid, and if you had an all-minority jury instead of this one poor woman fighting against five white people, you'd have gotten a different result.
Zimmerman killed a child. Nothing else really matters.
Juror 29 also said that Zimmerman should never have gone to trail, that what the State did was just a publicity stunt. She also said that Martin's race was not a factor.
She only said Zimmerman got away with murder because she thought that whenever someone took a life he should be charged, but since Zimmerman did not have the intent to kill Martin (he acted in self-defense) she had to follow the law and vote not guilty. This juror actually supported Zimmerman!! Here's the link (check out permalink #209)
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ther-juror-b29-speaks-out-14.html#post7600539
Juror 29 was correct if she said "GZ should never have GONE TO TRAIL. " Had he not TRAILED TM this whole chain of tragic events would never have occurred! Are you prone to Freudian Slips, Prof?
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.
"...I wonder why a man who commited homicide was not subjected to the same biological and background scrutiny as the person he killed! GZ could have been as high as a kite when he decided to follow and harass Martin. His spontaneous 'courage' and faulty rationale could certainly have been explained by a simple blood test but the SPD didn't think it was necessary at the time!"
If it is Standard Operating Procedure and permissible at law for law enforcement to give a Blood Test to a person suspected of homicide within Sanford, Florida, or Seminole County, Florida, or within the State of Florida, or within the United States at large, and, if no such test was undertaken, then, you have a point.
If it is NOT Standard Operating Procedure for law enforcement to do so or permissible at law to undertake such tests, then, your point is moot, and groundless.
Are you in a position to cite the legal basis for such standard practices in this context and in the relevant jurisdiction(s)?
I'm not.
Juror 29 was correct if she said "GZ should never have GONE TO TRAIL. " Had he not TRAILED TM this whole chain of tragic events would never have occurred! Are you prone to Freudian Slips, Prof?
This is what she actually said in regards thereto:
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.
George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty' - ABC News
Nice SNIP job. I was addressing Prof's typo/ Freudian Slip where he inadvertantly used the word TRAIL instead of TRIAL. You should have included that, it would have appeared more honest!
BTW, if juror B29 said words to the effect that the case should never have gone to trial ( I have found no reliable source for that) she likely was referring to the circus that emerged in the wake if an intentional imbroglio orchestrated by the SPD, The Medical Examiner, the Defense, the Prosecution and southern white friends!
I don't thnk any amount of obfuscation is going to change the basic premise of what Juror 29 actually said or meant during her interview.
She believes that GZ is guilty but that the state could not prove it. And, from what I saw of the evidence or lack thereof, I believe that too! One exception: The state did NOT WANT TO PROVE IT!
One of the NRA's branding strategies is 'rule of law'. Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.
That wasn't selling enough of them. Especially given that the number of sportsmen were falling off.
So the NRA marketing people thought up the idea of extending the logic behind the second Ammendment to imply that owning multiple guns was a patriotic duty. To protect the individual from government and from ''others'' Who might threaten the establishment.
Bingo. Sales of guns and ammo are off the charts.
And cases like GZ/TM are a way to further cement the brand by making GZ out as a hero.
Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.
One of the NRA's branding strategies is 'rule of law'. Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.
That wasn't selling enough of them. Especially given that the number of sportsmen were falling off.
So the NRA marketing people thought up the idea of extending the logic behind the second Ammendment to imply that owning multiple guns was a patriotic duty. To protect the individual from government and from ''others'' Who might threaten the establishment.
Bingo. Sales of guns and ammo are off the charts.
And cases like GZ/TM are a way to further cement the brand by making GZ out as a hero.
Wait a minute
I'm throwing the BS flag on this one.
The GZ/TM case was blown out of proportion by the main stream media to destroy gun sales. And now you blame the main stream media for increasing gun sales????
It's like I say about most things the left come up with, they never consider the unintended consequences when the case blows up on them.
Create the problem then complain about the problem you create.
Boring
One of the NRA's branding strategies is 'rule of law'. Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.
That wasn't selling enough of them. Especially given that the number of sportsmen were falling off.
So the NRA marketing people thought up the idea of extending the logic behind the second Ammendment to imply that owning multiple guns was a patriotic duty. To protect the individual from government and from ''others'' Who might threaten the establishment.
Bingo. Sales of guns and ammo are off the charts.
And cases like GZ/TM are a way to further cement the brand by making GZ out as a hero.
Wait a minute
I'm throwing the BS flag on this one.
The GZ/TM case was blown out of proportion by the main stream media to destroy gun sales. And now you blame the main stream media for increasing gun sales????
It's like I say about most things the left come up with, they never consider the unintended consequences when the case blows up on them.
Create the problem then complain about the problem you create.
Boring
Common sense used to be that two kinds of civilians needed guns. Sportsmen and criminals.
Where did you come up with that idea? It does not appear to be common sense to me, and it is clearly not common sense to those who wrote the 2nd Amend. Besides who says you need to express your opinion anyway? Maybe we should prevent you from expressing your opinion because you do not "need" to express same. Only politicians and members of the main stream media really "need" to express their opinion anyway. I am sure that is why it is contained in that portion of the Constituion entitled the "Bill of Needs"
Nice SNIP job. I was addressing Prof's typo/ Freudian Slip where he inadvertantly used the word TRAIL instead of TRIAL. You should have included that, it would have appeared more honest!
Actually, my intent was to provide you with info as you previously posted this:
BTW, if juror B29 said words to the effect that the case should never have gone to trial ( I have found no reliable source for that) she likely was referring to the circus that emerged in the wake if an intentional imbroglio orchestrated by the SPD, The Medical Examiner, the Defense, the Prosecution and southern white friends!
Sorry if you misunderstood my intent.
I don't thnk any amount of obfuscation is going to change the basic premise of what Juror 29 actually said or meant during her interview.
Correct untill she understood what the law actually was, she thought that murder was committed merely when one person kills another and did not understand the requisite elments of the crime of murder such as intent and depraved mind. When those facts were brought to her attention it was clear that the state had not proven its case and she was lawfully obligated to find GZ not guilty. In fact she wondered why the state even bothered to bring the case to trial. This is really clear if you listen to the unedited version of the interview.
She believes that GZ is guilty but that the state could not prove it. And, from what I saw of the evidence or lack thereof, I believe that too! One exception: The state did NOT WANT TO PROVE IT!
So you obiously concur that the state did not prove its case and that GZ is not guilty. Interesting hypothesis about the state intentionally throwing the case though. You have any proof of that or is it merely conjecture?
