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.
why would any other juror want to speak--if this is the response?
How about would you want to have GZ in your neighborhood?
why would any other juror want to speak--if this is the response?
How about would you want to have GZ in your neighborhood?
God almighty not another one.
True, it's hard to tell a cracker from a redneck, with a 4 door diesel pickup for every kid over 12 - but we have them all, and are waiting for someone to kill someone.
Looking suspicious in one person's opinion is not a capital offense in this country.
no --it's a cause to call the cops.
Are you able to follow a time line and chain of events ?
To call the cops, not become the cops.
What happened to the "open mind" Juror 37B promised so she would be selected for the jury?
You have yet to provide even a modicum of evidence that this juror did not keep an open mind. Deciding after the first day of the trail that evidence was lacking to support a conviction is not the same thing as closing one's mind. It's an indication that the case should have never been brought in the first place.
Like all Zimmerman defenders, Juror 37B was not concerned with the point where "George" caught up with Trayvon - 100 yards from "George's" car.
And this disproves the claim of self defense how?
Do you have a shred of evidence to support this?
Didn't think so.
Are you suggesting it should be against the law to take notice and to follow a person trespassing...in rain...at night...while concealing their identity?
What the fuck are you suggesting, exactly?
Open mind.
Not you.
Sad .....
Indeed you are.
Now, one more time, are you willing to engage in actual debate by addressing the retorts to your posts...or are you just a hateful troll? In addition to the questions posed above, you have yet to address these:
1) Explain, using logic and reason why it's troubling that she referred to Mr Zimmerman by his first name? What bias does this expose exactly?
2) Why is it a problem that she is married, has kids, or that her husband has the means to defend his family as is the case with millions of fathers?
3) She felt Zimmerman was innocent on the first day. So did the police. So what? How is that an indictment of this juror?
4) The prosecution said race was not an issue. The FBI found the same. Why are you denigrating this juror for coming to the same conclusion?
So, what is it to be? Troll or not?
Considering the evil nature of the racist Sta Puft guy, the universe may have picked the wrong one to go on that fateful night.
Did George even have a real job other than the neighborhood watch gig?
On what basis is he a racist? Other than the liberal announcement and the fact that he DARED to fight back against a black thug, what is the basis. Is anyone who fights back against a black thug a racist?
Questioning self-defense against a black thug is RACIST!
why would any other juror want to speak--if this is the response?
How about would you want to have GZ in your neighborhood?
God almighty not another one.
True, it's hard to tell a cracker from a redneck, with a 4 door diesel pickup for every kid over 12 - but we have them all, and are waiting for someone to kill someone.
More of the same.
Night after night after night.
As soon as it dies down... the DOJ will ramp it up all over again.
why would any other juror want to speak--if this is the response?
How about would you want to have GZ in your neighborhood?
God almighty not another one.
True, it's hard to tell a cracker from a redneck, with a 4 door diesel pickup for every kid over 12
but we have them all, and are waiting for someone to kill someone.
What happened to the "open mind" Juror 37B promised so she would be selected for the jury?
Like all Zimmerman defenders, Juror 37B was not concerned with the point where "George" caught up with Trayvon - 100 yards from "George's" car.
Did "George" grab this frightened kids arm? His hoodie? ... and cause Trayvon to defend himself under 'stand your ground'?
Juror 37B said she was not concerned with what led up to the fight, only the fight itself.
Open mind.
Sad .....
you don't get it....likely because you don't want to get it.
One can have a hunch but still have an open mind.
I was once against same sex marriage...but had an open mind....and now support it.
For someone to NOT assume innocent until proven guilty is someone without the proper thinking for a jury.
The Justice System assumes innocence until guilt is proven - NOT A JURIST.
A juror swears to have an OPEN MIND.
Juror 37B's mind was made up from the get-go that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon - and no testimony was going to change it.
.... Simply because "George" is white and a local boy, and his intentions were honorable, Trayvon is black, suspicious looking, and doesn't belong here.
Enter the DOJ
you don't get it....likely because you don't want to get it.
One can have a hunch but still have an open mind.
I was once against same sex marriage...but had an open mind....and now support it.
For someone to NOT assume innocent until proven guilty is someone without the proper thinking for a jury.
The Justice System assumes innocence until guilt is proven - NOT A JURIST.
A juror swears to have an OPEN MIND.
Juror 37B's mind was made up from the get-go that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon - and no testimony was going to change it.
.... Simply because "George" is white and a local boy, and his intentions were honorable, Trayvon is black, suspicious looking, and doesn't belong here.
Enter the DOJ
Of which the juror is an integral part. Innocence is assumed by everyone in the system, judge, jury, everyone. The prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Justice System assumes innocence until guilt is proven - NOT A JURIST.
A juror swears to have an OPEN MIND.
Juror 37B's mind was made up from the get-go that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon - and no testimony was going to change it.
.... Simply because "George" is white and a local boy, and his intentions were honorable, Trayvon is black, suspicious looking, and doesn't belong here.
Enter the DOJ
Of which the juror is an integral part. Innocence is assumed by everyone in the system, judge, jury, everyone. The prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
if you look at the rest of his post...it is not justice he cares about. It is reparations. He wants "non blacks" to live under a different type of justice system. He wants to allow emotions to play a role in determining ones guilt.
And the DA is ALSO supposed to presume innocence and only bring charges if there is evidence implying otherwise.
In this case, only emotion implied otherwise.
The DA got it wrong and the jury got it right.
The thug was the little guy who murdered the kid with the Skittles.. Do you ever get it right?
Here is the story of Chief Hurley and why he covered up Trayvons criminal history. read this one: M-DSPD Cover Up ? The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin?s Backpack With Stolen Jewelry and Burglary Tool? | The Last Refuge
Guess we know why this isn't getting any media attention, eh?
The Justice System assumes innocence until guilt is proven - NOT A JURIST.
A juror swears to have an OPEN MIND.
Juror 37B's mind was made up from the get-go that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon - and no testimony was going to change it.
.... Simply because "George" is white and a local boy, and his intentions were honorable, Trayvon is black, suspicious looking, and doesn't belong here.
Enter the DOJ
Of which the juror is an integral part. Innocence is assumed by everyone in the system, judge, jury, everyone. The prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
if you look at the rest of his post...it is not justice he cares about. It is reparations. He wants "non blacks" to live under a different type of justice system. He wants to allow emotions to play a role in determining ones guilt.
And the DA is ALSO supposed to presume innocence and only bring charges if there is evidence implying otherwise.
In this case, only emotion implied otherwise.
The DA got it wrong and the jury got it right.
