In our hearts we felt he was guilty

T

Timshel

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

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.


"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."


She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659
 
i'm not sure she speaks for everyone else.

that said, i'm glad she didn't vote with her emotions like so many emotive libs on this issue and followed the law. further, if you read her comments, she believes he is guilty of murder solely because he happened to kill someone.
 
The law was followed by the jury. The dude was judged to be "not guilty". It is what it is. And it is not what it is not.
 
Juror B37, whose face and body were hidden, appeared last week on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, and said that she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch.


Since then, four other jurors distanced themselves from B37's remarks and released a statement saying B37's opinions were "not in any way representative" of their own.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-jurors-b37-spoke-interview/story?id=19684121
 
LoneLaugher said:
The law was followed by the jury. The dude was judged to be "not guilty". It is what it is. And it is not what it is not.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he was found not guilty. Team Zimmerman pretends that means he was innocent and that the jury ruled that he had acted in self defense, which is simply not true. It's pretty clear that most of the jury thinks Zimmerman was lucky to get off. If the state had charged him immediately and done a better job he'd probably be in prison where he belongs.
 
basically she said what I have said for 1.5 years, that your feels are irrelvant when it comes to the law. thanks for playing.
 
TeamZ said:
basically she said what I have said for 1.5 years, that your feels are irrelvant when it comes to the law. thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

No, she clearly contradicts your claims that the jury found he acted in self defense. He is an unconvicted murderer.
 
Yurt said:
if the jury didn't feel he acted in self defense...they he would not have been acquitted.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. The only thing the acquittal establishes is that the jury did not believe there was enough evidence to meet the burden of proof for a conviction.
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, she clearly contradicts your claims that the jury found he acted in self defense. He is an unconvicted murderer.
Click to expand...

what she says to placate an angry and deranged public and what she actually believes and how she acted in the jury room are completely different. If the jury believed there to be compelling evidence that he was a murderer they were free to convict him. they did not.

actions speak louder than words.

this also ignores that plenty (at least 2 by my count) of other jurors have gone on record saying they believed zimmerman, sympathized with zimmerman, and that he was not a murderer.

as usual you choose to be selective and move the goal posts. I guess we are now at the stage of "oh well.. ok he is not guilty but the jurors STILL FEEL BAD!"

you are honestly making me laugh at this point.

Trayvon the attacker is worm food, and zimmerman the righteous defender is free to breathe the fresh air, eat a delicious pizza, and win millions of dollars against nbc. It's a beautiful time.
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
Non sequitur. The only thing the acquittal establishes is that the jury did not believe there was enough evidence to meet the burden of proof for a conviction.
Click to expand...

here is how it works...zimmerman claimed self defense, without self defense, he is guilty. since he was found not guilty, they must have believed he acted in self defense. it is not a non sequitur because it does in fact logically follow.
 
TeamZ said:
what she says to placate an angry and deranged public and what she actually believes and how she acted in the jury room are completely different. If the jury believed there to be compelling evidence that he was a murderer they were free to convict him. they did not.

actions speak louder than words.

this also ignores that plenty (at least 2 by my count) of other jurors have gone on record saying they believed zimmerman, sympathized with zimmerman, and that he was not a murderer.

as usual you choose to be selective and move the goal posts. I guess we are now at the stage of "oh well.. ok he is not guilty but the jurors STILL FEEL BAD!"

you are honestly making me laugh at this point.

Trayvon the attacker is worm food, and zimmerman the righteous defender is free to breath the fresh air, eat a delicious pizza, and win millions of dollars again nbc. It's a beautiful time.
Click to expand...

I referenced the ONE juror that claims Zimmerman's heart was in the right place, but that he behaved badly, and how all the other jurors have registered their disagreement. If you have some other source.

I am not moving any goal posts. I am pointing out that your claim was inaccurate. They did not find that he acted in self defense. They found him not guilty. But he's still a murderer.
 
here are more on her comments that clearly show she believed he acted in self defense and that in her "heart" she believes just because he killed someone, he is guilty:

However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.

Zimmerman concedes he shot and killed Martin in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintains he fired in self-defense.

"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."
 
Yurt said:
here is how it works...zimmerman claimed self defense, without self defense, he is guilty. since he was found not guilty, they must have believed he acted in self defense. it is not a non sequitur because it does in fact logically follow.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. All a not guilty verdict establishes is that his defense, that it was a justifiable use of deadly force, was enough to create a reasonable doubt in the jury. It does not follow that they must have believed it was a justifiable use of deadly force. It's pretty clear that this juror did not.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I referenced the ONE juror that claims Zimmerman's heart was in the right place, but that he behaved badly, and how all the other jurors have registered their disagreement. If you have some other source.
Click to expand...

you created a bullshit juxtoposition. we don't know what exactly they disagreed with. You try to imply that they disagreed with that specific comment, which is unfounded. I also would not want someone speakong my behalf on a national stage.

I might have a better way to parse things, my take may be slightly different, etc. That doesn't mean they categorically reject what she has said.

In addition to b37, there was the black alternate juror who fully agreed with the verdict and stated he believed zimmerman to be truthful.

They did not find that he acted in self defense. They found him not guilty. But he's still a murderer.
Click to expand...

you truly are a retard. the way you find someone not guilty in this case is through justifiable homocide. manslaughter for example requires the state to prove two things,

1) trayvon is dead, and
2) zimmerman killed him.

Clearly both those things happened, so to find him not guilty of manslaughter, you have to find him not guilty by way of justifiable homocide, i.e. self defense.

In conclusion, eat shit baxter. you have been wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wronnnnng. And I love rubbing your face in it. I told you.... i TOOOOLD you he would be found not guilty. While you were still sitting around with your thumb up your ass thinking he might get second degree the jurors were already ordering their philly cheesestakes and moving past manslaughter.

Now you just have to fucking sit and wallow in being so incompetent to see it coming.

:dealwithit:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top