In our hearts we felt he was guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yurt said:
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."
Click to expand...

Where is there any indication that she believed he acted in self defense? She clearly says there wasn't enough proof.
 
Professor Baxter said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes it absolutely does. here is FL law on manslaughter:

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782.html

they had to believe he had lawful justification, eg, self defense.

stop using the word non sequitur because you have no idea what it means.
 
Yurt said:
because, if you follow the law, if he did not act in self defense, he would have been convicted of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I swear people think I am joking but I remember rstring being extremely smart. Either a doppelganger took over his account, or something happened with his brain. Maybe someone hit him in the head with a wrench, maybe he's just too emotionally involved, but the arguments that he presents about the zimmerman case are unfitting for the former glory of rstring and are incredibly weak sauce. They are verbal diarrhea. I can out argue him with my eyes closed.
 
Zimmerman juror to ABC: He 'got away with murder'!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

zim-stupid-3.GIF
 
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 breathe the fresh air, eat a delicious pizza, and win millions of dollars against nbc. It's a beautiful time.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add that he is free to carry a gun gain as well...
 
TeamZ said:
I swear people think I am joking but I remember rstring being extremely smart. Either a doppelganger took over his account, or something happened with his brain. Maybe someone hit him in the head with a wrench, maybe he's just too emotionally involved, but the arguments that he presents about the zimmerman case are unfitting for the former glory of rstring and are incredibly weak sauce. They are verbal diarrhea. I can out argue him with my eyes closed.
Click to expand...

He may have taken dodgeball lessons from a certain coach Patches O'Houlihan
 
Professor Baxter said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is exactly right. GZ was not found not guilty by reason of self defense. They didn't have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt he acted in self defense, they had only to believe it was just as likely GZ acted in self defense as it was he committed a crime. If they came to that conclusion then they were required to acquit.
 
Socrtease said:
This is exactly right. GZ was not found not guilty by reason of self defense. They didn't have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt he acted in self defense, they had only to believe it was just as likely GZ acted in self defense as it was he committed a crime. If they came to that conclusion then they were required to acquit.
Click to expand...

that is not true...they were given jury instructions on manslaughter...in order to be acquitted of manslaughter, the killing had to be justifiable. tell me, what other justification, other than self defense, is there?
 
TeamZ said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Man, you are becoming just as stupid as yurt. No, they did not rule that it was justifiable homicide. That was not their task. They found he was not guilty. Not because they believed he wasn't guilty. Only retards, like you and yurt, believe that. They're just was not enough proof of his guilt. He is still a murderer.
 
Yurt said:
that is not true...they were given jury instructions on manslaughter...in order to be acquitted of manslaughter, the killing had to be justifiable. tell me, what other justification, other than self defense, is there?
Click to expand...

The woman said it clearly. There was not enough proof.
 
Professor Baxter said:
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
Click to expand...
Only one minority, and you see why? The Lawyers who picked out the jury remember the OJ Trial with that multitude of minority jurors and only one white juror, and naturally they let OJ go free. There seems to be a screw missing with some of these people, but the facts are the facts, and some will just not or do not see the facts....it is very sad, and dangerous. I don't see how everyone can or will be able to get along from now on...Rodney King: "Can't we all get along?".....I doubt it.
 
Yurt said:
that is not true...they were given jury instructions on manslaughter...in order to be acquitted of manslaughter, the killing had to be justifiable. tell me, what other justification, other than self defense, is there?
Click to expand...
Yurt, no instruction tells a jury what they must find to acquit. The instructions tell them that to convict they must find the state proved every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. All acquittal means is the state failed a very high burden. The jury said NOTHING about GZ'S actions and if they were justified.
 
Ok, I had a client who was charged with trafficking cocaine. Trafficking as you probably know means he did, or intended to transfer cocaine from himself to another. In NM money is not required, only a transfer, or the intent to transfer. Problem was, the cops only found cocaine, and none of the assorted accoutrement that goes along with trafficking. Just 6 bundles worth 20 each. Cop testified that was an amount just as consistent with personal use as with trafficking . My client allowed me to roll the dice and NOT include an instruction for the lessor charge of simple possession. The jury acquitted because the state had not proved trafficking. They knew he had coke, they knew it was an amount just as consistent with trafficking as with personal use. GZ got the same benefit of a poorly prosecuted case.
 
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...
You're right in saying that it doesn't mean they felt he acted in self defense but I disagree about them considering him a murderer. IF they considered him a murderer(IE guilty of murder) they would have found him as such. It's about burden of proof and if that burden is not met, people default to innocent. The state had time money and all the political capital they could want to try this thing and they still couldn't get their conviction.
 
Nobody cares. It's over. The race hustler industry is dead and Sharpton et. al are bitter about it. The lefties are upset that the blacks haven't "risen up". Even BAC Panther has left from here.

Move on lefties. Nothing to see here
 
Yurt said:
that is not true...they were given jury instructions on manslaughter...in order to be acquitted of manslaughter, the killing had to be justifiable. tell me, what other justification, other than self defense, is there?
Click to expand...
there only had to be reasonable doubt that he did NOT act in self defense, in order for the acquittal. there apparently was reasonable doubt that martins death was not justifiable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top