boyst Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 It's important to note, when referencing that jury member who felt that Zimmerman may be guilty, but that the state simply lacked the evidence to convict, that the jury was not permitted to see or hear character evidence of either man, nor were they allowed to hear about the "purple drank" that Martin was using heavily, for which skittles and AZ Watermellon are the non-narcotic ingredients. I am so sick of this. I am so sick of these narratives that focused on an innocent kid. Trayvon Martin, great person or thug, was still young and just as much a dip **** as many kids his age. I get that, I really do. But, when people say those things you brought up had no bearing on the night he was killed could not be more wrong. It does not mean they were a determing factor in any part of it but they are relevant. TM was not found to be under the influence of anything, that we know of... But, it does show that his predisposition to violence and outbursts could have led to him beginning a confrontation to GZ. It shows that he had an altered state of mind with the marijuana in his system. They do not expose that he had stolen property in his possession that was reported "found" (which is just a crock to keep the school looking good by not having to report a theft). The stollen jewelry was not used to assault GZ, it was not used weigh GZ down while he was grounded and pounded. No, it was used to provide the means TM needed to get the money for the Skittles, the drank, the drugs, the fights and training he got on the street. The portrayal of Trayvon Martin is tragic in that is overlooks the biggest issues with the black community today.
bbb Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 I had a professor in college that told our class her mother recently passed away and was a professor in the language arts kind of stuff. She was also a hoarder. She had boxes upon boxes where she highlighted and corrected grammar, spelling, and other language mistakes in books, articles, and newspapers. The Prof's point was to say the art of proof reading is dying. It truly is. Did you read the entire article to put it in to context? I did but I didn't watch the interview............I don't understand her. She seems to be all over the map. She says it wasn't about race. She says it shouldn't have gone to trial and was a publicity stunt..........And, then she said the thing that is in all the headlines - that he got away with murder. Well, she's one of 6 who could have convicted him of murder. How did he get away with murder?
Alaska Darin Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 I did but I didn't watch the interview............I don't understand her. She seems to be all over the map. She says it wasn't about race. She says it shouldn't have gone to trial and was a publicity stunt..........And, then she said the thing that is in all the headlines - that he got away with murder. Well, she's one of 6 who could have convicted him of murder. How did he get away with murder? Because of the law. In her way of looking at it, she's believes George Zimmerman committed murder but Florida law says it isn't. That's not really "all over the map". I wonder how many of these blowhards, in a situation where they were armed and having the **** kicked out of them by someone who had literally threatened their lives, would still think it was murder.
IDBillzFan Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 I did but I didn't watch the interview............I don't understand her. She seems to be all over the map. She says it wasn't about race. She says it shouldn't have gone to trial and was a publicity stunt..........And, then she said the thing that is in all the headlines - that he got away with murder. Well, she's one of 6 who could have convicted him of murder. How did he get away with murder? That's what I found odd as well. I think you had a juror who genuinely had no idea what was happening on a national level, reviewed everything, found him not guilty, went home, turned on the news, heard about the national outcry, and let her emotions take over.
GG Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 I did but I didn't watch the interview............I don't understand her. She seems to be all over the map. She says it wasn't about race. She says it shouldn't have gone to trial and was a publicity stunt..........And, then she said the thing that is in all the headlines - that he got away with murder. Well, she's one of 6 who could have convicted him of murder. How did he get away with murder? Of course, which of the above quotes did Nightline feature last night?
bbb Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 That's what I found odd as well. I think you had a juror who genuinely had no idea what was happening on a national level, reviewed everything, found him not guilty, went home, turned on the news, heard about the national outcry, and let her emotions take over. That sounds about right. Of course, which of the above quotes did Nightline feature last night? Exactly. Because of the law. In her way of looking at it, she's believes George Zimmerman committed murder but Florida law says it isn't. That's not really "all over the map". I wonder how many of these blowhards, in a situation where they were armed and having the **** kicked out of them by someone who had literally threatened their lives, would still think it was murder. After watching a clip of something on CNN now, where they talked about this, I think she may be mixing up the words kill and murder. Nobody ever disputed that Zimmerman killed Martin.
boyst Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 Because of the law. In her way of looking at it, she's believes George Zimmerman committed murder but Florida law says it isn't. That's not really "all over the map". I wonder how many of these blowhards, in a situation where they were armed and having the **** kicked out of them by someone who had literally threatened their lives, would still think it was murder. That's not the point to all of these idiots who in the % in the other article. The fact is she said "he committed murder." Right? I did but I didn't watch the interview............I don't understand her. She seems to be all over the map. She says it wasn't about race. She says it shouldn't have gone to trial and was a publicity stunt..........And, then she said the thing that is in all the headlines - that he got away with murder. Well, she's one of 6 who could have convicted him of murder. How did he get away with murder? The articles coming out from her interview have been cherry picked, pruned and washed. That would normally be fine but this woman is clearly a moron. This is the woman without kids, with out husband or family. That's what I found odd as well. I think you had a juror who genuinely had no idea what was happening on a national level, reviewed everything, found him not guilty, went home, turned on the news, heard about the national outcry, and let her emotions take over. Pretty much.
DC Tom Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 Because of the law. In her way of looking at it, she's believes George Zimmerman committed murder but Florida law says it isn't. That's not really "all over the map". Or, to put it slightly different, she understands the distinction between her moral opinion and the legal requirements of guilt. Which would mean she did her job as a juror properly and with integrity, which I find rather encouraging.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) If it wasn't for the lack of proabable cause, lack of evidence and the jury instructions I would have found him guilty...but I did want to find him guilty. Jesus christ, that's what I make of her comments! Juror 6 is an idiot....too many stupid people in this world...at least there were other jurors their to curtail her stupidity. This is the same juror that went through the entire trial and wanted to walk out at the last minute during diliberations and hang the jury, correct? Edited July 26, 2013 by BuffaloBillsForever
boyst Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 I read that she has 8 kids? Maybe I am mixing her up with the other woman. If it wasn't for the lack of proabable cause, lack of evidence and the jury instructions I would have found him guilty...but I did want to find him guilty. Jesus christ, that's what I make of her comments! Juror 6 is an idiot....too many stupid people in this world...at least there were other jurors their to curtail her stupidity. This is the same juror that went through the entire trial and wanted to walk out at the last minute during diliberations and hang the jury, correct? The way stories are coming out, yes. I am wondering why we haven't washed this story in to a race issue. I am not sure we are there yet, but eventually, when names ocme out we can run it as the white women were not going to agree with this woman who thought he was guilty.
Azalin Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) I am wondering why we haven't washed this story in to a race issue. when this first broke on the news, the very first thing I heard was 'the only minority juror serving on the panel believes that Zimmerman got away with murder', and it struck me how incendiary a comment that was. Edited July 26, 2013 by Azalin
K-9 Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 The juror who voted to acquit GZ, yet feels he is guilty, is a scary insight into the quality and degree of commitment and concentration of jurors today. This case would seem to suggest the contrary. In spite of her desire to find something in the evidence to find him guilty, she didn't. Indeed, this jury seems to have done their jobs quite well given the fact that two (or three?) voted guilty on the initial poll and, after carefully deliberating the evidence, were able to reach a different conclusion based on the evidence.
/dev/null Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 when this first broke on the news, the very first thing I heard was 'the only minority juror serving on the panel believes that Zimmerman got away with murder', and it struck me how incendiary a comment that was. Happy 1,000th post btw
Doc Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 It's harder to change the mind of a skeptic than to get a believer to still believe. She and other jurors felt in their hearts he was guilty but their heads said not guilty. I don't have a problem with that.
boyst Posted July 26, 2013 Posted July 26, 2013 Happy 1,000th post btw I'll actually congratulate him when he makes his first relevant post that is worth reading... i kid, i kid
dayman Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 One thing I've learned by observing the internet? One must be careful with memes. They are often likely to end up producing the opposite outcome that their creator intended, and this is based solely on which is more funny, their intended use, or the "alternative". The Zimmerman hero thing is starting to look an awful lot like the Chuck Norris thing. Which...completely removes the focus from race/unfairness/etc which is the intended serious message here...and moves into internet troll/humor land, where nobody takes anything seriously. Just saw this one:
boyst Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_river http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_river Ru'roh Edited July 27, 2013 by jboyst62
Oxrock Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_river http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html#incart_river Ru'roh Not knowing all the facts, my first instinct is a reasonable person would not have been in fear of great bodily harm or death from someone outside 30' away. Just me, I'll keep an opened mind though. Hope the youngster doesn't die from his trespass.
Recommended Posts