Video: Zimmerman Juror B-29 Denies Her Own Hand In Letting The Murderer Go..

[bgoat]

She's actually right. You can't just vote guilty because that's how you feel. It's that SYG shit.

But you can't just vote not guilty because you feel that he learned his lesson like the last bitch said.

I don't understand the hate for her, if you want to hate anything hate the Florida state justice system. Repeal SYG.

SYG wasn't even part of the defense. It was the regular self-defense laws.

 

[StillFaggyAF]

Some of y'all don't understand the concept of a jury.

 

[nex gin]

Stupid bitch. Fuck Florida.

 

[dc's teflondon]

all these mofos coming out after the fact..the justice system should not go to jury's..the vast majority of people are fucking dumb and their decisions can be swayed by a good attorney..they need to just have a panel of judges decided verdicts and that shit will still vary

 

[bgoat]

Well to be fair, as a juror, its not your job to agree with or not agree with a law. It's your job to determine whether the law was broken or not. You can't convict a person for breaking a law simpl because you don't agree with the law as it stands.

Do you really believe this is how it's played out across America in every court case?? Just remember, there have been a lot of overturned convictions. You can't tell me that those people were locked up because the evidence supported it.

 

[S2J]

She's actually right. You can't just vote guilty because that's how you feel. It's that SYG shit.

But you can't just vote not guilty because you feel that he learned his lesson like the last bitch said.

I don't understand the hate for her, if you want to hate anything hate the Florida state justice system. Repeal SYG.

The fuck if you can't. My black ass would still be in that box today if I was on that jury. I would have been all kinds of black nigger bitches cause ain't no way you would have gotten me to vote "not guilty." It would not have occurred.

Exactly - these niggaz actin' like they took some oath to become lawyers and interpret the law a certain way.

I guess niggaz left their balls outside the courtroom.

Fuck being a sheep and letting motherfuckas tell me how to vote, it's for me to cast MY vote.

I'd be saying he was guilty of every single charge they put before me and they would have to declare me mentally retarded in order to dismiss my verdict.

Props OB, these niggaz hiding behind some legal bullshit to basically say they ain't got the balls to stand up for shit.

Its a sign of the times. Between CSI, NCI, Nancy Grace, etc, the potential jury pool is filled w/ fake ass mini-lawyers. They start to overthink, whch is why anytime theres a big profile case, it's in the favor of the defendant, b/c the jury is inherently cynical, and the burden to convict is that much heavier. The jurors dont want to feel 'duped' (in their mind) into convicting someone.

 

[mryounggun]

The hard to accept fact to the matter is that...the evidence wasn't there. Everyone knows GZ murdered that boy but if the evidence isn't there, it just ain't there. What niggas need to be mad at is the actual law, not this broad.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Well to be fair, as a juror, its not your job to agree with or not agree with a law. It's your job to determine whether the law was broken or not. You can't convict a person for breaking a law simpl because you don't agree with the law as it stands.

Do you really believe this is how it's played out across America in every court case?? Just remember, there have been a lot of overturned convictions. You can't tell me that those people were locked up because the evidence supported it.

Of course not. I'm not saying people do the right thing every time. That doesn't change what the right thing is. People are supposed to vote based on the merits of the case and whether or not it supports the charges. They are not supposed to vote based on their opinion of the particular law in question. Now if you choose to do the latter, that's on you, but you can't walk around acting like you did the right thing and you can't fault people for actually doing the right thing.

Black people can bitch and moan all they want about this, but the fact of the matter is, the case didn't really support a Murder 2 charge. That simply wasn't proven, and it was obvious before the trial even started that they didn't have enough to prove that charge beyond reasonable doubt. So from that standpoint, the juror is right to say it never even should have gone to trial.

Where she is wrong, is she doesn't really even acknowledge that there was a lesser charge of Manslaughter. The only thing in her mind seems to be the Murder charge. You have to blame the Prosecution for that because they did absolutely nothing to sell that to the jury. A lot of us can see that a Manslaughter charge should be a no brainer but believe it or not, there are people who don't think that way and they actually do have reasons why that aren't all that crazy.

 

[TheGambinoLegacy]

dont feel guilty maam, you freed an American hero.

saving people from car wrecks, shooting bad guys, kissing babies.

 

[lamontbdc]

she trying to stand on both sides of the fence

 

[bgoat]

Well to be fair, as a juror, its not your job to agree with or not agree with a law. It's your job to determine whether the law was broken or not. You can't convict a person for breaking a law simpl because you don't agree with the law as it stands.

Do you really believe this is how it's played out across America in every court case?? Just remember, there have been a lot of overturned convictions. You can't tell me that those people were locked up because the evidence supported it.

Of course not. I'm not saying people do the right thing every time. That doesn't change what the right thing is. People are supposed to vote based on the merits of the case and whether or not it supports the charges. They are not supposed to vote based on their opinion of the particular law in question. Now if you choose to do the latter, that's on you, but you can't walk around acting like you did the right thing and you can't fault people for actually doing the right thing.

Black people can bitch and moan all they want about this, but the fact of the matter is, the case didn't really support a Murder 2 charge. That simply wasn't proven, and it was obvious before the trial even started that they didn't have enough to prove that charge beyond reasonable doubt. So from that standpoint, the juror is right to say it never even should have gone to trial.

Where she is wrong, is she doesn't really even acknowledge that there was a lesser charge of Manslaughter. The only thing in her mind seems to be the Murder charge. You have to blame the Prosecution for that because they did absolutely nothing to sell that to the jury. A lot of us can see that a Manslaughter charge should be a no brainer but believe it or not, there are people who don't think that way and they actually do have reasons why that aren't all that crazy.

I mean you can use the common sense that God has given you, and the facts that the State presented to determine that Zimmerman was lying about what happened that night. They chose not to believe Jentrel, but believe the bogus testimony of the Defense witnesses.

I mean, they say the Justice has some flaws, and that it's not perfect. That's when your common sense kicks in to compensate for the flaws and imperfections of the Judaical Systems.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Well to be fair, as a juror, its not your job to agree with or not agree with a law. It's your job to determine whether the law was broken or not. You can't convict a person for breaking a law simpl because you don't agree with the law as it stands.

Do you really believe this is how it's played out across America in every court case?? Just remember, there have been a lot of overturned convictions. You can't tell me that those people were locked up because the evidence supported it.

Of course not. I'm not saying people do the right thing every time. That doesn't change what the right thing is. People are supposed to vote based on the merits of the case and whether or not it supports the charges. They are not supposed to vote based on their opinion of the particular law in question. Now if you choose to do the latter, that's on you, but you can't walk around acting like you did the right thing and you can't fault people for actually doing the right thing.

Black people can bitch and moan all they want about this, but the fact of the matter is, the case didn't really support a Murder 2 charge. That simply wasn't proven, and it was obvious before the trial even started that they didn't have enough to prove that charge beyond reasonable doubt. So from that standpoint, the juror is right to say it never even should have gone to trial.

Where she is wrong, is she doesn't really even acknowledge that there was a lesser charge of Manslaughter. The only thing in her mind seems to be the Murder charge. You have to blame the Prosecution for that because they did absolutely nothing to sell that to the jury. A lot of us can see that a Manslaughter charge should be a no brainer but believe it or not, there are people who don't think that way and they actually do have reasons why that aren't all that crazy.

I mean you can use the common sense that God has given you, and the facts that the State presented to determine that Zimmerman was lying about what happened that night. They chose not to believe Jentrel, but believe the bogus testimony of the Defense witnesses.

I mean, they say the Justice has some flaws, and that it's not perfect. That's when your common sense kicks in to compensate for the flaws and imperfections of the Judaical Systems.

Even if you believe Zimmerman was lying and believe the Jentrel chick, the Prosecution still did not prove that Zimmerman got out of his car with every intent of murdering Trayvon. The course of events don't support that either because if his intent was to kill Trayvon from the start, I seriously doubt he would have taken that asswhooping before hand. To get a Murder conviction, that's exactly what they would have had to do. So no, in this case, it's not a flaw or imperfection. When it comes to the Murder charge, the system worked the way it was supposed to. Zimmerman still shouldn't have gone free, but that's what happens when the Prosecution uses an all or nothing strategy.

 

[DOC H0LL!DAY]

She's actually right. You can't just vote guilty because that's how you feel. It's that SYG shit.

But you can't just vote not guilty because you feel that he learned his lesson like the last bitch said.

I don't understand the hate for her, if you want to hate anything hate the Florida state justice system. Repeal SYG.

Why are u here? There are no dick picks available.

 

[gorilla]

Well to be fair, as a juror, its not your job to agree with or not agree with a law. It's your job to determine whether the law was broken or not. You can't convict a person for breaking a law simpl because you don't agree with the law as it stands.

Do you really believe this is how it's played out across America in every court case?? Just remember, there have been a lot of overturned convictions. You can't tell me that those people were locked up because the evidence supported it.

Of course not. I'm not saying people do the right thing every time. That doesn't change what the right thing is. People are supposed to vote based on the merits of the case and whether or not it supports the charges. They are not supposed to vote based on their opinion of the particular law in question. Now if you choose to do the latter, that's on you, but you can't walk around acting like you did the right thing and you can't fault people for actually doing the right thing.

Black people can bitch and moan all they want about this, but the fact of the matter is, the case didn't really support a Murder 2 charge. That simply wasn't proven, and it was obvious before the trial even started that they didn't have enough to prove that charge beyond reasonable doubt. So from that standpoint, the juror is right to say it never even should have gone to trial.

Where she is wrong, is she doesn't really even acknowledge that there was a lesser charge of Manslaughter. The only thing in her mind seems to be the Murder charge. You have to blame the Prosecution for that because they did absolutely nothing to sell that to the jury. A lot of us can see that a Manslaughter charge should be a no brainer but believe it or not, there are people who don't think that way and they actually do have reasons why that aren't all that crazy.

I mean you can use the common sense that God has given you, and the facts that the State presented to determine that Zimmerman was lying about what happened that night. They chose not to believe Jentrel, but believe the bogus testimony of the Defense witnesses.

I mean, they say the Justice has some flaws, and that it's not perfect. That's when your common sense kicks in to compensate for the flaws and imperfections of the Judaical Systems.

^^^

You HAVE to use some sort of common sense in the court of law. Otherwise, there would have to be laws written to the T to account for every possible scenario imaginable and people would stay getting off on mere technicalities.

The law is a guide, a starting point. It says doing xyz is illegal, then further expands to cover some varied circumstances, but you can't cover every damn scenario. That's where common sense and REASONABLE judgement kick in.

The same people screaming the law let him walk are the same one screaming they should have charged him with manslaughter yet obviously the included charge of manslaughter meant no fucks to them anyway. The "we couldn't convict him" is bullshit. They didn't want to.

They felt sorry for a pussy ass fat piece of shit (who wasn't so out of shape at the time of the murder) and they feared the young black "thug" the prosecution and media made Trayvon out to be. Not to mention how these hoes weren't always shielded from outside influence like they were supposed to be, having unsupervised conversations and shit. This case was complete bullshit

 

[bgoat]

Well to be fair, as a juror, its not your job to agree with or not agree with a law. It's your job to determine whether the law was broken or not. You can't convict a person for breaking a law simpl because you don't agree with the law as it stands.

Do you really believe this is how it's played out across America in every court case?? Just remember, there have been a lot of overturned convictions. You can't tell me that those people were locked up because the evidence supported it.

Of course not. I'm not saying people do the right thing every time. That doesn't change what the right thing is. People are supposed to vote based on the merits of the case and whether or not it supports the charges. They are not supposed to vote based on their opinion of the particular law in question. Now if you choose to do the latter, that's on you, but you can't walk around acting like you did the right thing and you can't fault people for actually doing the right thing.

Black people can bitch and moan all they want about this, but the fact of the matter is, the case didn't really support a Murder 2 charge. That simply wasn't proven, and it was obvious before the trial even started that they didn't have enough to prove that charge beyond reasonable doubt. So from that standpoint, the juror is right to say it never even should have gone to trial.

Where she is wrong, is she doesn't really even acknowledge that there was a lesser charge of Manslaughter. The only thing in her mind seems to be the Murder charge. You have to blame the Prosecution for that because they did absolutely nothing to sell that to the jury. A lot of us can see that a Manslaughter charge should be a no brainer but believe it or not, there are people who don't think that way and they actually do have reasons why that aren't all that crazy.

I mean you can use the common sense that God has given you, and the facts that the State presented to determine that Zimmerman was lying about what happened that night. They chose not to believe Jentrel, but believe the bogus testimony of the Defense witnesses.

I mean, they say the Justice has some flaws, and that it's not perfect. That's when your common sense kicks in to compensate for the flaws and imperfections of the Judaical Systems.

Even if you believe Zimmerman was lying and believe the Jentrel chick, the Prosecution still did not prove that Zimmerman got out of his car with every intent of murdering Trayvon. The course of events don't support that either because if his intent was to kill Trayvon from the start, I seriously doubt he would have taken that asswhooping before hand. To get a Murder conviction, that's exactly what they would have had to do. So no, in this case, it's not a flaw or imperfection. When it comes to the Murder charge, the system worked the way it was supposed to. Zimmerman still shouldn't have gone free, but that's what happens when the Prosecution uses an all or nothing strategy.

Fucking punks, and these assholes always get away. Along with his lies would've have been enough for me.

 

[playmaker88]

You could point to alot of cases in the heart of the civil rights era.. where people got off.. because of the.. "CASE WASNT PROVEN" or the all white jury exonerated them..

 

[7figz]

It's not biased. It's facts. It would be how I interpret the law vs how other people interpret it. Hung juries happen all the time. Does that mean someone's biased ?

Who was armed ?

Who assaulted who ?

Whose life was in danger ?

Those laws don't compel you to find him not guilty unless you choose to, and even then this bitch said she didn't believe it, stick to your guns - get a hung jury.

This shit is common sense.

And if anyone thinks this is only about the "Stand your ground" law or bad prosecution, etc... you might need to remember where we're at. Young Black men are automatically assumed to be armed and / or dangerous.

You made the universal statement, "In no state can I sit on a jury and look upon an armed aggressor as acting in self defense."; even though Florida law (776.041) allows the aggressor to act in self-defense.

To make such a statement--regardless of the law of the individual state--exhibits a clear bias.

Nothing is wrong with being biased. I am biased against fat women; so I'd rule against them whenever possible.

Interpreting the law would involve my common sense, reasoning, and knowledge. If that's bias then apparently just about all jurors are biased.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

It's not biased. It's facts. It would be how I interpret the law vs how other people interpret it. Hung juries happen all the time. Does that mean someone's biased ?

Who was armed ?

Who assaulted who ?

Whose life was in danger ?

Those laws don't compel you to find him not guilty unless you choose to, and even then this bitch said she didn't believe it, stick to your guns - get a hung jury.

This shit is common sense.

And if anyone thinks this is only about the "Stand your ground" law or bad prosecution, etc... you might need to remember where we're at. Young Black men are automatically assumed to be armed and / or dangerous.

You made the universal statement, "In no state can I sit on a jury and look upon an armed aggressor as acting in self defense."; even though Florida law (776.041) allows the aggressor to act in self-defense.

To make such a statement--regardless of the law of the individual state--exhibits a clear bias.

Nothing is wrong with being biased. I am biased against fat women; so I'd rule against them whenever possible.

Interpreting the law would involve my common sense, reasoning, and knowledge. If that's bias then apparently just about all jurors are biased.

Nah, it's when that "interpretation" involves a predefined default position--despite the specifics of the case--that it becomes a bias.

Kind of like how I would always try to rule against a fat bitch, despite the specific law or the evidence involved.

 

[7figz]

You could point to alot of cases in the heart of the civil rights era.. where people got off.. because of the.. "CASE WASNT PROVEN" or the all white jury exonerated them..

I'm guessing these same posters would've had no argument with the jury or the judge in that case either because it was the letter of the law.

Motherfuckaz acting like those jurors couldn't have just said gave a guilty verdict and went about their business if they wanted to.

One again think for yourself, and stop quoting bullshit laws. If they didn't intend for people to make those decisions, there would've been an app for it.

 

[7figz]

It's not biased. It's facts. It would be how I interpret the law vs how other people interpret it. Hung juries happen all the time. Does that mean someone's biased ?

Who was armed ?

Who assaulted who ?

Whose life was in danger ?

Those laws don't compel you to find him not guilty unless you choose to, and even then this bitch said she didn't believe it, stick to your guns - get a hung jury.

This shit is common sense.

And if anyone thinks this is only about the "Stand your ground" law or bad prosecution, etc... you might need to remember where we're at. Young Black men are automatically assumed to be armed and / or dangerous.

You made the universal statement, "In no state can I sit on a jury and look upon an armed aggressor as acting in self defense."; even though Florida law (776.041) allows the aggressor to act in self-defense.

To make such a statement--regardless of the law of the individual state--exhibits a clear bias.

Nothing is wrong with being biased. I am biased against fat women; so I'd rule against them whenever possible.

Interpreting the law would involve my common sense, reasoning, and knowledge. If that's bias then apparently just about all jurors are biased.

Nah, it's when that "interpretation" involves a predefined default position--despite the specifics of the case--that it becomes a bias.

Kind of like how I would always try to rule against a fat bitch, despite the specific law or the evidence involved.

Bruh, the specifics of this case is all I went by.

Unarmed kid breaking no laws.

Trained armed aggressor.

Agressor attacks and shoots kid.

-----------------------------

Murder