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

[kanggoodie]

what yall dont understand is stand your ground isnt even the culprit of this case .. the defense didnt even argue stand your ground... im actually glad SYG is in texas, cause it gives you more grounds to defend yourself against true criminals... for instance, car jackers

 

[bgoat]

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.

Proven Liar

Agressor attacks and shoots kid.

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

Murder

added Proven Liar

 

[playmaker88]

what yall dont understand is stand your ground isnt even the culprit of this case .. the defense didnt even argue stand your ground... im actually glad SYG is in texas, cause it gives you more grounds to defend yourself against true criminals... for instance, car jackers

It was implicit..and present in the decision making..

 

[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.

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

Word, and as I posted earlier:

Not under Florida law.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

what yall dont understand is stand your ground isnt even the culprit of this case .. the defense didnt even argue stand your ground... im actually glad SYG is in texas, cause it gives you more grounds to defend yourself against true criminals... for instance, car jackers

Real shit. "Stand your ground" is what one would need to legally beat the life out of future Zimmermans.

Otherwise, they'll get hit with, "You should've retreated after knocking him down.".

 

[ohhhla]

Riddle with feelings and biased thread.

Nothing to see here

 

[5th Letter]

The problem with this case is that Zimmerman's word can't truly be used as gospel. He's proven himself to be a liar. The only "facts" are that Zimmerman followed Trayvon (admitted by George himself), George shot Trayvon and Trayvon is dead. Everything else is speculation or assumptions. So based on the real "facts" Zimmerman should be doing jail time for manslaughter.

 

[Copper]

Shooting someone with a gun is intentional ....don't get more intentional than that

 

[Gold_Certificate]

The problem with this case is that Zimmerman's word can't truly be used as gospel. He's proven himself to be a liar. The only "facts" are that Zimmerman followed Trayvon (admitted by George himself), George shot Trayvon and Trayvon is dead. Everything else is speculation or assumptions. So based on the real "facts" Zimmerman should be doing jail time for manslaughter.

The problem with this is that, legally, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is presumed true until disproven:

So the lack of information worked in his favor.

 

[contemplate]

all this religious bs is annoying

'and he'll have to answer to the lord at the end of the day' fuck outta here with all that

 

[5th Letter]

@Gold_Certificate the lack of information is why he should have been convicted. How are facts ignored in favor of assumptions?

 

[7figz]

The problem with this case is that Zimmerman's word can't truly be used as gospel. He's proven himself to be a liar. The only "facts" are that Zimmerman followed Trayvon (admitted by George himself), George shot Trayvon and Trayvon is dead. Everything else is speculation or assumptions. So based on the real "facts" Zimmerman should be doing jail time for manslaughter.

Shooting someone with a gun is intentional ....don't get more intentional than that

Gonna let that shit marinate.

 

[bgoat]

And the lies in his statements prove that you can't take every word of his as the truth. If you lie about little shit, you will lie to get out of big shit. Common Sense!!

 

[7figz]

@Gold_Certificate the lack of information is why he should have been convicted. How are facts ignored in favor of assumptions?

I already even pointed out how those same laws could've been used to convict him earlier and he's still posting it.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

@Gold_Certificate the lack of information is why he should have been convicted. How are facts ignored in favor of assumptions?

Which facts were ignored in favor of assumptions?

One would have to speculate to get around the lack of information here.

I'll break this down for you--by focusing what I've seen repeated the most here--to sum things up and so I can reference this in the future.

"Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Treyvon"

The extent of this "following" has not been established. It is not illegal. And it happens prior to the altercation so it has no bearing on the self-defense claim.

"Zimmerman is a liar"

This doesn't disprove his claim that he shot Treyvon because he feared being killed or critically-injured, nor does it disprove his injuries or witness testimony.

"Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries"

Although this is substantiated by a prosecution witness who said she was only giving the very minimum number of hits and that there could be more, it still doesn't disprove Zimmerman's injuries or witness testimony.

"Treyvon lacked wounds from fighting" and "Zimmerman has no defensive wounds"

This doesn't disprove Zimmerman's injuries nor does it disprove witness testimony that there was a fight with Treyvon on top hitting Zimmerman.

Even if you assume that none of Zimmerman's words are reliable, these facts still remain:

1. Witnesses saw and heard a fight.

2. One witness saw Treyvon on top beating Zimmerman, with Zimmerman screaming for help.

3. Zimmerman shot and killed Treyvon.

4. Zimmerman had injuries immediately after the fight; which were photographed by a witness who said it looked like he'd just been beaten up.

^^These four facts alone are enough to support the claim of self-defense, and they are why I think it's a stronger case for the defense.

 

[Chef_Taylor]

what yall dont understand is stand your ground isnt even the culprit of this case .. the defense didnt even argue stand your ground... im actually glad SYG is in texas, cause it gives you more grounds to defend yourself against true criminals... for instance, car jackers

Good. Texas>>florida

 

[Gold_Certificate]

@Gold_Certificate the lack of information is why he should have been convicted. How are facts ignored in favor of assumptions?

I already even pointed out how those same laws could've been used to convict him earlier and he's still posting it.

You already said the aggressor can never be acting in self-defense, even though Florida law allows it; so you're ignoring the law.

 

[7figz]

And the lies in his statements prove that you can't take every word of his as the truth. If you lie about little shit, you will lie to get out of big shit. Common Sense!!

Apparently it's not as common as one would think.

Whole cases have broken down because of lack of credibility... but now let's just go on ahead and accept everything ,that benefits Zimmerman, as fact.

 

[5th Letter]

We don't know or can prove if Zimmerman got out his car with the intention of killing Trayvon. That can't be proven. However if you add everything up if Zimmerman had decided to go back to his vehicle then this case wouldn't have existed and Trayvon is probably alive today. Therefore manslaughter is the proper charge.

 

[7figz]

We don't know or can prove if Zimmerman got out his car with the intention of killing Trayvon. That can't be proven. However if you add everything up if Zimmerman had decided to go back to his vehicle then this case wouldn't have existed and Trayvon is probably alive today. Therefore manslaughter is the proper charge.

I might consider it proven by the fact that he followed him with a gun and eventually killed him.