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

[7figz]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

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.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

Not under Florida law.

Feel free to quote this law that will somehow change the common sense definition of self-defense.

Nothing here that says "he or she can not--through any means--initiate the events leading to the eventual use of deadly force":

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

There's even a statute that allows for the use of deadly force by the aggressor, but the defense decided to remove it from the jury instructions:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

1. It depends on who you consider to be using "defense". It could be said that the unarmed, physically smaller, untrained boxer, minor, who was stalked could have been the only person possibly using self-defense.

2. If you still somehow managed to say that the fat stalker was the one using defense, the first law you quoted says "except deadly force" and "to prevent imminent death". The fat bastard didn't meet either one of those.

There's nothing in the law that says only one person involved in an altercation can be acting in self-defense.

After the bolded the law says "However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself".

That's what the prosecution had to prove wrong; by completely ruling out that Zimmerman could've felt the underlined.

If they couldn't put forth an argument for second degree murder or manslaughter that completely ruled out any alternatives, all that was left was this:

Those words don't convince me and neither do the quoted laws. In no state can I sit on a jury and look upon an armed aggressor as acting in self defense. Zimmerman would be the aggressor in my mind obviously and the unarmed teen going about his inconspicuous business would have be the victim.

Simple - aggressor against victim. No question about whose defending themselves. No question about reasonable doubt.

I have no doubt that Trayvon Martin was unarmed and that Zimmerman was armed and was the aggressor against him and killed him intentionally.

Simple shit really - unless you allow a biases to influence you.

 

[NeighborhoodNomad.]

I may be wrong, but it sounds like after 9 hours everybody just wanted to go home and were like "Look bitch, say something so we can go home. Now she feels guilty for giving into that pressure.

This is an example of someone who will support something they don't believe in.

How do you cast a vote supporting a law you don't agree with?

 

[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.

 

[7figz]

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.

It's not just because you don't agree with the law. It's how you interpret the law - which will include the way you personally think, no doubt.

If it was as simple as you stated, there would be no process of jury selection, including no rejecting jurors - because only the law would matter.

Why do you think so many jurors are rejected ?

For example, like I discussed above - you can interpret Zimmerman as being the aggressor or using self-defense, that's up to you. You can determine whether you believe Trayvon posed any threat - that's up to you.

 

[damobb2deep]

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.

dats real shyt...

my ass woulda been like

* walks in room* " a I think he guilty and aint shyt gonna change my mind. so we can be here 1min or 1 month hell im Gucci wit stayin in a telly and eatin free food and watchin hbo..."

 

[Gold_Certificate]

On what evidence would you find him guilty of murder 2?

First degree murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.

I'd say it was willful based on the fact that he stalked him with a gun, assaulted him, and shot him death, so it could've been first degree as well.

Second degree murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't premeditated, it would still meet that definition of 2nd degree.

The above bolded definitions were from Wikipedia. This case even looks like it could meet the involuntary manslaughter definition.

Nah, you can't go with the general definition, Zimmerman was tried under Florida law and the jury could only choose what was included in the jury instructions.



This required them to first, completely rule out his claim of self-defense; then they could decide whether it was second degree murder or manslaughter. Florida does not have a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, so that was not included.

I don't think Florida has a specific "involuntary manslaughter" statute, but self-defense works against all of the applicable "manslaughter" statutes here.

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.

(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Ruling out self-defense would've been obvious considering Zimmerman initiated everything.

Not under Florida law.

Feel free to quote this law that will somehow change the common sense definition of self-defense.

Nothing here that says "he or she can not--through any means--initiate the events leading to the eventual use of deadly force":

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

There's even a statute that allows for the use of deadly force by the aggressor, but the defense decided to remove it from the jury instructions:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

1. It depends on who you consider to be using "defense". It could be said that the unarmed, physically smaller, untrained boxer, minor, who was stalked could have been the only person possibly using self-defense.

2. If you still somehow managed to say that the fat stalker was the one using defense, the first law you quoted says "except deadly force" and "to prevent imminent death". The fat bastard didn't meet either one of those.

There's nothing in the law that says only one person involved in an altercation can be acting in self-defense.

After the bolded the law says "However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself".

That's what the prosecution had to prove wrong; by completely ruling out that Zimmerman could've felt the underlined.

If they couldn't put forth an argument for second degree murder or manslaughter that completely ruled out any alternatives, all that was left was this:

Those words don't convince me and neither do the quoted laws. In no state can I sit on a jury and look upon an armed aggressor as acting in self defense. Zimmerman would be the aggressor in my mind obviously and the unarmed teen going about his inconspicuous business would have be the victim.

Simple - aggressor against victim. No question about whose defending themselves. No question about reasonable doubt.

I have no doubt that Trayvon Martin was unarmed and that Zimmerman was armed and was the aggressor against him and killed him intentionally.

Simple shit really - unless you allow a biases to influence you.

Then you have let your biases influence you.

I'm just talking about Florida law as it is written and as it was presented to the jury, not personal biases.

 

[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.

 

[Sour-Cream]

"George Zimmerman got away with murder but you can't get away from God"

 

[1of1]

"George Zimmerman got away with murder but you can't get away from God"

See what this shit does to people?

If I wanted to manipulate her into changing her mind or making a decision, some statement about God like the one above could fuck her head up.

 

[Sour-Cream]

Some of these black people down here are slow as fuck though, I can't blame her. She probably had 5 different white prejudice bitches brainwashing her.

I turned on the radio the other day and this dumb white bitch was saying how black people should just get over racism/ racial profiling. Shit sounds straight outta movie. Oh wait..

 

[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.

 

[nycdiesel]

Fuck this bitch

 

[jayloveboogie]

White folks don't give a damn they just wanna use to ass like they did her dumb ass lol

 

[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.

It's not just because you don't agree with the law. It's how you interpret the law - which will include the way you personally think, no doubt.

If it was as simple as you stated, there would be no process of jury selection, including no rejecting jurors - because only the law would matter.

Why do you think so many jurors are rejected ?

For example, like I discussed above - you can interpret Zimmerman as being the aggressor or using self-defense, that's up to you. You can determine whether you believe Trayvon posed any threat - that's up to you.

I'm not sure what you're even talking about, but I was responding to the person that specifically asked the question "How can you cast a vote for a law you don't agree with?" Everyone might have slightly different interpretations of a law (even those should be at a minimum since most laws are spelled out so as to avoid that type of thing), but whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant.

And you have jury selections so that they can get rid of people who have biases or other hangups that will prevent them from doing the right thing. It's not about determining who will agree with a law or not.

 

[haute]

"George Zimmerman got away with murder but you can't get away from God"

I hope that sorry bitch was applying that logic to herself as well

Dumb piece of shit

 

[haute]

is this the same one who wanted a book deal

 

[[Trillmatic]]

When are ppl gonna realize that the prosecution fucked up by going for murder instead of manslaughter? Its not the jury's fault, Zimmerman didnt go out to hunt Trayvon down and murder him. He just got shook and shot him cuz he was scared.......mansalughter.

 

[stringer bell]

Interview from nightline.. Smh @ this incompetent ass jury.. also she needs stop calling herself a "Black Hispanic" .. Your just a Puerto Rican from now on...

 

[blackrain]

is this the same one who wanted a book deal

Nah, that chick caught it so bad after how sympathetic she came across to Zimmerman the book deal got cancelled and she's probably going to be silent for the rest of her life

 

[MR.CJ]

is this the same one who wanted a book deal

Nah, that chick caught it so bad after how sympathetic she came across to Zimmerman the book deal got cancelled and she's probably going to be silent for the rest of her life

#blacktwitter gave her that work