• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'

Excellent analysis!

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, dark skinned Puerto Ricans and African Americans are more or less the same thing because they have similar dark skin tones.

Any analysis on how dark skinned Hispanics feel about fried chicken and watermelon?



So what you're saying is that the "black community", in whatever outrageous manner you wish to describe it, considers President Obama an objecy worthy of scorn because he doesn't sag his jeans and drink 40s on the White House stoop?

Honestly dude, he started digging the hole, then when he got tired you decided you'd pick up the shovel.

So now we've got ignorantracisim^2.

:roll:

I consider people who senselessly throw around the term "racism" to be the absolute scum of the earth. Perhaps they have some pathological need to feel guilt and shame about their ancestors and to project that guilt and shame onto others, but I, personally, feel no need for transferred guilt or shame and live my life to a much higher standard than the little snots who cry racism every chance they get.

I'm responsible for how I respect and treat all the people in this world I meet - I'm not responsible for you or anyone before you or after you. The lock on ignorance belongs to the person who claims someone is a racist when they haven't any knowledge of that person whatsoever. Arrogant little snots who cry racism at every turn will keep America in the depths of racial animus perpetually, which is probably their goal in life.
 
A person is not innocent until proven guilty. That's the most asinine misinterpretation of what the law calls for I've seen, and it's fascinating how many people think it is the case.


In a court of law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Presumed. Whether or not a person is actually guilty of committing a crime has nothing to do with what happens in court. Nothing.

A guilty person can be found not guilty. An innocent person can be found guilty. Their actual guilt or innocence is not affected by court proceedings. Only the legal system's presumptions about their guilt or innocence can be altered by court proceedings.



its people like you is why we had lynchings the hell with the law i think he is guilty there for i will punish the perceived guilty. the hell with the law its people like you is why i stopped being a conservative years ago. you don't give a **** about the law or the constitution your just as bad as a liberal


pre·sumed pre·sum·ing : to suppose to be true without proof or before inquiry - See more at: Presume - FindLaw

the term presumed innocent is used because there is no evidence to the contrary one way or the other there for it is up to the prosecution to provide the evidence to establish guilt and when that doesn't happen the presumed becomes a fact of innocence
 
Excuse me, but I saw the interview and if she is white then so is Zimmerman and Obama. All jurors were said to be white. Why are all people white al of the sudden in this case??!!
 
its people like you is why we had lynchings the hell with the law i think he is guilty there for i will punish the perceived guilty. the hell with the law its people like you is why i stopped being a conservative years ago. you don't give a **** about the law or the constitution your just as bad as a liberal


pre·sumed pre·sum·ing : to suppose to be true without proof or before inquiry - See more at: Presume - FindLaw

the term presumed innocent is used because there is no evidence to the contrary one way or the other there for it is up to the prosecution to provide the evidence to establish guilt and when that doesn't happen the presumed becomes a fact of innocence

:lol: Yes, people like me who comprehend the difference between presumption and actuality are what cause lynchings. I'm to blame because YOU don't understand English.

Did I say anything about punishment? No?!?!?! You mean that's just some idiocy you invented because you decided that reality is bull**** and you have to make up retarded nonsense in order to defeat reality. How quaint.
 
Excellent analysis!

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, dark skinned Puerto Ricans and African Americans are more or less the same thing because they have similar dark skin tones.

Any analysis on how dark skinned Hispanics feel about fried chicken and watermelon?

If that is what you distilled my statements to mean, well...I think we know who the racist might be here. I think I specifically pointed out that some Hispanics are of African descent, some of on indigenous descent, some of European descent... just like here in the US [ PR is a part of the US, just so you know...and not all of us are the same, right? Some are of European descent, some African American, some of Latin American, some of Asian descent, etc... ]. Your puny attempts to try to make something of this speaks volumes about how ill informed some can be and yet these of the ignorant persuasion seem to have some overarching desire to label others... projection maybe?

One expects adult-like conversation at a debate website such as this.



So what you're saying is that the "black community", in whatever outrageous manner you wish to describe it, considers President Obama an objecy worthy of scorn because he doesn't sag his jeans and drink 40s on the White House stoop?

Honestly dude, he started digging the hole, then when he got tired you decided you'd pick up the shovel.

So now we've got ignorantracisim^2.

:roll:
Again, I said nothing of the sort... if you would take a course in reading comprehension, maybe we can discuss this civilly another time. If not, please take your own form of pursuit of happiness elsewhere as you do not seem to comprehend at all what I am attempting to say. I would only add that Obama, instead of working diligently to represent the entire country and its disparate peoples, instead of trying to bring us together, is instead speaking as the defacto rules of the black community demand, that he take sides no matter what the evidence says... which is biased and divisive as well as being dangerously volatile.
 
What I don't get is that she said she went into deliberations believing it was second degree murder but then she goes on to say she thinks it should never have gone to trial. Does this make sense???

no it doesn't make since she is trying to save face for the rash of crap she received from her friends family and neighbors. she is a coward for not standing by her right decision of not guilty because the back lash from the mob

thank god we had 5 other strong women who didn't let their emotions and the mob influence or make them regret there decision before during and after the trial
 
:lol: Yes, people like me who comprehend the difference between presumption and actuality are what cause lynchings. I'm to blame because YOU don't understand English.

Did I say anything about punishment? No?!?!?! You mean that's just some idiocy you invented because you decided that reality is bull**** and you have to make up retarded nonsense in order to defeat reality. How quaint.

pre·sumed pre·sum·ing : to suppose to be true without proof or before inquiry - See more at: Presume - FindLaw

the term presumed innocent is used because there is no evidence to the contrary one way or the other there for it is up to the prosecution to provide the evidence to establish guilt and when that doesn't happen the presumed becomes a fact of innocence

what part does your feeble little mind does not understand
 
The 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.

The court had sealed the jurors' identities during the trial and still hasn't lifted the order, but Juror B29 edged out of the shadows in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts. She allowed her face to be shown, but -- concerned for her safety -- used only a first name of Maddy.

Watch More of the Interview Thursday on "World News" at 6:30 p.m. ET and Friday on "Good Morning America" at 7 a.m. ET

The nursing assistant and mother of eight children was selected as a juror five months after she had moved to Seminole County, Fla., from Chicago.

All six of the jurors were women and Maddy, 36, who is Puerto Rican, was the only minority to deliberate in the racially charged case. Zimmerman, 29, was a white Hispanic and Martin, 17, was black.

Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn't want to speak for her fellow jurors.

But her feelings about Zimmerman's actions are clear.

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

When the jury of six women—five of them mothers—began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge.

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

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."

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."

"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.

As a mother, Maddy said she has had trouble adjusting to life after the verdict, and has wrestled with whether she made the right decision.

"I felt like I let a lot of people down, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?'" she said.

"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."

Maddy said she has sympathy for Martin's parents and believes she, too, would continue the crusade for justice if this had happened to her son.

She said she believes she owes Trayvon Martin's parents an apology because she feels "like I let them down."

"It's hard for me to sleep, it's hard for me to eat because I feel I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin's death. And as I carry him on my back, I'm hurting as much Trayvon's Martin's mother because there's no way that any mother should feel that pain," she said.

Maddy is the second juror to speak in a televised interview, and the first to show her face.

Juror B37, whose face and body were hidden, appeared last week on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, and said that she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch.

Since then, four other jurors distanced themselves from B37's remarks and released a statement saying B37's opinions were "not in any way representative" of their own.

George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder' - ABC News

The bolded attitude above is EXACTLY the oppostite of presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nearly every criminal case has a victim, and all have a person charged by the state for a crime. To assume that the state had it right and the accused must then prove themself innocent is her major mental malfunction.

What the witness statements and physical evidence showed was that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and being beaten prior to his act of armed self defense, hardly what the media initially portrayed as Martin being an innocent kid skipping home from the store with Skittles and a soft drink and being gunned down for being black.

Was Zimmerman mistaken in his initial judgement of Martin being "suspicious"? Perhaps, yet upon Zimmerman's one and only close contact with Martin, yet Zimmerman did not "get the beating that he deserved" for having thought Martin suspicious.
 
Hear it from a second juror.

This from the limited article you provided: "That juror said the actions of Zimmerman and Martin both led to the teenager's fatal shooting, but that Zimmerman didn't actually break the law." That is because all humans are allowed to defend themselves against aggressors [known as self-defense].

Did you read the article that set up this topic? George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty' - ABC News

This culled from that better article as it omits less therefore providing more accurate information upon which to base a better decision as to how fair the trial was and how he didn't get off scot-free... there should never have been a trial...according to the juror you quote: When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so." "I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said

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."

"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."

So, what is self defense to you? Do you have any idea?
 
This from the limited article you provided: "That juror said the actions of Zimmerman and Martin both led to the teenager's fatal shooting, but that Zimmerman didn't actually break the law." That is because all humans are allowed to defend themselves against aggressors [known as self-defense].

Did you read the article that set up this topic? George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty' - ABC News

This culled from that better article as it omits less therefore providing more accurate information upon which to base a better decision as to how fair the trial was and how he didn't get off scot-free... there should never have been a trial...according to the juror you quote: When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so." "I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said

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."

"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."

So, what is self defense to you? Do you have any idea?

I appreciate you took the trouble to go into such details. We will see how it goes.
 
I don't know how anyone could say anything definitive about what the jurors believed, or what they deliberated about without statements by the jurors themselves. I don't recall seeing such comments by posters here, but no big deal.

Believe me I had many such debates. It was exhausting.
 
no your not getting it. we are a nation of laws and the law states you are innocent till proven guilty and guess what he was found not guilty there for he is innocent never did he ever lose his innocence. now if you don't like that law you can always move to some other country that your guilty till you prove your innocence

That's ridiculous. You don't understand how the process works. It is not the responsibility or the jury to decide if a defendant is innocent, it is the responsibility of the jury to decide whether or not he/she is guilty or not guilty of the charges. To say that because a not guilty verdict was returned all the jurors thought he was innocent is an assumption not fact, and it's wrong.
 
Ok, lets say I pop out from behind a bush, punch you in the nose, break it, jump on you and start bashing your head against a concrete sidewalk... what do YOU do then? Scream until your brains are on the sidewalk and you cannot scream anymore? Or would you, if you had a way, defend yourself?

How is it you get murder from that? And what would self defense mean to you? It can only occur in your own house maybe? Anywhere else you are attacked you just have to take it? Just wondering how far this silliness might go.
Lot of pacifist in this world would say they would rather be killed then kill. And they expect the rest of us to do the same.
 
That's ridiculous. You don't understand how the process works. It is not the responsibility or the jury to decide if a defendant is innocent, it is the responsibility of the jury to decide whether or not he/she is guilty or not guilty of the charges. To say that because a not guilty verdict was returned all the jurors thought he was innocent is an assumption not fact, and it's wrong.

exactly he is innocent till found guilty there for he never lost his innocence so the jury can not give back something he never lost that is why they find you not guilty instead of innocent because you are already innocent
 
Last edited:
exactly he is innocent till found guilty there for he never lost his innocence so the jury can not give back something he never lost that is why they find you not guilty instead of innocent because you are already innocent

No. The not guilty verdict does not mean that they support the defenses claim of innocence. That is a leap on your part or an assumption. They are stating specifically, that there was not enough evidence to render a guilty verdict. The defendant may or may not have committed the crime they have been accused of but it is not the responsibility of the jury to determine that.
 
If I were this juror, I would've kept my mouth shut. She's going to be more of a target now from the rabid anti-Zimmerman crowd because she didn't, oddly enough, stand her ground.

She doesn't seem too bright either.

She showed her face on the TV show but not her last name.

Has she ever Heard of computers and google search?
 
No. The not guilty verdict does not mean that they support the defenses claim of innocence. That is a leap on your part or an assumption. They are stating specifically, that there was not enough evidence to render a guilty verdict. The defendant may or may not have committed the crime they have been accused of but it is not the responsibility of the jury to determine that.

You quoted trfjr post of "exactly he is innocent till found guilty ...."

Your answer of No. is troublesome. While I can agree the not guilty does not mean they support the defense claim.
Is it not US stance that one is innocent till proven guilty? It is a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a
someone charged of a crime. The defendant has no burden to prove innocence.

I hope your not advocating guilty till proven innocent.

What is your opinion then: Lets say you or a family member is charged with a crime. The State/govt does not have enough evidence to convict, the case goes to trial, the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. Would you want to have a label of "criminal" attached to you or your family member?

In the GZ case, yes GZ shot TM which resulted in TM's death. Is GZ a murderer? IMO, not according to the law.
Innocent until proven guilty legal definition of Innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

"Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society."
 
No. The not guilty verdict does not mean that they support the defenses claim of innocence. That is a leap on your part or an assumption. They are stating specifically, that there was not enough evidence to render a guilty verdict. The defendant may or may not have committed the crime they have been accused of but it is not the responsibility of the jury to determine that.

why are you being so freaken dense.
Are you not innocent till proven guilty according to the law? so don't you remain innocent till a verdict is read? so if your already innocent how are you found innocent? your not you are found not guilty. you cant be given something you already have. quite acting like a uneducated fool
 
why are you being so freaken dense.
Are you not innocent till proven guilty according to the law? so don't you remain innocent till a verdict is read? so if your already innocent how are you found innocent? your not you are found not guilty. you cant be given something you already have. quite acting like a uneducated fool

Was Charles Manson innocent of murder until the point he was found guilty in a court of law? As though verdicts can magically create guilt?
 
Zimmerman may have gotten away with murder. We'll never know. Thus "not guilty."
 
Zimmerman may have gotten away with murder. We'll never know. Thus "not guilty."

He could potentially come out and say "Yeah I killed that little thug bastard! I'm totally guilty of murder two. Sorry bitches, no double Jeopardy! Suck it!"
 
Was Charles Manson innocent of murder until the point he was found guilty in a court of law? As though verdicts can magically create guilt?

Yes. Manson was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder due to his superpowers of taking over the free will of others, that actually did the killing.
 
Was Charles Manson innocent of murder until the point he was found guilty in a court of law? As though verdicts can magically create guilt?

yes he was innocent till found guilty according to the law. you don't get to pick and choose who the law applies to and who it doesn't. I look at things through the lens of the law not feelings emotions assumptions and speculations, that is what lynch mobs vigilantes and kangaroo courts do
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom