-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Juror says Zimmerman went "above and beyond" and has "learned a good lesson"
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Joel Was Right
Member
Correct. The source isn't a fringe blog either but the Washington Post
jakonovski
Member
If 16 is definitely a young adult, it's also fair to describe him as a kid, as he's not an adult. It's all semantics... That's what I'm saying.
You don't often hear people talking about "high school young adults" - its usually "high school kids". Kid is an entirely accurate word to use to describe a minor in my opinion.
Link to fourth edition
For the last time, you're replying to the wrong person. The person you're trying to reply to was banned. I don't know why you're saying this to me. I didn't say anything even remotely related to your replies. Please stop.
But poor George. He was obviously in danger after profiling and stalking (with a gun) a 17 year old kid walking home from the store. How dare Travon feel threatened by some strange man following him home. He had no right to go on the defensive for himself in such a situation. After all, he was a 'suspect.'
That double standard line of thinking boils this case down in a nutshell. Sickening.
The worst bit being that implies there shouldn't be consequences for the behavior, even when the result is murder.
Released July 16th? How appropriate.
Of course he is. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama's speech on race set the evolution of talks on race backwards is a flat out retard.
Someone should mention to him, that that kind of stop and frisk mentality is what the Germans adopted during the height of the Nazi regime, and that they had statistics to back up the fact that Jewish people sent money out of the country to support their enemies.
We like to think that racists in the past came out and flatly said they were doing what they were doing because they were racist, but that's hardly the case.
Slave-Owners argued for slavery on behalf of a love for the Constitution, State's Rights, Small Government, and Free Market Enterprise without Government intervention.
Segregationists did the same thing.
Nazi's argued that Jews presented a threat to Germany and cited "facts" as to how that was the case.
These new racists aren't the first people to cloak and hide their racism, they're no more racists than people in the past, the laws have just changed and allow for far less action there.
Zoe
Member
Weren't they sequestered?
Thanks for this.
During her jury Q and A for selection she said she never watched the news and only used newspapers for her bird cage. She called the peaceful protests riots and said her and her attorney husband never discussed the case at home before the trial. This was unrelated to the sequestering.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Well, two others pushed for manslaughter as well.
Big Baybee
Member
Whenever I read people saying that following someone is not illegal, are we forgetting that GZ actually said "shit, he's running" got out of his vehicle and proceeded to give chase on foot? I guess TM still had no reason to be fearful of this guy, right?
Link
The Autumn Wind
She could see it in his kind eyes.
captmcblack
Member
*sigh*
This still exists, people. Why even try to deny it? Why try to do anything without at least acknowledging this exists by default? The problem is here. folks.
Racism still exists. Racial profiling still exists. It is wrong. Not up for debate.
The worst part is that it explicitly had to do with the events of this case, but that reality was ignored/discounted because people wanted to decide whether or not someone was a "racist".
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Kinda feel like you are just arguing semantics here, but anyway. You are granted the right to defend yourself by a law, said self defense can include lethal force, therefore the use of lethal force is a right granted to you in certain situations, mean lethal force is a right afforded to you by law in the defense of yourself.
Where is that happening in this thread?
These drive-by posts are pretty abhorrent. You didn't respond to anyone or the OP and all you did was claim that someone in here was advocating mob justice.
I'm merely saying no one should ever have the right to kill another human being.
Apparently Trayvon Martin doesn't have that right though.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Until I see this from a reputable source there is no way I will believe this. If it's true it would really be flip my table worthy.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Isn't that grounds for a mistrial or appeal?
Also, I'm glad George Zimmerman got to learn a lesson. Many of us don't have that chance before something really bad happens.
Well now we know that the jury was full of idiots.
I love how in America you can stalk and kill people, if you are white. It is embarrassing to live here sometimes.
But I am sure the killer learned his lesson, right? And all the other idiots who think they have the right to kill anyone that is a different color than them and therefor suspicious.
I love how in America you can stalk and kill people, if you are white. It is embarrassing to live here sometimes.
But I am sure the killer learned his lesson, right? And all the other idiots who think they have the right to kill anyone that is a different color than them and therefor suspicious.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
I'm from East Texas.
I can see calling Trayvon Martin "Treyvon", because with children (even those near adulthood), it's a little more expected to call them by their first names even if you're not close with them. With adults it's a little stranger, unless they're a famous figure that is just known by that name, like OJ. Even in a court case, though, I'd expect OJ to be called "Mr. Simspon" or Madonna to be called "Ms. Ciccone" because it's a court case. Then again, I don't wear black socks with tennis shoes nor would I wear cargo shorts and crocs to any restaraunt beyond the Golden Corral, so maybe I'm a square.
You have to be pretty dumb not to find your way out of a jury summons though.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Racism will always exist, unfortunately. I sometimes the only difference is how people react to these feelings. People are just better at hiding it, or at the very least, compartmentalizing it.
So fucked up. To summarise.
1. Martin was responsible for his own death.
2. Juror felt just as sorry for Zimmerman.
3. Zimmerman should continue to serve as a neighborhood watchman because he has learned his lesson about going too far.
4. Verdict hinged on Stand Your Ground law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.
5. Zimmerman was only guilty of using poor judgment and was egged on to follow Martin by the 9/11 operator.
6. Race played absolutely no factor in Zimmermans profiling of Martin.
7. Zimmermans history of reporting black men to the police and his decision to follow Martin played no role in the verdict.
There's no acknowledgement of the death of TM, nor any real sympathy either. She equates the same degree of sympathy for a "mistake in judgement" as she does towards an actual person's death. Trayvon's life evidently means very little to this woman.
Vicetrailia
Banned
This country could use some ethnic therapy.
MisterNegative
Banned
The Law then IMO needs to be slightly revised or altered for specific situations.
I shouldn't be able to instigate a situation, provoke a physical conflict and then shoot someone and claim self defence because I was losing the physical conflict my previous actions had led to.
Do you not see how fucked up that is ? I mean what is there to stop people from walking around with a weapon and starting shit because they know if it all goes pear shaped they can shoot someone, claim self defence and get off scott free ?
That response is reasonable to you? None of Zimmerman's actions mattered except for how he felt a few seconds before pulling the trigger? You realize that is saying that you are free to suspect someone over race, and confront them and if they make you fear for your life you can kill them.
Do you really think that's an appropriate response to this discussion? Feel free to call out an individual who is looking for mob justice, but I think you'll find that most of us are frustrated that this obvious profiling and killing was deemed legal and one of the jurors is openly OK with it.
Who is advocating mob justice?
You do, but only if you are under attack and you reasonably believe that your life is in imminent danger, or that you are in imminent danger of "great bodily harm", which basically means some injury that would likely result in death or dismemberment.
Getting punched, in almost every other case that I can think of having come up on appeal, has never been held to satisfy that requirement authorizing the use of deadly force.
Hell there are appeals court opinions in Florida where a knife-wielder wasn't even held to have threatened death or great bodily harm.
This case is exactly what we all think it is: complete and utter garbage.
hgarrett54
Banned
Same woman.
Battersea Power Station
Member
As I'm reading more about the proceedings, holy shit, who was the prosecutor, this guy?
The law doesn't need to be revised. You're correct in what the law's intent is, and what it means.
The problem is when you get 5 of 6 racists on a jury in central Florida, where racism is known and rampant, with 4 of the 5 being card-carrying members of the "moar guns" side of society, they decide to create their own standards of "reasonable doubt" based on the color of the victim or the criminal.
This case was over when the jury was selected.
I'm standing my nit-picky ground here, no puns intended - the point I'm trying to make is that it's a difference between self-defense justifying murder and having a right to kill someone. I'm not even sure if I'm right anymore, so I'm bowing out
No, but it should have been grounds for an absolute and immediate preemptive challenge striking her from the jury during selection.
For whatever reason, it wasn't. My guess is the State already used up all their preemptive challenges on other people who probably walked into jury selection with NRA t-shirts on and hats with rebel flags on them.
So they are automatically racist because they are white?
So, did this juror, take even ONE iota of testimony from the prosecution and accept it?
1) The police should have bagged his hands and dried his clothes
2) Zimmerman was egged on by the 911 operator to pursue him
3) Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling
4) Hunting a man down and chasing him with a gun is completely irrelevant.
5) Rachel Jeantel's entire testimony is irrelevant
6) "George" is a good guy with a good heart
7) Trayvon Martin caused his own death.
She literally accepted every single word that came out of the Defense's mouth. It's as if she just was daydreaming through the entire Prosecution side of things.
We've had hundreds of years of evidence in seeing how All White Juries, particularly in the South, decide on cases involving people of color. There's really 0 reason why anyone should think an all White Jury ISN'T racist unless they prove otherwise based on their verdict after 300 years of evidence in the south. If you think an all black jury on this case would have come to the same conclusion, you're nuts. And if you think it's "only because they're black" that they would come to a guilty, than it's "only because they're white" that they came to the not-guilty one.
1) The police should have bagged his hands and dried his clothes
2) Zimmerman was egged on by the 911 operator to pursue him
3) Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling
4) Hunting a man down and chasing him with a gun is completely irrelevant.
5) Rachel Jeantel's entire testimony is irrelevant
6) "George" is a good guy with a good heart
7) Trayvon Martin caused his own death.
She literally accepted every single word that came out of the Defense's mouth. It's as if she just was daydreaming through the entire Prosecution side of things.
We've had hundreds of years of evidence in seeing how All White Juries, particularly in the South, decide on cases involving people of color. There's really 0 reason why anyone should think an all White Jury ISN'T racist unless they prove otherwise based on their verdict after 300 years of evidence in the south. If you think an all black jury on this case would have come to the same conclusion, you're nuts. And if you think it's "only because they're black" that they would come to a guilty, than it's "only because they're white" that they came to the not-guilty one.
I'm standing my nit-picky ground here, no puns intended - the point I'm trying to make is that it's a difference between self-defense justifying murder and having a right to kill someone. I'm not even sure if I'm right anymore, so I'm bowing out
No, and you're right. Nobody has the right to kill another human being unless you are operating under the law of armed conflict and you are at war, and the other guy is either a) an enemy combatant, or b) an unprivileged belligerent.
But that's any entirely different discussion for a different thread.
I guess she felt a not guilty verdict would sell more books.
How should it be altered?
Hari Seldon
Member
smh at all this acquisitions of racism. Its like some people project these people to be racist so they can get themselves into a bigger rage. The leaps of logic are tremendous here. GZ was definitely not a racist. This juror might be, who knows, but at least she acknowledged that race didn't play a part, and since it wasn't part of the trial, it shouldn't have been a part of the jury deliberations.
- Status