George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

Discussion in 'George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin' started by Tricia, Jul 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MouseTheLuckyDog

    MouseTheLuckyDog New Member

    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know for a fact that at least one juror ( it may have been two my memory is spotty on that )
    was removed from the jury for refusing to deliberate.
     
  2. JusticeJunkie

    JusticeJunkie New Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That exact thing happened in NC. I think it depends on the state laws.

    IMO
     
  3. Love Never Fails

    Love Never Fails Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,150
    Likes Received:
    48,097
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jury has the case. Any thoughts on how long they will deliberate?
     
  4. ShadyLady

    ShadyLady Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,338
    Likes Received:
    2,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I see is street violence for someone that was a victim of street violence. Ironic. IMO
     
  5. missmazzy

    missmazzy New Member

    Messages:
    746
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm starting to agree, although I would personally vote Not Guilty.
     
  6. JusticeJunkie

    JusticeJunkie New Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 7m
    Once the jurors retire to deliberate.. The alternates will stay behind and the judge will thank them and dismiss them. #Zimmermanon9
     
  7. Chester_from_THM

    Chester_from_THM Member

    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Did I just see that guy who inserted himself into the CA case, the blogger, forget his name.
     
  8. cityslick

    cityslick New Member

    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree. I hope people can be calm when the verdict comes, no matter what it is.
     
  9. JeannaT

    JeannaT Former Member

    Messages:
    8,636
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's see. One was removed early on for interacting with a witness, I believe, and the foreman was removed (THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY) because he refused to change his mind from not guilty to guilty.

    He refused to consider changing, and the judge decided that was refusing to deliberate.

    But anyway, off-topic, sorry.

    IMHO
     
  10. JusticeJunkie

    JusticeJunkie New Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    What a terrible tragedy

    IMO.
     
  11. gxm

    gxm Active Member

    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    BBM. It was winter time. It would have been dark outside, especially so since it was overcast and raining.

    Further, if you fit the description of a "middle aged white guy" burglarizing the neighborhood, yes, you would have raised suspicion. Lastly, TM made it home. He then decided to double back and give the "creepy cr*ck*r" a beat down. The "lethal action" for TM was assuming that GZ would be an easy target. JMO. OMO. MOO.
     
  12. cityslick

    cityslick New Member

    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think they will go to tomorrow and deliver it late tomorrow afternoon.
     
  13. JeannaT

    JeannaT Former Member

    Messages:
    8,636
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that's a mistake, but it sounds like what the plan is.

    IMHO
     
  14. iluvmua

    iluvmua Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,806
    Likes Received:
    10,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    unfortunately, you are probably correct and the jury will be getting backlash no matter how they vote.

    JMO
     
  15. Chelly

    Chelly Always Remember Teghan Skiba

    Messages:
    14,511
    Likes Received:
    30,557
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope we get a poll thread on this subject, but I have a feeling the jury will find deliberations a huge challenge and will be undecided for several days before reaching a verdict.
     
  16. MeeBee

    MeeBee Active Member

    Messages:
    10,768
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    In the Scott Peterson trial? Because that is not why the foreman was removed:

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BEHIND-CLOSED-DOORS-Two-jury-members-were-2663861.php

    It was for refusing to deliberate but not because he wouldn't change his mind.
     
  17. SusieD

    SusieD New Member

    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think it's at all appropriate or ethical to interfere in any way with jury deliberations because of possible public opinion. If they vote guilty or not, it should be because of the evidence, not because there might be a riot.

    I'm sure the court can hold off reading a verdict if so desired (reasonable, not days or anything) but to ask the jurors not to give a verdict, uh no, can't go with that.
     
  18. JeannaT

    JeannaT Former Member

    Messages:
    8,636
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i dont want to derail this discussion - so sorry to have dragged it off topic.

    i stand by what my opinion is, though.

    iMHO
     
  19. cityslick

    cityslick New Member

    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Considering GZ never had a history of gun violence prior to this event, I will disagree with you.
     
  20. Chris_Texas

    Chris_Texas New Member

    Messages:
    1,926
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    RTB...

    That right is not being challenged. The question is whether or not it is reasonable to repeatedly follow someone who has committed no crime, to the point that they are so afraid that they actually run away, then continue to pursue them -- against police advice -- and when you catch them and a scuffle takes place, kill them as your first and only effort at "self defense."

    Now all this might be reasonable, PERHAPS, if the defendants story remained consistent and plausible. It is simply a fact that Zimmerman's story evolved over time and it does not match the physical evidence at the crime scene. This happens with every case, and it's expected, but some of the inconsistencies are significant and suggest that Zimmerman is not telling the truth about some very important details.

    The EVIDENCE for Zimmerman's defense is his word. That's pretty much it. We don't know who was yelling, we don't know who was on top, we don't know who threw the first punch or even if any punches were thrown at all. We do know that Zimmerman's claims that he had been punched twenty or more times in the face are likely false -- there is no evidence for this and plenty of evidence it never happened. Equally questionable is the claim that Martin was repeatedly pounding his head on some concrete. Maybe it happened, but the physical evidence doesn't support it, and it certainly was NOT happening when Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

    Again, this case is not about the right to defend yourself. This case is about an unarmed dead teen. IMO
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice