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

Status
Not open for further replies.

MouseTheLuckyDog

New Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Remember strawberry shortcake, or whatever her name was that was put into the Peterson jury after that one guy who had served as foreman was removed?

IMHO

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.
 

JusticeJunkie

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
5,107
Reaction score
2
Yeah, IDK maybe it's different in FL, but in Arizona, the alternates sit in on the trial and are released from deliberations but left on hand in case something happens to deliberating jurors.

In fact, that doesn't make sense because what would be the point of having alternates if you're just going to scrap the whole thing and start over if one drops out? Also, I remember in the Casey Anthony trial, they had alternates for the purpose of replacing lost deliberating jurors but did not sit in on the trial. So I don't think that's true IMO.
That exact thing happened in NC. I think it depends on the state laws.

IMO
 

ShadyLady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,608
I don't see that as a good thing. Not because of GZ, but because of the mob mentality of folks who do not get what they want and feel they need to threaten someone. This country's justice system works the way it does, the jury's decision should be final, people should move on without threatening.

What I see is street violence for someone that was a victim of street violence. Ironic. IMO
 

JusticeJunkie

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
5,107
Reaction score
2
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
 

cityslick

New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
7,230
Reaction score
4
Congratulations WS Members!! We made it. No matter what side you are on, pray for peace and calm after the verdict.

My heart still breaks for the Martin's. I can't image having my son killed while going to the store. :cry:

I agree. I hope people can be calm when the verdict comes, no matter what it is.
 

JeannaT

Former Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,636
Reaction score
144
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.

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
 

JusticeJunkie

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
5,107
Reaction score
2
Either way, regardless of verdict. Zimmerman will never be free and will have to spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder and in fear. Justice for Travon either way.

All IMO



What a terrible tragedy

IMO.
 

gxm

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
23
But that's not the only factor in this case.

He was not just a kid, walking home from the store or screwing off outside at dinner time talking to his girl.

And note, this didn't take place in the dead of night, this was DINNER TIME. Many people had only just finished getting home from work. Prime time TV hadn't even begun yet. It was early enough that had it not been drizzling there would have likely been little kids still out playing or heading home from their friend's houses.

But it wasn't some white teen in a letterman jacket, it was a black kid in a hoodie. Had it been me or most of the people posting here, I would have made it home just fine. Zimmerman wouldn't have batted an eye, he wouldn't have called 911, and he certainly wouldn't have followed me for blocks before getting out of his car to pursue me on foot.

And if he had, and events had played out exactly as they did with Martin, I suspect that not a single person here would be leaping to Zimmerman's defense. No one would casually asume that the middle aged white guy (me)suddenly went on a murderous rampage that could only be stopped with a gun. They would demand to know why I was being followed, and they would want some proof that I had gone freaking mental and attacked the person I had just finished fleeing from.

But I am not Martin. Actions that are completely fine and safe and above suspicion for me, were lethal for this teen. Assumptions that NO ONE would make in my case -- that I sucker punched people, told them I was going to murder them, and that I punched them dozens and dozens of times while beating their head into jello -- are accepted as gospel when the victim was Trayvon Martin.

IMO

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.
 

JeannaT

Former Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,636
Reaction score
144
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

I think that's a mistake, but it sounds like what the plan is.

IMHO
 

iluvmua

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
8,830
Reaction score
11,269
Either way, regardless of verdict. Zimmerman will never be free and will have to spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder and in fear.
Justice for Travon either way.

All IMO

unfortunately, you are probably correct and the jury will be getting backlash no matter how they vote.

JMO
 

Chelly

Always Remember Teghan Skiba
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
15,243
Reaction score
37,003
Jury has the case. Any thoughts on how long they will deliberate?

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.
 

MeeBee

Active Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
10,768
Reaction score
9
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

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.
 

SusieD

New Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
864
Reaction score
1
I heard last night on Tricia's True Crime Show that given the concern law enforcement has about riots, the jury would be encouraged to wait until Monday even if they have deliberated and decided tonight. Any thoughts on that?

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.
 

JeannaT

Former Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,636
Reaction score
144
In the Scott Peterson trial? Because that is not why the foreman was removed:

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

i dont want to derail this discussion - so sorry to have dragged it off topic.

i stand by what my opinion is, though.

iMHO
 

cityslick

New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
7,230
Reaction score
4
Real or perceived Zimmerman will never FEEL safe. He needed a gun before, wonder what he'd use next time, if he's given the chance? According to him, he'd do nothing differently.

More than a little scary, considering he was wrong about Travon.

IMO

Considering GZ never had a history of gun violence prior to this event, I will disagree with you.
 

Chris_Texas

New Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,926
Reaction score
2
If someone were beating the crap out of me, my son, my husband, or anyone else, I would expect them to have the right to defend themselves by whatever means it takes. GZ did not have the physical ability to defend himself in any other way, because he isn't a fighter, and especially against an aggressive fighter such as TM. Where did TM get his practice, IDK, as he also appeared to have been quite skilled for a 17 y/o, imo.

I remained neutral and had not formed an opinion at all, until I saw the actual evidence in this case. I honestly had paid little attention to it until this last week. Didn't even pay attention to it when it happened because I was turned off by all the media hype and allegations of "racism". That, because I learned they were both a "minority", thus I refused to listen at all.

My concern now, after all the evidence is in, is whatever happened to the rights of an American citizen to be able to defend oneself against an aggressor. I am now appalled this case ever went to trial.

I said I wasn't going to get involved in this trial because it is too divisive, as evidenced by the posts I read here. I'm really going to reign myself in now, as I've said enough. That, because I have friends here on WS that I still consider friends even if they don't agree with me. Everyone has the right to their opinion. jmo

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top