Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

More fuel to the fire: Juror says Zimmerman got away with murder


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#1 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,494 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 09:57 AM

 

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the 36-year-old woman, a nursing assistant and mother of eight. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

She said there wasn’t enough proof under Florida law to convict Zimmerman.

"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," the juror said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it.”

 

 

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,5505677.story

 

Really thinking that the prosecution may have messed up going for second degree murder.  Still not sure how this wasn't manslaughter at least; maybe if the prosecution had tried to push for that it woulda happened.



#2 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,737 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 09:59 AM

Yeah I said before that the Florida DA's need to be examined.



#3 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,155 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:02 AM

Pretty much the even handed view of this is manslaughter. Now proving GZ was racist? Maybe John Edwards the psychic can find out for us.

#4 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,437 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:04 AM

I kinda wish the juror's would stop making comments like they're speaking for the entire jury. Maybe the whole jury did feel like he was getting away with murder, but I definitely wouldn't want someone speaking for me in the press even if I shared the same opinion.



#5 ARSEN

ARSEN

    Banned

  • ALL-PRO
  • 11,369 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:38 AM

Of course he got away with murder. But by law he did nothing wrong.

#6 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,284 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:28 AM

Hmm, this juror says GZ will have to answer to God for his actions.

 

But didn't GZ just say it was God's plan all along for him to kill TM?

 

Which is it?

 

Was GZ preordained to kill TM or did he have free will and take a life without cause?

 

Does any of this even matter?

 

Won't God just forgive GZ for killing TM like it never happened?

 

 

 



#7 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:59 AM

This womans full of it. How she can say he got away with murder while she was on the jury, is stupid. She just wants to avoid being drawn into public scrutiny. What a coward. The ramseys,now they got away with murder.

Sent from my ADR910L using CarolinaHuddle mobile app



#8 SZ James

SZ James

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,737 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:06 PM

Oh that pesky law that says you let people get away with murder despite that you think he did it.

#9 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:08 PM

The main stream media just will not let this story go away.

 

They want racial division. Divide and conquer.

 

 



#10 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,712 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:00 AM

I hate it when people say THE JURY HAS TO ONLY GO BUY THE LETTER OF THE LAW. That is a gross misinterpretation of our legal system. If all that was required was an interpretation of his actions as it pertains to the letter of law, then Judges would be all that was required in court. But that is not our system. Juries are there to interpret the SPIRIT of the law and apply social accountability to actions, including those that are legally ambiguous.

#11 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,681 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 29 July 2013 - 07:24 AM

I hate it when people say THE JURY HAS TO ONLY GO BUY THE LETTER OF THE LAW. That is a gross misinterpretation of our legal system. If all that was required was an interpretation of his actions as it pertains to the letter of law, then Judges would be all that was required in court. But that is not our system. Juries are there to interpret the SPIRIT of the law and apply social accountability to actions, including those that are legally ambiguous.

 

but, if the evidence does not support what you "think likely happened" you cannot find them guilty.

 

interpreting an ambiguous law is one thing.  But, substituting your opinion or what you "think" happened is compeltely antother.

 

This juror is saying what most thought.  That GZ's actions did lead to the situation.  But, based on the law and the evidence (or lack there of) a guilty verdict was never going to happen.

 

It is not about what you know or think.....it is about what you can PROVE.

 

The prosecution could not prove anything about what happened....there just was not the evidence.



#12 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,388 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:19 AM

Wait until you see the full video of this interview.  ABC was the group that played the grainy video of his arrival to the police station in an effort to show there was no injuries, but when the higher resolution video came out it showed a different story.  ABC much like NBC needed this to be the next Duke lacrosse case...as did Sharpton.  Shame it's gone on this far about an incident that didn't need to happen.



#13 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,940 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:13 AM

I agree, I think the DA made a mistake by not going all out for manslaughter to begin with.



#14 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,083 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:25 AM

I hate it when people say THE JURY HAS TO ONLY GO BUY THE LETTER OF THE LAW. That is a gross misinterpretation of our legal system. If all that was required was an interpretation of his actions as it pertains to the letter of law, then Judges would be all that was required in court. But that is not our system. Juries are there to interpret the SPIRIT of the law and apply social accountability to actions, including those that are legally ambiguous.

 

 

Judges, even panels of them, can and do display biases.  The reason for a "Jury of your peers" is that the test for guilt/fault must be that the average citizen can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt/by the greater preponderance of the evidence of a given set of facts. 

 

 

Juries are not there to delve into the "spirit" or meaning of the law.  There are there to be the impartial citizens that two law teams try to convince of their version of the events in question.  There are laws that bind them and dictate their behavior in regards to determining which side prevails but the have almost nothing to do with interpreting laws.

 

 

For as flawed as our system may be, fortunately it doesn't leave divining the "spirit" of a law up to a group of laypeople.



#15 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,701 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 10:33 AM

Involuntary manslaughter might have stuck, but the DA wanted the exposure and high profile case and reached. Major egos on that team for sure.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com