July 19, 201313 yr Author According to MSNBC, Trayvon was an up and coming scientist, because he attended science camp. I heard that he was so into science that his mom couldn't control him anymore and that's why he had went to be with his dad. Maybe he was blinded by science.
July 19, 201313 yr According to MSNBC, Trayvon was an up and coming scientist, because he attended science camp. So much of a scientist that he learned how to make a liquid codein concoction. According to some of his tweets he learned how using skittles and robitiasen and Arizona watermelon drink. Apparently it is the new rage and funny that he bought 2 of the items used in that from the store right before he was killed.
July 19, 201313 yr Thought provoking words from a courageous pastor! LiveLeak.com - Pastor: Why Blacks Blame Zimmerman. Why Trayvon Martin got skittles? This comment puzzles me. (I'm paraphrasing.) "He's not white. His father was a Baptist and his mother was from Peru."
July 19, 201313 yr This comment puzzles me. (I'm paraphrasing.) "He's not white. His father was a Baptist and his mother was from Peru."Yeah, I didn't get that one either. I think he was caught up in the moment.
July 20, 201313 yr I heard that he was so into science that his mom couldn't control him anymore and that's why he had went to be with his dad. Maybe he was blinded by science. Like Thomas Dolby.
July 25, 201313 yr Another juror speaks. I feel bad for all of the jurors. George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder' - ABC News
July 25, 201313 yr Another juror speaks. I feel bad for all of the jurors. George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder' - ABC News I know what the link shows as the "headline", but to me the most intriguing and worthile mention from that piece is this: 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.
July 25, 201313 yr I know what the link shows as the "headline", but to me the most intriguing and worthile mention from that piece is this: 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. When a juror can see through that that is all you need to know about this charade.
July 25, 201313 yr I know what the link shows as the "headline", but to me the most intriguing and worthile mention from that piece is this: 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. Agreed.
July 25, 201313 yr Agreed. I agree with you that I feel sorry for the jurors. There was no right decision they could have made in the eyes of the public, but I am relieved they went the way did. There were 0 winners in this case.
July 25, 201313 yr When a juror can see through that that is all you need to know about this charade. I don't agree with her statement here. If it took her nine hours to understand the law that tells me that the trial was needed. The jury got it right based on the law and how it reads but a trial was still needed and I'd also argue that more competent lawyers could have presented a much better case. The jury made a decision based on what was presented to them, it took her the second day and nine hours to understand that law but yet she still feels like he got away with murder and in the same breath she says a trial wasn't needed. That doesn't make sense.
July 25, 201313 yr I agree with you that I feel sorry for the jurors. There was no right decision they could have made in the eyes of the public, but I am relieved they went the way did. There were 0 winners in this case. 0 winners indeed.
July 25, 201313 yr I don't agree with her statement here. If it took her nine hours to understand the law that tells me that the trial was needed. The jury got it right based on the law and how it reads but a trial was still needed and I'd also argue that more competent lawyers could have presented a much better case. The jury made a decision based on what was presented to them, it took her the second day and nine hours to understand that law but yet she still feels like he got away with murder and in the same breath she says a trial wasn't needed. That doesn't make sense.RE: 1 day, 9 hours. From what I understand that was not considered a long time given the scope of the trial, evidence presented, and the fact a murder charge was at hand. It was about average or a little less compared to most typical cases in Florida, for what ever that is worth. In Law and Order episodes the juries make decisions in about 3 minutes
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.