See other National News Articles
Title: Zimmerman juror from Chicago speaks out: He 'got away with murder'
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ ... icago-20130725,0,4361149.story
Published: Jul 25, 2013
Author: staff
Post Date: 2013-07-25 15:38:33 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 2850
Comments: 284
A juror in the George Zimmerman trial who had recently moved to Florida from Chicago said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology to Martin's parents. "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," the woman, identified only as Juror B29 during the trial, told ABC's "Good Morning America. "We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence." She said the evidence, under Florida law, did not prove murder. The court has sealed the jurors' identities. While she allowed her face to be shown during the interview, she used only a first name of Maddy. The woman is a nursing assistant and mother of eight children. She was living in Chicago when Martin was killed and was selected as a juror five months after moving to Seminole County, Fla. She is 36 and Puerto Rican, the only minority among the five women on the jury. Zimmerman, 29, is Hispanic and Martin, 17, was black. But Maddy insisted that the case was never about race, at least to her. "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," Maddy told the show. When the jury began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second-degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge. "I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said. But on the second day of deliberations, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law. Zimmerman admitted he shot and killed Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintained 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." The juror said she has had trouble adjusting to life after the verdict, and has wrestled with whether she made the right decision. "I felt like I let a lot of people down, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?'" she said. "As much as we were trying to find this man guilty. . .they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth. And the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told." She said she believes she owes Trayvon Martin's parents an apology because she feels "like I let them down." "It's hard for me to sleep, it's hard for me to eat because I feel I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin's death. And as I carry him on my back, I'm hurting as much Trayvon's Martin's mother because there's no way that any mother should feel that pain," she said. Maddy is the second juror to speak in a televised interview, and the first to show her face. Juror B37, whose face and body were hidden, appeared last week on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, and said she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch. Since then, four other jurors distanced themselves from B37's remarks and released a statement saying B37's opinions were "not in any way representative" of their own. Poster Comment: Zimmerman is not white. He could not be convicted because there was no evidence. But I wonder why they had an all woman jury. Maybe they were looking for people like this woman.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-11) not displayed.
.
.
.
#12. To: X-15 (#11)
Seems to me that the juror who talked all that stupid $#it, about how he "got away with murder" really doesn't understand that people kill (not murder) other people when it's a matter of self defense every day. Trayvon Martin would have killed Zimmerman if Zimmerman hadn't killed him. I don't blame Zimmerman one iota for defending himself. Paul Craig Roberts
Now you know why some cops carry a "throw-down": they don't want ANY doubts when they have to shoot somebody under less-than-ideal circumstances. Zimmerman was right in defending himself, but he had no way of knowing that it would blow up in his face like it did.
I guess George Zimmerman should have time his beat-down to shoot Saint Trayvon during the last second he was conscious and then passed out, that's the only way he could have got any sympathy from the rabble-rousers who want his head served on a platter.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#12)
-Alex Kurtagic
#14. To: X-15 (#13)
I imagine that he has wished every day since then that he had not gotten out of his truck. That being said, he did nothing illegal. Trayvon sucker punched him and from the looks of things was trying to injure him very seriously and, in my opinion, would not care if he had killed him. I can't even imagine how someone as double minded as this juror seems to be ever makes it through the day.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#15. To: James Deffenbach (#14)
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon sucker punched anyone. You are blindly accepting Zimmerman's version of how the fight started as an article of faith.
#16. To: RickyJ (#7)
Did God personally appoint you to judge his soul? Trayvon is in hell now
#17. To: strepsiptera (#15)
The evidence is the picture of his bleeding and swollen nose...also the bleeding on the back of his head. There is also evidence of grass on Zim's back, none on Trayvon's. There is also eye witness testimony that Trayvon was beating on Zimmerman while he yelled for help. There is a lot of physical evidence indicating that Trayvon struck Zimmerman and none to the contrary. Why do you ignore this physical evidence? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon sucker punched anyone.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#18. To: strepsiptera (#15)
Actually there is evidence, circumstantial, but evidence. The one good eyewitness gave a description that best fit St. Trayvon as being on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the concrete. The wounds, the back of his skull, broken nose, and the witness testimony clearly indicate that Zimmerman was telling the truth. The Jury, which appears to have been predisposed to convict, acquitted him, and are now running for cover because of all of the hatreds inflamed by the stilted, biased, Perception Management Press coverage. Combined of course with the blather emanating from the orifice of the Usurper-In-Chief who clearly demonstrated his "objectivity" or lack thereof. It has been clear from almost the beginning that this regrettable incident was the result of poor judgement, and racial animosity, on the part of St. Trayvon the immaculate.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#19. To: abraxas (#17)
Your insight speaks well of you young Jedi. :-)
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#20. To: Original_Intent (#9)
No evidence whatsoever that Trayvon was under the influence of drugs unless you count smoking weed a few days earlier. The purple drank theory is equivalent to saying that because I have purchased sudafed within the past year that proves that I am on meth. Speculation based on the purchase of totally legal substances does not equal evidence. based on the available evidence, was a drugged up little thug
#21. To: abraxas (#17)
I didn't say he never struck him. A sucker punch means a completely unprovoked and unexpected punch usually to the face. We don't know how exactly the fight started. The claim of a sucker punch is based on accepting Zimmerman's version of events without question.
#22. To: X-15 (#13)
At the time he was thinking about one thing and one thing only, surviving. If you don't survive then what happens later doesn't really matter. Only he and God knows whether he needed to use that gun or not. Listening to him screaming for help, I think he thought he had no other choice. Now you know why some cops carry a "throw-down": they don't want ANY doubts when they have to shoot somebody under less-than-ideal circumstances. Zimmerman was right in defending himself, but he had no way of knowing that it would blow up in his face like it did.
God is always good!
#23. To: strepsiptera (#21)
So, you aree that Trayvon struck him.......sucker or not is not all that relevant. This is called assault and battery. All evidence points to Zimmerman acting in self defense. All evidence indicates that Zimmerman did not punch at all. So, you are okay with Trayvon striking people? And when he opts to do so the person he strikes should lay down and take it? I didn't say he never struck him
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#24. To: Original_Intent (#18)
There is circumstantial evidence that based on very minor cuts to the back of the head of Zimmerman, thatTrayvon was on top for at least some part of the fight. There is no proof, other than taking Zimmerman's word for it that anyone was having their head bashed in. The injuries are not severe enough to prove that. Zimmerman's story makes it sound like he was in imminent danger of skull fracture. There is simply no proof for that.
#25. To: Horse (#0)
Standard operating procedure. Both sides wanted a jury that would not think and reason. They selected jurors based upon their ignorance. As is usually the case. Neither the Persecution or the Defense want intelligent jurors who will actually think for themselves and apply logic to the decision. They want malleable pieces of human jello. In this case the Persecution was likely angling to play up the "poor young lad, almost like your own son" angle thus hoping to play on maternal instinct. Zimmerman is not white. He could not be convicted because there was no evidence. But I wonder why they had an all woman jury. Maybe they were looking for people like this woman.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#26. To: strepsiptera (#24) (Edited)
Thank God you weren't on the jury. He didn't have to have any proof of anything other than that he felt that his life was in danger by the thief and thug Trayvon Martin who got justice that night as far as I am concerned! I am sick of you poor little Trayvon people, and I am sure God is sick of you too! There is circumstantial evidence that based on very minor cuts to the back of the head of Zimmerman, thatTrayvon was on top for at least some part of the fight. There is no proof, other than taking Zimmerman's word for it that anyone was having their head bashed in. The injuries are not severe enough to prove that. Zimmerman's story makes it sound like he was in imminent danger of skull fracture. There is simply no proof for that.
God is always good!
#27. To: abraxas (#23)
You don't have a right to pick a fight with someone and then shoot them because you are getting your ass kicked. Most fights don't start with sucker punches. Usually it is angry words followed by pushing and shoving followed by kicks or punches. Zimmerman's claim of an unprovoked assault was important to the defense's case but there is no evidence for that other than Zimmerman's word.
#28. To: strepsiptera (#21)
Actually you are factually deficient again. A sucker punch is normally from behind. An unexpected punch coming out of nowhere and usually intended to disable or disorient an opponent before they have the opportunity to react to the unperceived danger. Often the blow is aimed as a "Karate Chop" (something a Mixed Martial Artist would be familiar with) at the back of the neck. If delivered correctly and with enough force it can drop a man to his knees before he has a chance to defend himself. And again you are diligently avoiding the eyewitness testimony, the description of which, can only place St. Trayvon on top of the "Creepy ass Cracka'". I didn't say he never struck him. A sucker punch means a completely unprovoked and unexpected punch usually to the face. We don't know how exactly the fight started. The claim of a sucker punch is based on accepting Zimmerman's version of events without question.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#29. To: Original_Intent (#28)
I think some people want to fuck the kid, they are so love with this little a-hole. They will get see him some day I think, in hell. And again you are diligently avoiding the eyewitness testimony, the description of which, can only place St. Trayvon on top of the "Creepy ass Cracka'".
God is always good!
#30. To: strepsiptera (#27)
There is no evidence that Zimmerman picked a fight with Trayvon. He was a neighborhood watch guy watching the neighborhood. He said nothing to Trayvon. He reported Trayvon to the police. He was waiting for the police to meet with him. Trayvon had ample time to simply walk home. All evidence indicates he returned to kick some "crazy ass cracker" butt. Obviously, Trayvon thought the cracker was unarmed and would simply take it. He thought wrong. All evidence indicates that Trayvon picked the fight, not the other way around. And yes, Zimmerman had a right to defend himself when attacked. There is no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted or even spoke to Trayvon. The evidence from the star witness indicates that Trayvon provoked the angry words. The physical evidence indicates Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. You don't have a right to pick a fight with someone and then shoot them
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#31. To: abraxas (#30)
Most of the people that want Zimmerman's head for this would have shot Trayvon even faster if he was attacking them. They are supreme hypocrites driven by emotional propaganda that the media dishes out on a daily basis. There is no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted or even spoke to Trayvon. The evidence from the star witness indicates that Trayvon provoked the angry words. The physical evidence indicates Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.
God is always good!
#32. To: strepsiptera (#24)
There is nothing "circumstantial" about it. The photographs taken clearly show that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of his head. As well you ignore the fact that his nose was also broken. Both of those are consistent with BOTH Zimmerman's account and that of the one eyewitness close enough to observe what was going on. The eyewitness's account most clearly indicts St. Trayvon as being on top while he beat the shit out of Zimmerman. It seems to me that you are trying to excuse St. Trayvon's behavior in any way you can by trying to assert Zimmerman as having been guilty of aggressive behavior toward Trayvon. And again you would like to rearrange the stipulated, witnessed facts, that Zimmerman was not injured and that it was he, not Trayvon, that was on top DESPITE the eyewitness testimony which indicates that St. Trayvon was on top. A man who is fighting for his life against an aggressor threatening to kill him and who is beating his head into the ground at the time can be reasonably be expected to be in fear for his life. As well St. Trayvon was carrying on him 2 of the 3 ingredients required for making the street drug lean. One of the side effects observed of lean users is their inclination toward irrational rages. So, are you arguing that the photograph showing the cuts and bleeding on the back of Zimmerman's head are false, or that a man on the receiving end of the kind of force necessary to create them, while having his nose broken, cannot have a reasonable fear for the safety of his life? here is circumstantial evidence that based on very minor cuts to the back of the head of Zimmerman, ...
Zimmerman's story makes it sound like he was in imminent danger of skull fracture. There is simply no proof for that.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#33. To: strepsiptera (#15)
No evidence except for the injuries Zimmerman had which were consistent with the account he gave. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon sucker punched anyone.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: Original_Intent (#28)
So if this alleged sucker punch was from behind then why did Zimmerman have a bloody nose? A punch coming from behind would strike the back or side of the head.
#35. To: strepsiptera (#20)
Wha-wha-what? St. Trayvon smoked weed? And how do you know it was a few days earlier? Your evidence is ...? Strawman argument. The two are not equivalent and you know it. Trayvon went to the store and the only two things he purchased were 2 of the 3 ingredients required to make "lean". And we know from his online postings that he was a "lean" user as there are screen captures of his postings (along with quite few others that were dramatizing his violent inclinations). Does that prove that he bought those 2 of 3 ingredients for the purpose of making lean? No. However, it is interesting to note that the persecution kept insisting upon calling it iced tea when it was not. Evidently they likely thought that is what it was for. No evidence whatsoever that Trayvon was under the influence of drugs a few days earlier.
The purple drank theory is equivalent to saying that because I have purchased sudafed within the past year that proves that I am on meth.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#36. To: strepsiptera (#34)
Again you are clutching at Strawmen. The eyewitness observed what could only be trayvon on top of Zimmerman raining blows down upon his face with Zimmerman, on the bottom, calling out for help. A sucker punch from behind does not guarantee that the person attacked is going to land on his face. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman's nose was broken when Trayvon sucker punched him, but I can only reconstruct things from what the observed evidence is. I was not there, AND neither were you. Yet, you seem to have mounted your crystal ball and read Zimmerman's mind while your fancies carried you back to the night that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. I operate on evidence, NOT supposition. I can reconstruct what probably occurred based upon the available evidence, but I was not there to observe exactly how things went down. However, Zimmerman's account along with the eyewitness and physical evidence seems to clearly indicate that St. Trayvon initiated the aggression and Zimmerman defended himself. In your preconceptions and prejudices you may want to believe otherwise, but the evidence does not support you. So if this alleged sucker punch was from behind then why did Zimmerman have a bloody nose? A punch coming from behind would strike the back or side of the head.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#37. To: Original_Intent (#32)
Stalking someone with a gun is aggressive behavior. Trayvon doesn't need to be injured for Zimmerman to be guilty of assault. If Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon then Zimmerman would be guilty of assault and Trayvon's punch would be self defense. Robitussin is the only one of those ingredients which is even a drug. The other two things do nothing. A drug without the active ingredient is not a drug.
#38. To: strepsiptera (#37)
FYI: Saint Trayvon had pot in his blood AND liver damage typical of overdosing (at 17!!).
-Alex Kurtagic
#39. To: strepsiptera (#37)
And your proof that Zimmerman was stalking pooooooooor Trayvon, is? Zimmerman was the local Neighborhood Watch Captain in a mixed neighborhood that had been subject to multiple break ins and burglaries over the preceding months. He had already, in earlier incidents, shown a willingness to help and defend neighbors some of which were elderly and black. In all cases where the criminals conducting the break-ins and burglaries were observed they were black youths. Trayvon, from Zimmerman's 911 call, WAS behaving suspiciously; peering into unlit houses and appearing to be casing the neighborhood. That is consistent with prior events, and Trayvon, if not for political correctness, should have already been reported to the police as a locker search at school yielded stolen property and what was described as a burglary tool. Oh, and the Jury was not allowed to be told that, or the multiple times Trayvon had been ejected from school for his violent behavior, but they nevertheless did not see enough evidence to convict. Even without knowing Trayvon's criminal history. You seem addicted to strawman arguments. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying that finding someone with Hydrosulfuric acid and Glycerin does not mean that they had no intention of acquiring some nice Nitric Acid in order to finish making a batch of Nitroglycerin. No, having 2 of the 3 ingredients for making a drug is not clear proof of intent. However, again if you go and look at Trayvon's online postings he clearly knew what the ingredients required were, had used it in the past (remember the autopsy found liver damage i.e., deposits not normally found on the liver of a healthy clean and sober 17 year old), and his postings show at least one attempt to "score" some codeine online. Again you are clutching at straws and trying to absolve pooooooooor St. Trayvon who by all records and accounts was a violent little thug who used drugs. Sorry, but all you can do at this point is try to obfuscate and evade. Unfortunately, all modesty aside, I am too schooled in logic to fall prey to such tactics. Stalking someone with a gun is aggressive behavior.
"Robitussin is the only one of those ingredients which is even a drug. The other two things do nothing. A drug without the active ingredient is not a drug. "
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#40. To: Original_Intent, strepsiptera (#39)
strepsiptera seems to be under the impression that you are entitled to your own opinon as well as your own facts. But the known facts of the case, not just supposition in the minds of people who weren't there, are consistent with the story Zimmerman told.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#41. To: James Deffenbach (#40)
That reminds me of a favorite quote of Daniel Patrick Moynihan (one of the few liberals I actually respected): Exactly. I am willing to admit I could be wrong, BUT based upon the available evidence it is consistent with St. Trayvon having "gone off on the Crazy ass Cracka'" and as a result got himself killed in self defense when the "Crazy ass Cracka" defended himself. While by the neighborhood watch guidelines Zimmerman should not have been packing heat, he appears to have needed it to defend his life. While Zimmerman's behavior can be questioned - as to whether he should have withdrawn more quickly he nevertheless appears to have been disengaging when the poor sainted Trayvon jumped him. There is absolutely NO evidence that Zimmerman initiated the contact, and that is the one fact that the people trying to turn this into the big bad not-so-white guy who grew up with other black kids, was himself part black, was just following poooooooooooor St. Trayvon at night in a neighborhood that had experienced multiple burglaries and break-ins because he was a rayciss. Give me A break! "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
But the known facts of the case, not just supposition in the minds of people who weren't there, are consistent with the story Zimmerman told.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#42. To: Original_Intent (#39)
Being the same race as someone who committed a crime does not make you a criminal. Zimmerman jumped to the conclusion that Trayvon was a criminal based primarily on his race. That is why race is an issue in this case. Zimmerman sounds paranoid and delusional on the 911 tape. There is no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon was doing anything criminal or even suspicious on the night that he was killed. In all cases where the criminals conducting the break-ins and burglaries were observed they were black youths.
#43. To: James Deffenbach (#40)
My problem with the way you and others are looking at this is that you are accepting Zimmerman's word as some kind of absolute truth on issues on which there is no way of knowing for certain what happened. You have no evidence for a sucker punch, no evidence that the escalation from words to violence was done by Trayvon, no evidence that Trayvon was engaged in criminal behavior on the night he was killed, and no proof that Zimmerman was getting his head bashed into the cement. If Zimmerman's version of events is so airtight that it is beyond question then why didn't he testify and why was he afraid of being cross examined? The prosecution made a stupid mistake in allowing the video re-enactment tape. Had Zimmerman testified and been cross examined it is very likely that at least some parts of his story would have fallen apart.
#44. To: strepsiptera (#42)
No it does not, but when you are in a neighborhood at night "casing" houses it is reasonable, and prudent, to ask if that suspicious person is up to no good. Zimmerman did not try to arrest him, he merely kept tabs on him while he called 911. There is nothing aggressive in that and given the history of the neighborhood, and Trayvon's behavior, it was not unreasonable to question what he was doing. Again you can't have "your own" "facts". What we can observe and draw from conclusions from is what is in evidence. Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch Captain and so it was entirely reasonable for him to keep tabs on suspicious behavior. I've been on the Neighborhood Watch and I have had a couple of incidents where I did have to call 911. So, was my keeping a watch on the neighborhood an aggressively criminal offense? Did my keeping watch entitle the people I was keeping tabs on to attack me? Just remember: "When seconds count the Police are only minutes away." And again Zimmerman did not draw a conclusion that Trayvon was behaving suspiciously because of his race, it was because he was behaving suspiciously. Remember the 911 tape? Zimmerman was not even sure of the race of the person he was following until the 911 Operator asked him and he looked. Even then he was not sure - his answer to the question was, "I think he's black." That is also the reason for Zimmerman's defamation lawsuit as ABC Snooze edited the tape and cut out all of the intervening words thus creating a false impression in their reporting. Gee, that sure sounds like Klan material to me. /sarcasm Oh, really? Pray do tell? Given that Zimmerman called 911 and the description of suspicious behavior is on the tape perhaps you can pull out your crystal ball and decipher it for us. And again it was SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR that, from the 911 tape, caught Zimmerman's eye, not the color of Trayvon's hide which he was not sure of till the 911 Operator asked him to look. Again, you are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Being the same race as someone who committed a crime does not make you a criminal.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon was doing anything criminal or even suspicious on the night that he was killed.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#45. To: abraxas (#10)
Nobody gets a free pass. Not even you. Tryanny is tyranny. Injustuce is injustice. That fucker sounds as guilty as zimmerman. This aint about white guilt... Thats stupid. It is just about justice and their aint none... So their is another example of a waste of life. Another POS coward with gun that would rather put a bullet in you than shake your hand. Whats the point?
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) (It's a more positive message)
#46. To: Original_Intent (#44) (Edited)
Zimmermans myspace page refers to mexicans as thugs, beaners and the like... Self loathers are the worst.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) (It's a more positive message)
#47. To: RickyJ (#7) (Edited)
No, I want to avoid joining you on your path. I can not judge a mans soul and woe to the fool that tries to play God. rayvon is in hell now, do you want to join him by supporting him?
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) (It's a more positive message)
#48. To: strepsiptera, James Deffenbach (#43)
No. That is NOT a true statement. The evidence both physical and circumstantial supports Zimmerman's account. The one eyewitness testified that the person on top fit Trayvon's description. Again, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts. You have produced NOT 1, none, zero, nada, not any facts which support your "feelings". Because that is what they are, feelings not facts. You evidently have decided that St. Trayvon was a poor innocent babe and Zimmerman was an aggressive ogre despite all of the evidence to the contrary. That is why the Persecution had to bring to the stand such stellar witnesses as Jeantel - whose statement was in cursive but on the stand she admitted that she cannot read cursive. What doesn't fit and why? You know this how? Based on what evidence? My problem with the way you and others are looking at this is that you are accepting Zimmerman's word as some kind of absolute truth on issues on which there is no way of knowing for certain what happened.
Had Zimmerman testified and been cross examined it is very likely that at least some parts of his story would have fallen apart.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
#49. To: Artisan (#1)
Other way around; people in the neighborhood already knew she was on the jury. So who knows what she really thinks. now that she was stupid enough to give her name, face,career, & family details.
"If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbados, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest; have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.'"
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
#50. To: James Deffenbach (#12)
She comes off better in the video, IMO. Remember the media IS trying to stir things up.
"If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbados, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest; have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.'"
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
#51. To: strepsiptera (#15)
There is evidence. He was black. Blacks will attack from behind. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Trayvon sucker punched anyone.
"If an angry bigot assumes this bountiful cause of Abolition, and comes to me with his last news from Barbados, why should I not say to him, 'Go love thy infant; love thy wood-chopper: be good-natured and modest; have that grace; and never varnish your hard, uncharitable ambition with this incredible tenderness for black folk a thousand miles off. Thy love afar is spite at home.'"
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
#52. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#51)
So will Whites, Asians, Turks, Poles, Mexicans, Guatamalens, Lithuanians, Texans, Aborigines, ... It depends upon the individual, not the color of their skin.
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law)
.
.
.
Comments (53 - 284) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest