Juror says Zimmerman got away with murder

I could make the point that a defendant is presumed innocent when going into a trial. If the jury or judge fails to convict does that mean that they are no longer innocent (which they were when the trial started) but are now "not guilty". I could say that but it would embarass some shallow thinkers here.

Also that same "black Puerto Rican" said that she wanted to vote to convict because that is what the parents would want (not what the law required) but she had to vote with the law. That juror is kind of like some of the prosecution witnesses. She was better for the defense than she was for the prosecution.

And not proven guilty is not the same as proven innocent.

A distinction, as evidenced by this very thread, you and your kind fail to understand. Originally Posted by Doove

Because of the legal presumption of innocence and the failure to over come that presumption by the government with proof beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption still exists that he is innocent when the jury finds him "not guilty" of the charges brought against him and submitted to the jury. It is a legal FACT that he is still innocent of those charges.

What you are actually saying is that if you are accused of raping someone (male or female I am not "presuming" your preferences) and then charged by the government, you admitted you had sex with the person, but the jury found you "not guilty" ... we, and the rest of the world can call you a rapist.

You are ignoring the Judge's charge to the Jury and the conditional question the jury must answer when inserting "not guilty" as the jury is INSTRUCTED to do in the jury instructions provided to the jurors (by an obviously biased judge AGAINST THE DEFENSE, I might add). You are doing that in an attempt to prove a legally incorrect point on a friggin' hooker board .. in a court proceeding you might hear some chuckles around the courtroom from bystanders and a curious look from a judge before he corrects your erroneous legal conclusion.

I could make the point that a defendant is presumed innocent when going into a trial. If the jury or judge fails to convict does that mean that they are no longer innocent (which they were when the trial started) but are now "not guilty". I could say that but it would embarass some wrong thinkers here. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Fixed it for you.

Unfortunately it was an old juror from the OJ trial.

And not proven guilty is not the same as proven innocent.

A distinction, as evidenced by this very thread, you and your kind fail to understand. Originally Posted by Doove

Because of the legal presumption of innocence and the failure to over come that presumption by the government with proof beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption still exists that he is innocent when the jury finds him "not guilty" of the charges brought against him and submitted to the jury. It is a legal FACT that he is still innocent of those charges.

What you are actually saying is that if you are accused of raping someone (male or female I am not "presuming" your preferences) and then charged by the government, you admitted you had sex with the person, but the jury found you "not guilty" ... we, and the rest of the world can call you a rapist.

You are ignoring the Judge's charge to the Jury and the conditional question the jury must answer when inserting "not guilty" as the jury is INSTRUCTED to do in the jury instructions provided to the jurors (by an obviously biased judge AGAINST THE DEFENSE, I might add). You are doing that in an attempt to prove a legally incorrect point on a friggin' hooker board .. in a court proceeding you might hear some chuckles around the courtroom from bystanders and a curious look from a judge before he corrects your erroneous legal conclusion. Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies).*

The legal maxim is "innocent until proven guilty". Zimmerman was judged "Not Guilty"; ergo, Zimmerman is innocent of murder and manslaughter.




*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Zimmerman is innocent just like OJ!

Just out of curiousity Doove, when, where and HOW is anyone in the US required to be "proven" innocent? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Oh brother. Where did i say anyone was required to prove their innocence? That's kinda the whole point, if you'd pay attention.

Can you point me to ANY instance where someone HAS been "proven innocent"?

Happens on Perry Mason all the time.

Because of the legal presumption of innocence and the failure to over come that presumption by the government with proof beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption still exists that he is innocent when the jury finds him "not guilty" of the charges brought against him and submitted to the jury. It is a legal FACT that he is still innocent of those charges. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Blah blah blah.

What you are actually saying is that if you are accused of raping someone (male or female I am not "presuming" your preferences) and then charged by the government, you admitted you had sex with the person, but the jury found you "not guilty" ... we, and the rest of the world can call you a rapist.

Yup. Just like we, and the rest of the world, can call OJ a murderer. Get it, Matlock?

You are ignoring the Judge's charge to the Jury and the conditional question the jury must answer when inserting "not guilty" as the jury is INSTRUCTED to do in the jury instructions provided to the jurors (by an obviously biased judge AGAINST THE DEFENSE, I might add). You are doing that in an attempt to prove a legally incorrect point on a friggin' hooker board .. in a court proceeding you might hear some chuckles around the courtroom from bystanders and a curious look from a judge before he corrects your erroneous legal conclusion.

Oh good grief, shut up already.

Let's cut to the chase. Is a "not guilty" verdict absolute and indisputable evidence that the person didn't actually commit the crime? A simple yes or no will suffice.

The difference between OJ and GZ was the jury. Now in the eyes of the law there is no difference because the prosecution does not have the right of appeal. The jury for OJ was not going to convict and they said as much afterwards. They ignored the law and voted on whatever feelings they had about race, OJ, or their own biases. If they had found OJ guilty for the same reasons then the defense would have had a field day during the appeal process.
So in the eyes of the law both OJ and GZ are innocent of the crime they were tried for. However, in the eyes of the public OJ is probably guilty because the jury was tainted. GZ is probably guilty because of what? Tainted news from MSNBC? Words from the White House?, Threats from Al Sharpton? Feelings of race where race was not a factor? It can't be the facts.

GZ is probably guilty because of what?. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Because he as a 29 year old man should have had better sense than to put himself in that position.

Had Martin killed Zimmerman because he felt in fear of his life, I'm sure you would have felt like Martin had the law in his favor to do so.

Had Martin killed Zimmerman and said Zimmerman started it and that he was whipping Zimmerman's ass and Zimmerman pulled a gun and Martin took it away and Zimmerman charged him and Martin shot him...

GZ is probably guilty because of what? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Because he's the one whose actions initiated the confrontation. He's the one who went into it with a gun in his pocket. He's the one who has a history of physical confrontations where he blames the other person for starting it. He's the one who used, as a defense, the notion that he was getting his ass whipped by a teenager 3/4 his size.

While there may be doubt as to his guilt, enough doubt to force a jury to render a not-guilty verdict, there is just as much, if not more, doubt as to his innocence.

Let me end this debate once and for all, yeah like that's gonna happen.

Most of what's been discussed here doesn't even matter and isn't even
relevant.

It doesn't matter what race ether of them were, wouldn't matter if Martin had been a
woman, if Zimmerman had been black, if it had happened in a walmart parking lot
somewhere, after Zimmerman had called Martin a racial slur.

When Martin became the aggressor to the point of attacking Zimmerman and
pinning him to the ground, assaulting him in a way that could have been
life threatening (As determined by the jury and as to the fact that Zimmerman,
to the degree that a reasonable person would, felt his life to be in danger from
the attack) was justified in using the force that he did to protect himself,
to the extent that he was not guilty of murder.

Could, in hindsight, Zimmerman have waited and tried to fight off Martin for
a little longer before using his gun, would Martin have stopped the attack
after administering just a few more blows, would Zimmerman be dead and
Martin have gone to trial if he had waited much longer?

All just pure conjecture and speculation.

Fact is with the facts presented, they felt that Zimmerman was not actually justified
in what he did, but that he was not guilty of murder which was the charge he was being
tried for.

That's the way or judicial system works, like it or not.

Could Zimmerman have been found guilty of a lesser charge? Pure speculation,
because he was not on trial for a lesser charge, he was on trial for murder
and that is what he had to defend against in the trial.

Because he's the one whose actions initiated the confrontation. He's the one who went into it with a gun in his pocket. He's the one who has a history of physical confrontations where he blames the other person for starting it. He's the one who used, as a defense, the notion that he was getting his ass whipped by a teenager 3/4 his size.

While there may be doubt as to his guilt, enough doubt to force a jury to render a not-guilty verdict, there is just as much, if not more, doubt as to his innocence. Originally Posted by Doove

You're a lying, lib-retard weasel, Doofus. In a fight, it's fitness that counts: not size, e.g., Bruce Lee.

Trayvon Martin is the one who had the RECENT history of physical confrontations: FIGHTING! It is Trayvon Martin who is on the record for stating he liked to watch people BLEED!

It was Trayvon Martin who was kicked out of school for FIGHTING! It was Trayvon Martin who was kicked out of his home -- by his mother -- for FIGHTING, you dissembling, lib-retard weasel!

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. TM was taller than GZ and in better shape. He had skills that GZ didn't have. It was not an even match but you still want to say that GZ was the bigger guy. Heavier yes, the better fighter, NO. Lets play your game a bit;

George Zimmerman is wandering around a neightborhood at night, in the rain, wearing a hoodie that hides his face. The neighborhood has had a rash of burglaries thought to have been done by a number of adult white hispanic males. He is spotted by neightborhood watch volunteer TM. Now TM is a junior member and hopes to be a policeman someday. TM gets on the phone and calls the police like he has so many times before. TM pulls over his vehicle as he has lost sight of the white hispanic in the rain and darkness. He tells the police dispatcher what he is doing. The dispatcher, who has no authority, suggests that TM stay in the vehicle and wait for the police. TM, being diligent, gets out and tries to find the white hispanic in the darkness. He fails but GZ does see that he is being followed. Now, GM reaches the relative safety of his stepmoms house. He calls his girlfriend and she is a big help. She tells GZ that he was being followed by a gay rapist. His feathers ruffled, GZ says he is going to go back and confront the person following him. GZ turns back looking for trouble. TM failing to find the white hispanic turns back to his vehicle. He is suddenly approached by a white hispanic who demands to know if he has a problem. Trayvon says he doesn't have a problem. The white hispanic (now identified as George Zimmmerman) tells Trayvon that he does now as he hits him in the nose. Trayvon's nose is broken and not being a skilled fighter is probably in great pain and disoriented. Having some skills George knows he had better finish what he started knocks Trayvon to the ground. He straddles Trayvon with his arms pinned to his body and begins to pummel his face. Trayvon begins to scream and his shirt rides up revealing a handgun (this would be illegal for Trayvon to do but why mess with the facts). George who is looking to buy a gun illegally grabs for the gun. Trayvon who is clinging to consciousness realizes his dire straits. He can't allow himself to be caught with a gun in his face or to be knocked unconscious. Trayvon grabs for his own gun and is able to remove it from a holster (not a pocket). He points the weapon at George at point blank range and fires once. This is a tactical mistake. You do not fire once and quit. Anyway, once is enough in this case. George Zimmerman is dying on the ground and Trayvon is dazed.

So the attack started when GZ punched Trayvon in the nose and Trayvon defended himself. Sounds like that except for the illegally possessed weapon Trayvon had every right to do what he did. Things may have happened differently under different circumstances but that is just speculation.

You're a lying, lib-retard weasel, Doofus. In a fight, it's fitness that counts: not size, e.g., Bruce Lee. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You sound like you're speaking from experience, hankerin'.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. TM was taller than GZ and in better shape. He had skills that GZ didn't have. It was not an even match but you still want to say that GZ was the bigger guy. Heavier yes, the better fighter, NO. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This was not a Bruce Lee style fast-hands beat-down. It was two guys rolling around on the ground. Advantage - Heavy Guy.

This is why you are tried by a jury. This is why they have deliberations.

Regardless of the how this woman felt personally about the case, she did the correct thing and voted not guilty according to the evidence presented, and the law.

She should not be ashamed. She did her job correctly. If the news media is now going to crucify her for doing that, then they are the ones who are bringing shame to the entire process.

Zimmerman was found not guilty according to the law. That has nothing to do with innocence, which is a moral determination, not a legal one.

The jury system worked. These six women carefully weighed the evidence and made a decision based not on moral conviction or personal feelings, but the evidence that was presented to them under sworn testimony.

Isn't that exactly how our system of justice is supposed to work?