It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

4 Zimmerman Trial Jurors Release Statement: Anonymous Juror On CNN Does Not Speak For Us

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Yeah, that's right, the chick that was going for the book deal does not speak for the rest of the jury. So stop with the chest thumping. These women had a difficult time with their job. In the end, reasonable doubt won the day.


I agree. It was a tough and emotive decision. Most of us do not want to be in the media spotlight. I am not sure it is ethical to have jurors going onto the television anyway. Judges perhaps but jurors no.
edit on 18-7-2013 by Tiger5 because: typos




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
they wanted, and felt he deserved to be charged him with something, they felt how i feel that zimmerman was not completely innocent in all this, in the end they made the right decision given the law and the evidence (or lack thereof) that they were working with. in the end i feel they let your boy get away with manslaughter (for the time being)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 





I think I was pretty clear. You and all your like-minded friends were all over the Zimmerman thread with how there was no evidence. It was a "slam dunk".


In this thread YOU have stated that there are 4 other jurors who AGREED there was no evidence, their whole point in deciding he was innocent. It WAS a slam dunk, the jury took very little time, and the time they did take was probably to appease idiots on the verge of rioting or posting ridiculous uninformed nonsense on the internet.

Why are you so angry with all the folks that were smart enough to say there was no case? Because you were wrong?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 

I never EVER said that. You need to check yourself and the OP. I SAID that the individuals that were stating what a slam dunk, "no case" bull puckey need to realize that there were issues that were taken up by this jury.

And they did that, carefully. They don't agree with your assessment of "slam dunk". So rest it.

edit on 18-7-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Domo1
 

I never EVER said that. You need to check yourself and the OP. I SAID that the individuals that were stating what a slam dunk, "no case" bull puckey need to realize that there were issues that were taken up by this jury.

And they did that, carefully. They don't agree with your assessment of "slam dunk". So rest it.

edit on 18-7-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)


The reason why people said "slam dunk" is because the state overcharged GZ with 2nd degree murder. There was zero evidence to suggest that. So the jury was forced to rule based on the law and what cards they were dealt. Had the state pursued reckless endangerment or some other similar charge there most likely would have been a different outcome. The state botched this trial from day one.
edit on 18-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 



Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Ameilia
 


Well because this woman made that statement that she felt that Zimmerman absolutely was in fear of his life. That is why.

Apparently the other jurors don't agree.


Assumptive, and only your opinion.

It is impossible to say exactly what statements she made that the other individual jurors do or do not agree with without details from those jurors; details which this brief, generalized statement most certainly does not contain. The jurors obviously came to some sort of consensus, but the myriad of particulars and grey-scales involved with those are subjective.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiger5
 




I am not sure it is ethical to have jurors going onto the television anyway. Judges perhaps but jurors no.


A jury can chose to speak or not speak.

I certainly do not want to see secret trials or trials where as much info as possible can be hidden from the public.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 








Okay, my jokey comment (relating the letter-number designation of one of the jurors to the stage name of a minorly popular rapper) wasn't appreciated by a mod. I'll admit, it was a tiny bit OT, but I figured these way-too-emotionally-charged zimmerman/martin threads could use a little humor.



I guess off topic humor (related to the case in some, albeit vague, way) is not allowed.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join