Zimmerman Trial Juror B-29 Speaks! (PHOTO)

reply to post by Honor93
I didn't know "acting suspicious" meant you were guilty of something. "Assault against a total stranger"? It seems to me like they had at least 5 minutes worth of acquaintance, before this ALLEGED "attack" took place.

If anyone's theory is warped, that would be yours and the rest of the "defend your ground" cheerers.

That boy was closer to his home, than George was to his own. Who had what right, to be where? Don't speak about something being "warped". The non-sense some of you have regurgitated is worse than GZ's re-enactment video.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
GZ had the right to be "innocent until proven guilty",

And yet you aren't extending him that right. He has not been proven guilty. As a matter of fact he's been proven innocent. It was proven that he fired in self defense. The end.

Unfortunately, no one can PROVE he was a "thug".

Um ... yes it can be. Martins social media posts and his LUV affair with street fighting prove he was a thug. The fact that he didn't go home that night but instead jumped Zimmerman and pounded the snot out of him MMA style proves he was a thug.

reply to post by WonderBoi

You didn't watch the trial .. did you? Nope. Didn't think so. :shk:

Lead Detective Serino stated under oath on the stand that any inconsistencies in Zimmermans testimony were small and unimportant and TO BE EXPECTED. They did not raise any credibility flags with the police, who are used to detecting when someone is telling lies. And Serino said he found Zimmerman credible.

Maybe you should go watch the YOUTUBE tapes of the trial and educate yourself on the facts of the case before you continue on with this thread? It might help you out a bit.

reply to post by WonderBoi

"acting suspicious" gets the attention of other ppl.
"acting suspicious" didn't get TM shot.
assaulting another human did.

luckily, your timeline isn't theirs.
besides, the trial is done and i'm not here to re-hash it.

it's not 'alleged', it was proven beyond any doubt.

yeah well, don't assault strangers and it won't be a problem for you.

yes, warped ... in more ways than one.

the only ppl who should anticipate, expect or participate in a physical assault during their 1st encounter better be instructors at the local DoJo ... otherwise, they are committing a crime.

haven't you heard ???
If you see something, say something ... see how well that's workin' out ???

Originally posted by WonderBoi
There goes another one of those scripted words: "Attacked". All based on a known criminal's word.

Untrue. Zimmerman has no criminal record. And the time he was arrested by the under cover cop when he was 19 (or 20) was DROPPED. Turns out that the undercover cop was harrassing a friend of Zimmermans at a bar and so Zimmerman stepped in to defend his friend.

That's not a criminal record. If he had one, he wouldn't have been able to legal carry a gun.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
That boy was closer to his home, than George was to his own.

And yet, instead of taking that 4 1/2 minutes to go home .. which was just a footballs throw away ... he instead went and attacked Zimmerman when he clearly didn't need to. Martin was a thug. He picked the wrong person to attack. It's just that simple.

Again .. if you would have watched the trial, you would know these facts.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by WonderBoi
So basically, the consensus is that in America, murder is ok, as long as you don't get caught?

No .. the consensus on this thread is that the woman wanted to find him guilty and felt bad that the evidence didn't support her pre-conceived notion of guilt. Guilty unless proven innocent. She got it backwards. That's how 'rule by mob mentality' works ... grab the torches and pitchforks. Luckily, there were 5 other people on the jury who were able to make sure that this woman wasn't able to convict a man when there was no evidence of guilt.

Unfortunately, TM never got to prove his innocence because GZ found him guilty. Again, DOUBLE STANDARD.

And what's this crap about

Luckily, there were 5 other people on the jury who were able to make sure that this woman wasn't able to convict a man when there was no evidence of guilt.

Right on the heels of this statement.

That's how 'rule by mob mentality' works ... grab the torches and pitchforks.

Is that why she changed her mind???

Evidence? Depends on who's spittin' it. I dare you to get arrested, then go runnin' off with your mouth. Let's see how great your system works then. Next time you get a traffic ticket, plead your case to the officer, then, try to fight it in court.

The SYSTEM IS RIGGED. You've been DUPED, AGAIN! Right before your very eyes. Keep chanting those hypocrisies, if it makes you feel any better. Y'all are becoming easy to fool. You'll believe ANYTHING displayed before you, on TV. Doesn't make you very "wise".

reply to post by FlyersFan
How do you know Martin wasn't protecting his community??? YOU DON'T!!! You have 1 side of the story. For all you know, Zimmerman could have been some kind of sexual predator.

AND .... what another juror has to say ...

CNN - George Zimmerman was 'justified' in shooting Trayvon Martin, juror says

George Zimmerman "didn't do anything unlawful" and was "justified" in shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, according to one of the jurors who acquitted Zimmerman. ....

juror B37 told CNN she wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of "not using his senses," but that "you can't charge him with anything because he didn't do anything unlawful."

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by WonderBoi
That boy was closer to his home, than George was to his own.

And yet, instead of taking that 4 1/2 minutes to go home .. which was just a footballs throw away ... he instead went and attacked Zimmerman when he clearly didn't need to. Martin was a thug. He picked the wrong person to attack. It's just that simple.

Again .. if you would have watched the trial, you would know these facts.

What "facts"? Who threw the 1st punch? Do you KNOW for a FACT that Zimmerman DIDN'T throw the 1st punch? Answer: NOPE! The only facts we have is the testimony of a criminal, arrested several times.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
And what's this crap about

Luckily, there were 5 other people on the jury who were able to make sure that this woman wasn't able to convict a man when there was no evidence of guilt.

Where exactly is the 'crap'?? The FACT is that this juror that you are praising to high heaven, was wanting to rule by emotion and mob mentality. She said she was trying to find him guilty. Whereas the other five women were not going to convict a man when there was no evidence of guilt. Thank goodness that those other five women had level heads and followed the rule of law ... because if they didnt' then this Juror B-29 would have grabbed her torches and pitchforks and tossed a man in jail based on EMOTION.

Having paid attention to this trial the following can be stated:

This case, this was one the cases that captured the attention and emotions of the general public. And as sad as it is, there were problems with this entire event.

The first problem is that this entire case was tried in the media, making 2 victims instead of one. As much as many would not like to admit it, Zimmerman was as much as a victim as Martin was, as he was not given a trial before being pronounced guilty infront of the country by the media. Oh they had a storm, reporting and editing, showing him to be a deranged racist, one who deliberately tracked down an angel of a person, Trayvon Martin. Yet it was this very reporting that misled and ultimately led the the furor that happened after the verdict came out.

Add to that the addition of the President getting involved and it became a political issue. The sad part was that of all of the people involved, the President of the United States should not have been involved, should never have spoken and should not have used this to push an agenda of his. Another victim of this entire affair is the very communities that are now protesting and those who have to deal with said protests, and who had absolutely nothing to do with such.

The problem in this interview is that the juror is not considering that a person can not be convicted based on emotion, but on what the evidence states. And from what I saw of the trial, the prosectuion did not do its job, and their case was going to be lost from the very first start.

But as sad as it is, we do profile people we see every day. We make judgements based off of past experience. It was a situation that quickly got out of hand. But the trial is over, and what good can come of all of the protests or persuing to retry Zimmerman, or of regrets? Remember that we do live where the ideal is a person is innocent until proven guilty, and they have to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And that the law has to be applied equally across the board. So to retry a man who was found not guilty, is pretty much throwing out the one thing that prevents such, the prevention of putting a person in double jeapordy.

Time to let it go and focus on figuring out where everything went wrong, with both Zimmerman and Trayvon.

reply to post by WonderBoi

How do you know Martin wasn't protecting his community???

protecting one's community doesn't start with racial hatred, it also doesn't start by being the aggressor. martin was a racist who wanted to teach whitey a lesson.

reply to post by FlyersFan

guilty of not using his senses

And his senses cost someone their life.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
]How do you know Martin wasn't protecting his community???

You are a funny guy. A self professed gangsta with illegal drugs in his system illegally attacks someone who has a right to be walking the neighborhood .. and that somehow is the gansta 'protecting his community'.?? Funny funny funny ....

reply to post by FlyersFan


How do you know the other women weren't operating based on emotion? How do you know they didn't have preconceived notions? How do you know they weren't harboring a personal desire to find GZ innocent?

The answer is you don't know and you ASSUME the other women made the most objective and reasonable decision they could have made because YOU would have made that choice.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
Who threw the 1st punch? Do you KNOW for a FACT that Zimmerman DIDN'T throw the 1st punch? Answer: NOPE! The only facts we have is the testimony of a criminal, arrested several times.

1 - The perp is the person who threw the first punch. We don't know who did that. Therefore, no one can be convicted.

2 - STOP telling the lie that Zimmerman is a criminal. He is not. And you darn well know that when he was arrested for assaulting the cop, it was when he was 19 or 20 and it was an undercover cop .. and that cop dropped the charges because it was the cop who was misbehaving at the bar, not Zimmerman.

Geeeze .... you've been told that numerous times.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

guilty of not using his senses

And his senses cost someone their life.

NO. Martin attacking Zimmerman cost Martin his own life. It's just that simple.
Martin had 4 1/2 minutes to get home. But instead, he decided to go pound on the
'crazy ass cracker' .... Which was illegal for him to do.

So many people have the attitude of "screw the evidence I know he was guilty" and it seems these are the same people that continually state they didn't watch the trial or read the accounts. Why? because once again "screw the evidence". it reminds me of how the church fathers refused to look through galileo's telescope. Why? because you KNOW that you are wrong. I think we all know that if GZ had not been precieved white we would never even have heard about this case. often people lately have been saying why dont they report black on black or black on white crime with this veracity? because if they did the news would be 24-7 and there would be room for nothing else. of course every thing wrong in the black community is someone else's fault.

reply to post by djr33222

Every legal talking head in the country says the same thing .... that the jury came to the correct decision based on the evidence given in court. The 5 women who are not out on this apology tour had level heads and followed the rule of law. They refused to convict a man based on NO EVIDENCE.

This juror B-29 that you are praising ... she 'tried to find him guilty' ... she says he got away with murder ... even though the evidence CLEARLY shows that isn't the case. It's pathetic on her part.