Zimmerman Trial Juror B-29 Speaks! (PHOTO)

reply to post by WonderBoi


On what basis? What "defamation" occurred? If this is your stance, shouldn't you also be defending Zimmerman when one of the media groups cut and edited a 9-11 tape to make the appearance that Zimmerman was consigned to make this about race?

Truly, I await your answer...

reply to post by WonderBoi


now that's just too funny.
his parents did sue already and didn't fare so well, did they ?

besides, they have -0- grounds under which to file a suit.
keep dreaming.

there is no defending TM.
he did it and he paid a hefty price.

what's worse, imho, is that Trayvon, after realizing his opponent was NOT EVEN striking back ... continued to drill him, mma style
that boy had no couth ... none whatsoever.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

On what basis? What "defamation" occurred? If this is your stance, shouldn't you also be defending Zimmerman when one of the media groups cut and edited a 9-11 tape to make the appearance that Zimmerman was consigned to make this about race?

Truly, I await your answer...

On the basis that people keep calling their son a 'thug'. Can you PROVE that? Can you PROVE that he was on "drugs", as was said by GZ? All i've seen, is people making rude comments about him being a thug, and on drugs, without any actual EVIDENCE. You know....the same EVIDENCE that was required to "convict". All SPECULATION. All defamatory.

How to Prove Libel There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States:

First, the person must prove that the statement was false. (Everyone claims he was a thug)(Zimmerman said he looked like he was on drugs)

Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. (TM is dead)

Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. (GZ had no idea of knowing if TM was on drugs, while making the non-emergency phone call) These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"

reply to post by WonderBoi
uh you convieniently left out the part where trayvon said he wanted to fight someone again because "he didnt bleed enough" the point of my statement. and the rest of my sentence.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
The whole Zimmerman trial is just a distraction from all the real issues facing America today. Just let it go..

exactly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and in other news in the last 3 weeks..

NSA is secretly SPYING on americans which breaks the civil rights ....oh and michele O has stated that Mr.O's HOMELAND IS Kenya.............................................

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

now that's just too funny.
his parents did sue already and didn't fare so well, did they ?

besides, they have -0- grounds under which to file a suit.
keep dreaming.

there is no defending TM.
he did it and he paid a hefty price.

what's worse, imho, is that Trayvon, after realizing his opponent was NOT EVEN striking back ... continued to drill him, mma style

that boy had no couth ... none whatsoever.

Boy, you sure are painting your "homie", as being a weak individual. Funny how GZ was the one with the MMA training. All that "drilling" TM was giving, and very little, IF ANY damage? I guess Trayvon was beating Zimmerman with a pillow.

"NOT EVEN striking back"? If that were the case, where is all the BLOOD? If that were the case, where are all the black and blues, one would expect to find, after a street fight? If that were the case, HOW COME NO ONE ANSWERED "GEORGE'S SCREAMS FOR HELP"? Why did the screams STOP, after the gun went off? TM was throwing blows, knocking his head on the cement, grabbing his nose and mou.....Oh wait, NOOOOOOW I GET IT. You're playing the fool. Ok, you got me. hahahahaha Reverse psychology. I'm a little slow at times. lmfao

reply to post by WonderBoi


and the forensics..........

were scrubbed.. like dna matching and fingerprints and don't forget the bullit matching the weapon.



been on a grand jury .. I know how this ***** it works .. and I wounder if there was NO evidence in the GRAND jury .. why didn't it even go to court ?? or was this the GRAND jury .. ?

Originally posted by WonderBoi]On the basis that people keep calling their son a 'thug'. Can you PROVE that? Can you PROVE that he was on "drugs", as was said by GZ? All i've seen, is people making rude comments about him being a thug, and on drugs, without any actual EVIDENCE.

Evidence was presented in court that Trayvon Martin used drugs. I cannot speculate one way or the other that in the instance of the altercation if he was under the influence, but it was evident through autopsy and supporting evidence that drug use was prevalent.

You know....the same EVIDENCE that was required to "convict".

Stop right there. Evidence to convict is to prove the case of the State against an individual. In this matter, Zimmerman is the accused and all burden is placed on the State to prove guilt against a presumed innocence. We are not arguing Martin's innocence or guilt; he is not on trial.

All SPECULATION. All defamatory.

How to Prove Libel There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States:

Same with the State's evidence; it was speculation....

First, the person must prove that the statement was false. (Everyone claims he was a thug)(Zimmerman said he looked like he was on drugs)

It was proven that he at least, in some time past, participated in drug use. THC doesn't just naturally appear in your system. While I do not think it should be used in conviction, it does however prove that Martin engaged in the use thereof.

Pivoting to Zimmerman; it is proven that a media organization presented a 9-11 tape as being "proof" that he was racist by selectively editing the call to make that appearance. Are you willing to defend Zimmerman in the same aspect?

Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. (TM is dead)

Zimmerman was labeled through public exposure as being a "racist" because of the edited tapes....does that not qualify for you?

Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. (GZ had no idea of knowing if TM was on drugs, while making the non-emergency phone call) These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"

Libel is a definitive statement; not one where someone says "they appear". Big difference and your understanding is lacking. Zimmerman has more of a case against libel than Martin ever does.

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
The whole Zimmerman trial is just a distraction from all the real issues facing America today. Just let it go..

NSA is secretly SPYING on americans which breaks the civil rights ....oh and michele O has stated that Mr.O's HOMELAND IS Kenya.............................................

NSA is secretly SPYING on americans? Really? Do they even need to spy, when they have facebook? Talk about distractions from the truth. Geeeeesh. Americans VOLUNTARILY GIVE AWAY THEIR INFORMATION, NO ONE NEEDS TO SPY ON YOU. Where have you been?

This isn't a "distraction"! It's EXACTLY what's wrong with America! RACISM...on all levels.

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

and the forensics..........

were scrubbed.. like dna matching and fingerprints and don't forget the bullit matching the weapon.

been on a grand jury .. I know how this ***** it works .. and I wounder if there was NO evidence in the GRAND jury .. why didn't it even go to court ?? or was this the GRAND jury .. ?

There was no Grand Jury...the State pushed it through to force a conviction. If it made it to a Grand Jury, it would have died there and the State knew this.

reply to post by ownbestenemy
No! You stop right there!

In this matter, Zimmerman is the accused

No one accused Zimmerman of anything. He BLATANTLY ADMITTED SHOOTING a teenage boy and was arrested.

We are not arguing Martin's innocence or guilt; he is not on trial.

Martin's character has been on trial, since the trial started. He's a "thug", remember??? A "thug" that "attacked" a neighborhood watch leader, for absowutely, no weason. Georgie didn't do anyting wong. [[[sniffle, sniffle]]] All he did was follow a suspicious black boy, minding his own business...when "suddenly" out of "nowhere" he was "attacked". [[[whimper, whimper]]] This is PATHETIC!

reply to post by WonderBoi

ya know, thc was reported, that means he was 'on drugs'.
he DID assault a complete stranger, that means he behaved as a thug.
what more evidence or proof do you require ?

reaching for the stars is a great exercise but it doesn't belong here.
wow, you really don't understand the legal system at all, do ya?

Originally posted by WonderBoi
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

No! You stop right there!

In this matter, Zimmerman is the accused

No one accused Zimmerman of anything. He BLATANTLY ADMITTED SHOOTING a teenage boy and was arrested.

The State of Florida accused George Zimmerman of 2nd Degree Murder....are you sure no one accused Zimmerman of "anything"?

Martin's character has been on trial, since the trial started. He's a "thug", remember??? A "thug" that "attacked" a neighborhood watch leader, for absowutely, no weason.

I never contended Martin was a "thug"; stop lumping people together because they don't buy your view. Martin's character, in a limited (and obviously held view from the court) is relevant to the nature of the altercation.

( Georgie didn't do anyting wong. [[[sniffle, sniffle]]] All he did was follow a suspicious black boy, minding his own business...when "suddenly" out of "nowhere" he was "attacked". [[[whimper, whimper]]] This is PATHETIC!

You seem to have witnessed this...why didn't you speak up and present this to the court?! You have it figured out that your view is the right view. Good for you. The rest of us will deal with what is known and what is speculated.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

The State of Florida accused George Zimmerman of 2nd Degree Murder....are you sure no one accused Zimmerman of "anything"?

Was it an "accusation" or a FACT? You can give whatever "degree" you want to killing someone. But, at the end of the day, killing is killing; murder is murder. Skip the legal mumbo jumbo.

I never contended Martin was a "thug"; stop lumping people together because they don't buy your view. Martin's character, in a limited (and obviously held view from the court) is relevant to the nature of the altercation

How, EXACTLY, do you dismiss Zimmerman's background...establishing the fact that MAYBE Zimmerman lost control, due to his violent past? I mean, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Ironically enough, not in this case. How was George able to obtain a gun permit, if he had a history of domestic violence? I mean, who's running the show in Amerika? They talk about "gun control" but yet, arm those that have had a violent past? Hmmmmmmm DOUBLE STANDARD.

See, i'm not making this a case about race. I'm making this a case about "right" and "wrong". What it all boils down to, at the end of the day, is George judged someone based on the color of his skin, and the clothes he was wearing. He made a decision to do things, he wasn't supposed to be doing. He didn't HAVE TO get out of his truck. He didn't have to pursue on foot. HE CHOSE to do those things. And it was THOSE THINGS that took a young man's life.

If George had A) minded his own business or B) let the police do their job, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. George wouldn't have been "attacked", if he had KEPT HIS BUTT, in his vehicle and waited for the people we pay to protect us, to arrive on the scene. That's what a neighborhood watchman does. Watch and Report; not pursue and confront. The "attack" thing doesn't bode well with me because a CONVERSATION went on, between George and Trayvon. Words were exchanged. What happened after that, is anyone's guess. We only have ONE SIDE of the story.

reply to post by WonderBoi

no, GZ went to the gym to lose weight, he wasn't even permitted to shadow box so don't exaggerate his skills when you didn't even listen to the testimony.

the witness used the mma descriptive for TMs position, not Zs.
confusing the facts really doesn't help your agenda, although it does reveal your unwillingness to deny ignorance.

i saw plenty evidence of 'damage' ... more than i would have taken, i assure you that.

on the bottom, George likely swallowed most of the blood.
besides, external blood and bruising don't always appear immediately.

nope, not a single strike or evidence would be present in the autopsy report, however, there isn't any.

Why did the screams STOP, after the gun went off?

because he no longer needed 'help' ... why else ?

see, that's the difference ... you want to believe George shot Trayvon at the earliest possible convenience and that's just not possible given the evidence.

as an armed American, i can assure you, shooting another human is not a primary response and most will find every reasonable measure to avoid utilizing such force until it is necessary.

there is no doubt in my mind that Z was calling out for help.
Trayvon's own father agreed.

HOW COME NO ONE ANSWERED "GEORGE'S SCREAMS FOR HELP?

don't know, you'd have to ask his neighbors, i'm not one of them.

reply to post by Honor93
I know more "facts" about the case, than you think. And it REEKS of "conspiracy".

on the bottom, George likely swallowed most of the blood. besides, external blood and bruising don't always appear immediately.

How do you scream for help, while swallowing blood? Please stop...you're making it worse. Unless, of course, that's your point. I mean, read what you're saying, and tell me if it makes SENSE to you. You're beginning to sound like our crazy government's theories.

Originally posted by WonderBoi

The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.

The court had sealed the jurors' identities during the trial and still hasn't lifted the order, but Juror B-29 sat down in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts and she allowed her face to be shown, but concerned for her safety used only a first name of Maddy. Read more: globalgrind.com...

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty, but we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

"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 said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

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. Read more: globalgrind.com...

"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."

As a mother, Maddy said she has had trouble adjusting to life after the verdict, and has wrestled with whether she made the right decision. Read more: globalgrind.com...

"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."

"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.

Sidenote:

We learned that of the 6 jurors, 1 wanted second degree murder, 2 wanted manslaughter and 2 wanted a not guilty, but they eventually all agreed on not guilty, of course. Read more: globalgrind.com...

The show airs tonight at 6:30PM and tomorrow morning at 7AM on ABC.

.
Perhaps we should put things in perspective. I believe that the Zimmerman trials is important. But it could have been hyped way out of proportion. There are more pressing concerns that America needs to pay attention to.

The economy is one. Crime is another. Let's shake the dust off our feet and move on to greater pursuits.

reply to post by maryjcarson2008

Let's shake the dust off our feet and move on to greater pursuits.

How do you "move on" when the same theme keeps popping up. It's time we face facts. Blacks get a bad rap......BY DESIGN. Unfortunately, no one can see what "blacks" have done for Amerika. All they see is "thugs" and "criminals". And you say "move on". We can move on, when JUSTICE IS FOR ALL!!!

reply to post by WonderBoi

well, if you know these "facts", how 'bout sharing some ?

so far, you haven't offered any other than GZ shot TM ... no arguments there.
so, what else are you offering ?

which 'conspiracy' ??
would that be before or after Sharpton and Co got involved ?
i mean geeez, there are so many of them.

we've got everything from media manipulation to tainted evidence ... what more could you want ??

who says he was bleeding before the shot ?
blood could have just begun flowing when Z got off his back.

still waiting for any of these 'facts' you claim to know ... why hold back ??

reply to post by WonderBoi

criminal gets shot ... what's new about that meme ?
do tell, why are you so willing to dismiss the behavior of a criminal just because he has dark skin ??

justice was served, twice in the same case ... what more do you want ?

in case it makes you feel better ... Trayvon was innocent UNTIL he chose to assault a stranger.
better ?