I think a good street cleaner T-shirt is in order here...
BYOUsi
Yhis person sounds like Sybil Dorsett. Who will she be next?
Uh...no.
If I understand correctly, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law did not apply in the Zimmerman case. If such is the case, do concerned citizens possibly have the wires crossed?
yeah, let’s pass a law against not using good judgement. And then as a test case, let’s prosecute Juror B-37 with it. She wants laws so that she can convict a man who did nothing wrong simply because she feels sorry for Travon and his parents.
Punishing an innocent man isn’t going to bring Travon back. An B-37 exemplifies poor judgement when she calls for more laws.
I guess we did get a stupid woman on the jury after all.
She won’t be anonymous for long.
The notoriety will be too much .
She’ll want her 15 minutes of fame.
I guess she’d rather Zimmerman wear a diaper, mumble gibberish and drink his meals out of a sippy cup for the rest of his life?
Joe @tradethecycles
Trayvon’s Uncle Ronald Fulton is on the Executive Board of the NAACP Miami-Dade Chapter and Worked with the DOJ.
10:57 AM - 17 Jul 2013
I wish that jurors where forbidden by law to talk about the case.
And no monetary gain!!
That would be better for all.
Thank you for your service, b37.
Now shut the hell up.
The Huge Manatee that can't even read or speak English is raking in the bucks because Political Correctness (accomodation of Black parasite ignorance) is the Rule of the Day.
After the backlash she got from the liberal media she’s starting to change her story around. She should have never opened her mouth in the first place. Must too soon.
She has a problem with GZ's judgement, his percentage of culpability in the final outcome.
“stressing her position that Florida’s self-defense law, commonly known as Stand Your Ground, forced the jury to vote not guilty”
Juror is an idiot. SYG had nothing to do with this case. Maybe the jurors should shut their damned pie holes for a while.
That is, if the defendant was somehow in the words of the juror 37 "negligent," (presumably in simply getting out of his car or walking in the same direction as his eventual attacker), he is somehow guilty of contributing to the attack and should therefore not be permitted to resort to self-defense as a complete defense.
Please note that there is no allegation on the part of the juror that Zimmerman calculated any provocation which brought on the attack. She is not even clear about what his "negligence" consisted of. But somehow she wants him to pay some price, she wants the law changed so that she can extract some price for what she perceives to be unseemly behavior on Zimmerman's part.
To her credit, she was able to apply the law of the availability of self-defense as written to the facts as they indisputably appeared. She did not like the result but she had intellectual integrity enough to acquit nevertheless.
It should be clearly understood that Zimmerman was entitled to acquittal under the facts of this case even as this juror understood the facts. So even in if Zimmerman were the rankest racist alive, even if he delighted in shooting and killing Travon Martin, even if he hoped in his heart of hearts that he would be attacked by Travon Martin, is right to self-defense was dependent on, and only on, Zimmerman's reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm. Unless George Zimmerman himself somehow transgressed the criminal law and/or provoked an assault, he had an absolute right under the facts of this case to shoot Travon Martin dead.
The prosecution and the race industry together with the media have done everything they could to conflate Zimmerman's alleged bad intentions with his right to resort to self-defense when he was under reasonable apprehension of imminent and serious bodily harm. The two are separate and not to be confused.
Please note that the prosecutors never alleged a theory of the case, they contented themselves with trying to show Zimmerman a liar. That is because they were banking on the very human tendency which this juror 37 resisted. If Zimmerman "stalked" or "profiled" or (and this was foreclosed by the judge) even if he was a racist, the unspoken exhortation to the jury was to convict by denying Zimmerman his right to self-defense. This even though the case was tried by the prosecutors not on that basis but on the basis that he did not exercise self-defense because he was not attacked. Toward the end they seem to be abandoning that position when they simulated Travon Martin on the top in the fight, but they never explicitly said to the jury that which they secretly hoped they would do.
The facts clearly show that there was no racism in this case, the judge forbade alleging or attempting to prove it. There was certainly no racial profiling in this case, the transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher make that clear. There is no evidence that Zimmerman either "stalked" or "pursued" Travon Martin. Even if the jury somehow thought there was evidence of pursuit, that, as noted, does not trigger a loss by Zimmerman of his right to self-defense. Finally, even if the jurors accepted the prosecutors far-fetched arguments that Zimmerman's use of the phrases, "fucking punks" and "ass holes" somehow showed animus by Zimmerman against Martin, Zimmerman broke no law. It is basic that a breach of decorum certainly does not deprive one of the right to self-defense.
Finally, as I've been arguing since before this matter went to the jury, the right of self-defense is as applicable to crimes of jaywalking as it is to murder II. Because there is a lesser included offense charged, manslaughter, Zimmerman did not thereby lose an ounce of his right to resort to self-defense. That is certainly equally true if Zimmerman is "charged" with foul language, breach of decorum, or even racism.
The race industry has been attempting to try this case by moving the focal point back in time roughly to the point when Zimmerman got out of his car. Somehow, this is alleged to constitute an act by Zimmerman which forfeited his right to self-defense when he was later attacked. Alternatively, they allege that Zimmerman by getting out of his car and following Martin either justified Martin in assaulting Zimmerman or caused Zimmerman to forfeit his rights self defense. Zimmerman's right of self-defense is to be determined at the time he used it unless there is proof of a criminal or intentional acts which brought on the assault requiring self-defense and then only if he had opportunity to retreat etc.
As juror 37 and the alternative juror who has also been interviewed both concluded, Zimmerman broke no law, and did nothing wrong. Jurors 37 understands that but doesn't like it.
We should recognize the efforts by the United States attorney general to deprive citizens of the right to self-defense to be a thinly disguised attempt to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights. The truth is, Travon Martin got everything he deserved as a man who committed unprovoked, atrocious life-threatening assault on Zimmerman. Zimmerman did nothing to deprive himself of the right to self-defense.
