Black People : Trayvon Martin Juror B29: ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder’

You've got that right! She helped him!

.

He was told to NOT TO FOLLOW anyone. He should have been guilty of at the least involuntary manslaughter and negligence. I hate the law and don't look for justice from it, but seriously this was a child. WTF does that say about the law?

When I call amerikkka lawless it's hard to for people to grasp that, because we've been taught to "believe". lol
 
This is what I thought happened (after my dropped mouth closed!). Remember they said that in the first vote, 3 jurors found him Not Guilty :rolleyes:, 2 wanted to charge Zimmerman with Manslaughter, and one juror voted for First Degree Murder. Obviously, she's the one who thought (correctly!) that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. This is when the 3 racist biotches started asking for "instructions" from the judge. They used them to badger this ignorant-of-the-law woman to change her vote to Not Guilty.​
Ignorant of the law? The law she was (and evidently still is) ignorant of is Jury Nullification. The 6th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give jurors the RIGHT to vote their conscience, so to speak. We always (me, anyway) thought Judges were being (or pretending to be) "impartial" when they didn't say to the jury "since the defendant admitted he took the child to Michigan and there is no way he could have traveled to Michigan from Illinois without crossing a state line, you must bring back a guilty verdict (whatever)." No. The judge has NO authority to say that; the verdict would be set aside by an Appeals Court - it's against the 6th Amendment to the Constitution!​
In the above case, any juror could decide WITHOUT the judge saying so, to find the defendant INNOCENT.... even though he admitted on the witness stand of traveling across state lines but pleads Not Guilty... to traveling across state lines! It all goes to "the tyranny of the majority over the individual" (why the Bill of Rights were created in the first place). To save a lot of explanation, read the link below that tells all about jury nullification:​
Btw, if something like this ever happens to you, don't be stupid-crazy and "invoke" jury nullification in the jury room. Just say: "I know what the evidence says, but I just don't believe he did it so there's no way I can find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did".... and if/when the other jurors scream at you that you're stupid, retarded, "playing the race card," stick to your guns and keep repeating it. Or, in a case like Zimmerman's and they show you the "Stand Your Ground" law, ask to see the Law regarding "Murder." I KNOW she didn't ask and the 3 racists didn't bring it up, much less ask the judge for "instructions" on what constitutes Murder. They just beat her over the head with Stand your Ground.​
Like I said, read that link and you'll see that as a juror, you have a RIGHT to vote Guilty/Not Guilty even if everything you heard on the witness stand AND the Law statutes say otherwise.​

After the U. S. SUPREME COURT put 'W' in office to begin with, I can't and won't accept any judge's ruling as always fair and impartial...

Flash forward and one doesn't have to be a lawyer to realize the Martin trial seemed and sounded awfully odd on general principles...

Otherwise my props for exibiting some true gifts etc.

Keep up the good work!

FYI...
 
This is what I thought happened (after my dropped mouth closed!). Remember they said that in the first vote, 3 jurors found him Not Guilty :rolleyes:, 2 wanted to charge Zimmerman with Manslaughter, and one juror voted for First Degree Murder. Obviously, she's the one who thought (correctly!) that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. This is when the 3 racist biotches started asking for "instructions" from the judge. They used them to badger this ignorant-of-the-law woman to change her vote to Not Guilty.​
Ignorant of the law? The law she was (and evidently still is) ignorant of is Jury Nullification. The 6th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to give jurors the RIGHT to vote their conscience, so to speak. We always (me, anyway) thought Judges were being (or pretending to be) "impartial" when they didn't say to the jury "since the defendant admitted he took the child to Michigan and there is no way he could have traveled to Michigan from Illinois without crossing a state line, you must bring back a guilty verdict (whatever)." No. The judge has NO authority to say that; the verdict would be set aside by an Appeals Court - it's against the 6th Amendment to the Constitution!​
In the above case, any juror could decide WITHOUT the judge saying so, to find the defendant INNOCENT.... even though he admitted on the witness stand of traveling across state lines but pleads Not Guilty... to traveling across state lines! It all goes to "the tyranny of the majority over the individual" (why the Bill of Rights were created in the first place). To save a lot of explanation, read the link below that tells all about jury nullification:​
Btw, if something like this ever happens to you, don't be stupid-crazy and "invoke" jury nullification in the jury room. Just say: "I know what the evidence says, but I just don't believe he did it so there's no way I can find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did".... and if/when the other jurors scream at you that you're stupid, retarded, "playing the race card," stick to your guns and keep repeating it. Or, in a case like Zimmerman's and they show you the "Stand Your Ground" law, ask to see the Law regarding "Murder." I KNOW she didn't ask and the 3 racists didn't bring it up, much less ask the judge for "instructions" on what constitutes Murder. They just beat her over the head with Stand your Ground.​
Like I said, read that link and you'll see that as a juror, you have a RIGHT to vote Guilty/Not Guilty even if everything you heard on the witness stand AND the Law statutes say otherwise.​

After the U. S. SUPREME COURT put 'W' in office to begin with, I can't and won't accept any judge's ruling as always fair and impartial...

Flash forward and one doesn't have to be a lawyer to realize the Martin trial seemed and sounded awfully odd on general principles...

Otherwise my props for exibiting some true gifts etc.

Keep up the good work!

FYI...
 
He was told to NOT TO FOLLOW anyone. He should have been guilty of at the least involuntary manslaughter and negligence. I hate the law and don't look for justice from it, but seriously this was a child. WTF does that say about the law?

When I call amerikkka lawless it's hard to for people to grasp that, because we've been taught to "believe". lol

Yep.

The fact that he followed him after being told not to follow him, shows that he instigated this incident by provoking this child.

At the very least that bastard should have gotten manslaughter.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top