G. Zimmerman
- Thread starter Ol'Blue
- Start date
huntsonora
Member
I didn't know how true that was until I became a firefighter. Some of the things you see leave you wondering how the human race has survived this long :doh:
Thai
Elite Member
No, we have jobs to PAY for what the stupid people do. And we just paid for a useless media circus trial.
RunninInGA
New member
The Jodi Arias trial reportedly cost $1,700,000. Wonder how much this one cost the great state of Florida? May be too soon, but has anyone heard or seen a figure?
Thai
Elite Member
I don't know, but back in Feb 2013, the trial was already costing $600,000. Link: George Zimmerman Trial Costs The City Of Sanford $600,000 (DETAILS) | Global Grind
huntsonora
Member
Interesting read here....
Juror: 'No doubt' that George Zimmerman feared for his life
By Dana Ford, CNN
Tue July 16, 2013
Juror B37: It was Zimmerman's voice
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: The juror says she will no longer write a book about the trial
The juror says she believes both Zimmerman and Martin could have walked away
An initial jury vote was split -- three guilty, three not guilty -- she tells CNN
"His heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong," the juror says about Zimmerman
(CNN) -- One of the jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman said she had "no doubt" he feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict.
The woman, who was identified just as Juror B37, spoke exclusively to CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Monday night. She is the first juror to speak publicly about the case.
She said she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" the night he shot Martin, but that he didn't use "good judgment" in confronting the Florida teen.
"I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," she said.
"But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong." It's very emotional' for me
If anything, Zimmerman was guilty of not using "good judgment," the juror said.
"When he was in the car, and he had called 911, he shouldn't have gotten out of that car," she said.
She also said she believes Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation that followed.
"I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him," she said.
Zimmerman felt his life was in danger before shooting Martin, and it was his voice that was heard screaming for help in 911 calls, the juror said she believes.
"He had a right to defend himself," she said. "If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him, or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."
Split vote
An initial vote was divided. Three of the jurors first voted Zimmerman was guilty, while three voted he was not guilty, she said. Juror B37 was among those who believed he was not guilty from the start.
"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something and after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there's just no way, other place to go," she said.
Jurors were not identified by name during the trial, which sparked a broad debate about gun laws and race in America.
The juror said she did not believe Zimmerman profiled Martin, who was African-American, because of the color of his skin.
She believes he thought Martin was suspicious because of the way he acted.
"Anybody would think anybody walking down the road, stopping and turning and looking -- if that's exactly what happened -- is suspicious," she said.
"I think all of us thought race did not play a role," the juror said . "We never had that discussion."
At one point during the interview, she grew emotional and her voice cracked. She said jurors cried after putting in their vote.
"It's a tragedy this happened. But it happened," the juror said.
"And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn't happen."
Book plans canceled
The juror was planning to write a book about her experience with the case, literary agent Sharlene Martin said before her interview aired.
But hours later, the agent released a statement from Juror B37 saying she would no longer write one.
"Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury," the juror said.
"I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to (protect) our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case."
Juror: 'No doubt' that George Zimmerman feared for his life
By Dana Ford, CNN
Tue July 16, 2013
Juror B37: It was Zimmerman's voice
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: The juror says she will no longer write a book about the trial
The juror says she believes both Zimmerman and Martin could have walked away
An initial jury vote was split -- three guilty, three not guilty -- she tells CNN
"His heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong," the juror says about Zimmerman
(CNN) -- One of the jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman said she had "no doubt" he feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict.
The woman, who was identified just as Juror B37, spoke exclusively to CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Monday night. She is the first juror to speak publicly about the case.
She said she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" the night he shot Martin, but that he didn't use "good judgment" in confronting the Florida teen.
"I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," she said.
"But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong." It's very emotional' for me
If anything, Zimmerman was guilty of not using "good judgment," the juror said.
"When he was in the car, and he had called 911, he shouldn't have gotten out of that car," she said.
She also said she believes Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation that followed.
"I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him," she said.
Zimmerman felt his life was in danger before shooting Martin, and it was his voice that was heard screaming for help in 911 calls, the juror said she believes.
"He had a right to defend himself," she said. "If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him, or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."
Split vote
An initial vote was divided. Three of the jurors first voted Zimmerman was guilty, while three voted he was not guilty, she said. Juror B37 was among those who believed he was not guilty from the start.
"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something and after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there's just no way, other place to go," she said.
Jurors were not identified by name during the trial, which sparked a broad debate about gun laws and race in America.
The juror said she did not believe Zimmerman profiled Martin, who was African-American, because of the color of his skin.
She believes he thought Martin was suspicious because of the way he acted.
"Anybody would think anybody walking down the road, stopping and turning and looking -- if that's exactly what happened -- is suspicious," she said.
"I think all of us thought race did not play a role," the juror said . "We never had that discussion."
At one point during the interview, she grew emotional and her voice cracked. She said jurors cried after putting in their vote.
"It's a tragedy this happened. But it happened," the juror said.
"And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn't happen."
Book plans canceled
The juror was planning to write a book about her experience with the case, literary agent Sharlene Martin said before her interview aired.
But hours later, the agent released a statement from Juror B37 saying she would no longer write one.
"Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury," the juror said.
"I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to (protect) our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case."
RunninInGA
New member
AND could have been stopped at any time by either party, but wasn't
eddiebx
New member
Have you never in your life acted out of haste only to realize in hindsight that it was a bad judgement call on your part?
LandCruiser
New member
This is the sticking point for me. People following this case are obsessed with the idea that if you're a neighborhood watch stooge, you can go around at night and interrogate strangers as to what they are doing and if they have a good reason to be there. There's the caveat that there has to be a crime in progress* and confronting someone while armed (given that it may lead to a lethal confrontation), it'd better be one hell of a crime where someone's life hangs in the balance... an obvious overt violent act.
*definitions of "crime" may vary. Apparently you can be "acting suspicious", but not sure what that means.
No one knows what happened that night except for Zimmerman.
The 'facts' are Zimmerman saw a suspicious man, called 911, confronted him (against the urgings of a 911 dispatcher--notice I didn't say POLICE), there was an altercation in which Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, and shot him. As a CCW holder, Zimmerman willingly (and probably stupidly) put himself into a situation where he had to use his weapon. Every. Single. CCW. Class. warns you against actively engaging someone/putting yourself into a situation where you might have to use lethal force unless you have no other choice but to. That's how people get shot. Zimmerman had a choice not to pursue Martin and start off the confrontation that ended Martin's life.
Exactly what crime was Martin committing that led Zimmerman to pursue him? Would he have pursued him if he wasn't armed?
We don't know any of the details. Never will.
As far as we know Martin thought he was about to be assaulted by a stranger, at night. But that's okay, though, because whenever someone wants to "ask you a question" when you're alone on a dark night it's because they're being super friendly and helpful, and not because they want to assault/rob/kill you.
Last edited:
ndcent
New member
Not with the responsibility of having a firearm on my person, no.
RunninInGA
New member
Meanwhile, in Chuck E. Cheese, bustas be acting like bustas with they children in they arms and sh1t....
BrianSD_42
New member
I know you are intelligent based on some of your posts so I surprised I have to explain this.
1) Z was able to put up a strong defense against an overreaching prosecution. He spent $100k-$150k.
2) the poor often cannot afford a decent legal defense and thus go to jail for crimes they didn't do. It is an everyday occurrence.
3) just because other people , those who cannot afford a defense are wrongly put in jail, and I believe lots are, does not mean that another innocent man should go to prison. That is stupid logic.
4) in fact if the burden of proof for conviction was lowered we all know who it would affect the most: people who don't have money. The poor would be affected far more than those who can afford a good lawyer. It is a class issue.
LINY4Runner
New member
These people make me proud to be a Long Islander -_-
RunninInGA
New member
Has this been confirmed? I read earlier in the week that he has paid $0 so far. His team of attorneys mentioned this in a press conference I believe. In that same press conference, I believe they suggested the total bill comes closer to $500K. :jaw drop:
ddnww
New member
saw this elsewhere
Zimmerman had previously been arrested for beating his fiancé and assaulting a cop. Two separate incidents. Even though his dad was a judge and his mom worked at the Pentagon, he still managed to get convicted of a crime due to the assault on a cop (even though it was a lesser charge he plead to) and had a restraining order awarded against him for the domestic abuse. In 2005 he went on a racist rant on Facebook about how he's tired of not being able to run Mexicans over with his car.
Also, he weighed 200lbs and trained MMA 3 times a week before Martin beat his ass.
He lied and said he had no knowledge of a stand your ground law, he also lied about his MMA training. He then lied to the judge about his second passport and hid a large sum of money while trying to get Bail reduced. The PayPal account he set up to pay for a legal defense earned just under half a million dollars. The legal team had not been paid. $120k went to security, the rest went to "living expenses"
He was self appointed to the neighborhood watch. The neighborhood watch had only two rules. No guns and no initiating contact with suspects. He broke both those rules. He was also advised by the 911 operator to stop following Martin just minutes before the shooting.
Zimmerman had previously been arrested for beating his fiancé and assaulting a cop. Two separate incidents. Even though his dad was a judge and his mom worked at the Pentagon, he still managed to get convicted of a crime due to the assault on a cop (even though it was a lesser charge he plead to) and had a restraining order awarded against him for the domestic abuse. In 2005 he went on a racist rant on Facebook about how he's tired of not being able to run Mexicans over with his car.
Also, he weighed 200lbs and trained MMA 3 times a week before Martin beat his ass.
He lied and said he had no knowledge of a stand your ground law, he also lied about his MMA training. He then lied to the judge about his second passport and hid a large sum of money while trying to get Bail reduced. The PayPal account he set up to pay for a legal defense earned just under half a million dollars. The legal team had not been paid. $120k went to security, the rest went to "living expenses"
He was self appointed to the neighborhood watch. The neighborhood watch had only two rules. No guns and no initiating contact with suspects. He broke both those rules. He was also advised by the 911 operator to stop following Martin just minutes before the shooting.
grey_ghost
New member
Most of that sounds like the kind of fabrication you might find in something like National Enquirer, and you can bet at least the 1st two paragraphs in fact were fabricated because if it was that easy to find and had any legitimacy, you can bet the prosecution would have used it.
the part about neighborhood watch rules sounds reasonable and very likely true for most neighborhood watch programs. However if you have a CCL, you're well within your rights to carry.
Finally, the Stand your Ground Law had nothing to do with this case. the case was tried only on self defense.
the part about neighborhood watch rules sounds reasonable and very likely true for most neighborhood watch programs. However if you have a CCL, you're well within your rights to carry.
Finally, the Stand your Ground Law had nothing to do with this case. the case was tried only on self defense.
BrianSD_42
New member
With regards to what I was saying above it does not matter who paid the cash for his defense or if the bill has been settled.
The point is .... He was able to put up a $150k defense and that is something most can't do.
The injustice is that many people who can't pony up cash go to jail for crimes they didn't do or at the min get a lot longer sentence. This doesn't mean he bought his way out.
No one on this entire thread has mentioned any evidence that trumps reasonable doubt.
The point is .... He was able to put up a $150k defense and that is something most can't do.
The injustice is that many people who can't pony up cash go to jail for crimes they didn't do or at the min get a lot longer sentence. This doesn't mean he bought his way out.
No one on this entire thread has mentioned any evidence that trumps reasonable doubt.
zopperman
Moderator
I wish you could work at the public defender for a day and see how horrible the extent of this really is.
