<p>Poetgirl, you might not like it, but we live in a nation of laws (although one can question that). For all of the banter here, it’s up to the court to decide the outcome and whether you think he is remorseless or not has no bearing.</p>
<p>For me, Kluge, and this is why I would have never been put on the jury, I don’t even care if Trayvon punched him in the nose, he still killed the kid.</p>
<p>I’ve been followed at night. Following is intense provocation, imho.</p>
<p>RIP: I know this. I like that we are a nation of laws. Some laws are better than others, AND I personally believe he will at least get manslaughter. It was a mistake for the defense to fill the jury with women, imho. But, since there are no women on the defense team? They might not see this.</p>
<p>I read today that five of the jurors are mothers.</p>
<p>
So what? You don’t know, I don’t know. There were folks on here emphatically stating NONE of GZ’s DNA was on Martin. That statement is simply is not true. There is no denying that.</p>
<p>BTW, do you have a link showing it came from the sleeve? I didn’t commit its location to memory.</p>
<p>“What reports? Do you have links? I saw the actual testimony.”</p>
<p>Like I said, this information has been around a long time, since September of last year. It changed from the actual testimony that was revealed yesterday. Honestly, that is what happened!</p>
<p>[George</a> Zimmerman?s DNA problem - PostPartisan - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-dna-problem/2012/09/30/40605a58-0a46-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html]George”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-dna-problem/2012/09/30/40605a58-0a46-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html)</p>
<p>[Daily</a> Kos: DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries](<a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214336/-DNA-Report-does-NOT-support-Zimmerman-s-claim-that-Trayvon-Martin-caused-his-injuries]Daily”>DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries)</p>
<p>There are many others before yesterday, the information came from the autopsy report.</p>
<p>“For me, Kluge, and this is why I would have never been put on the jury, I don’t even care if Trayvon punched him in the nose, he still killed the kid.”</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t think courts want jurors who have prejudged the case without hearing any evidence, lol.</p>
<p>
Then perhaps you shouldn’t mention it in your arguments. JMO. Although I see now that apparently the location and quantity of this DNA also supports your POV. Remarkable. Hopefully some actual criminologist will testify on this.</p>
<p>I heard it in the testimony, bovertine. It was on the sleeve on the inside sweatshirt.</p>
<p>I’m not looking for links. Feel free to do so yourself.</p>
<p>RIP: I’ve been clear from the start that I don’t like this law. I’ve also been clear I have no business being on this jury.</p>
<p>Of course, neither do you. ;)</p>
<p>
Have you ever actually heard the word “cracker” used as a slur? Because I haven’t. All the other ones, yes, many times. I’ve heard them used with the intention to cause hurt and anger, and have that response. But “cracker?” Seriously? Your etymology of the term is suspect (multiple explanations exist) and I find your argument to be strained - an answer in search of a question.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t know where you’re from. Maybe in your neck of the woods “cracker” is “fighting words.” But around here, your argument’s not well founded.</p>
<p>"RIP: I’ve been clear from the start that I don’t like this law. I’ve also been clear I have no business being on this jury.</p>
<p>Of course, neither do you."</p>
<p>In all honesty, I would be a great juror in this case. I am a scientist, so I view things analytically. If the facts supported Murder 2, I would have no compunction in sending Zimmerman away. Likewise, if the facts didn’t support Murder 2, I would have no compunction in acquitting him.</p>
<p>
No I don’t.<br>
But I do like the laws where defendants get a fair trial under the laws that exist and aren’t prejudged prior to all the evidence being offered, merely because people don’t like them or they did something that resulted in a tragic conclusion. I assume you like that part of the justice system as well.</p>
<p>‘Cracker’ could be used as a slur addressing another, same with the word ‘boy’. I know what both words mean and I know sometimes it is not appropriate to use ‘cracker’ or ‘boy’ in some situations or circumstances addressing or referring to others.</p>
<p>I do, Bovertine. </p>
<p>The juries I have served on, I have taken this incredibly seriously.</p>
<p>I’m not on this jury. I am listening to the evidence. But, I have no sworn obligation to wait to form an opinion in this case.</p>
<p>And I find the fact that he followed Trayvon with a loaded weapon inspite of the fact that he knew he was being asked not to, and the fact that the he lied about so many things, and the fact that he survived and a kid with skittles and iced tea is dead to be very daming evidence of murder. Couple that with his clear lack of remorse, his statement that it was, “God’s will,” and the fact that he was an A student in a class which went into great depth on SYG and self defense laws, and as someone NOT on the jury, I would find it a great injustice if he serves no time for taking a life.</p>
<p>If the jury finds him innocent, however, I will believe they did so based on the evidence they received and know they did the right thing and leave it at that.</p>
<p>JMO</p>
<p>RIPRORIN said “In all honesty, I would be a great juror in this case. I am a scientist, so I view things analytically.”</p>
<p>wait,what? you are a scientist yet you don’t understand the difference between race and ethnicity? and you’ve never heard of mixed race?</p>
<p>This is not a trial, it is a discussion board. Could we get away from the attack that people that have sympathy for the prosecutors are against the justice system and are trying to convict people before presuming them first as innocent? We are discussing the case, it takes 2 sides to make it interesting.</p>
<p>
That’s true. You are not obligated. As for me, as to deciding whether I think he is legally guilty of the actual crimes he is charged with (not whether he is “morally guilty”, an ******* who brought this on which is likely true) I think I’ll wait until all the evidence is in and the crimes are explained and the case is argued.
To me that’s the more interesting intellectual question. I can and have made that distinction when I’ve sat on juries.</p>
<p>Frankly, in “moral court” or with a burden of proof of “didn’t behave correctly” I would have already convicted the guy of something. But I’m not ready to start labeling him guilty of any actual crime yet - manslaughter or 2nd degree. Next week we’ll see.</p>
<p>
Why? I assume people are arguing the legalities, and how they would decide if they were on the jury. Aren’t they? Otherwise, what’s the point? When people are so biased they don’t wait even for testimony, they start quoting random nonsense from the web and commentaries, and using it in arguments. On both sides.</p>
<p>I find it very odd that Z’s purported knowledge of the law is being held against him by some on this thread. Everyone is assumed to to know the law.</p>
<p>sorghum, the reason this is an issue is because he claimed to both the police and to a reporter, Hanson, or something, that he had no knowledge of that law.</p>
<h1>1856 This is a position that people who have sympathy with the accuse always bring up. It seems to give you certain higher moral high ground, but it really doesn’t. We don’t convict people on this board, and there is nothing wrong with having opinions based on facts that are already out. You basically are doing the same thing from the other side.</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I ABSOLUTELY have heard that word used as a slur. Way too many times as a matter of fact.</p>
<p>I grew up in the Northern Midwest, and I spent almost 20 years living in the deep South. It’s offensive (and well-known to be so) in both areas.</p>
<p>I was in the minority opinion on the Casey Anthony thread. I never thought she would be convicted based on the evidence, and I’m still not convinced it wasn’t an accidental death they freaked out about. </p>
<p>But, I totally “get” why people think she’s a murderer.</p>
<p>I don’t really know what’s going to happen here, but I think he will get convicted of something. If not, so be it. The jury is REALLY seeing something different than we are.</p>
<p>It’s not possible, outside of the courtroom and sequester, to really “get” the evidence they are getting when there is so much noise around the case out here.</p>