HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » More incredible things Ju...

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:50 PM

More incredible things Juror B37 said on CNN!!

I swear I just heard her say to Anderson Cooper that the reason she didn't believe Rachel Jeantel's testimony is because the timing of the phone calls was such that if what Rachel said was true, that is, that she heard Trayvon interacting with Z ("Why you following me for?" that the police dispatch that Z was on the phone with would have also heard that and he didn't.

She then goes on to elaborate (because Anderson asked her to clarify) that Z had hung up 2 minutes before Trayvon and Rachel had ended their call, therefore the police dispatch should have heard the interaction between Z and Trayvon.

I swear she just said that! This was her reason for DISREGARDING RACHEL'S TESTIMONY!!! She said that herself to Anderson Cooper on national TV.

Go listen yourself and see if 1) she actually said that and 2) if you have a different interpretation of what the hell she meant if I got it wrong.

This woman is SERIOUSLY confused. And George is a free man because of it.

Holy shit. It just keeps going on and on.

63 replies, 9656 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply More incredible things Juror B37 said on CNN!! (Original post)
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 OP
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #1
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #4
stranger81 Jul 2013 #6
alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #12
Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #2
dkf Jul 2013 #3
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #7
dkf Jul 2013 #23
madaboutharry Jul 2013 #13
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #15
truedelphi Jul 2013 #19
dkf Jul 2013 #24
truedelphi Jul 2013 #31
dkf Jul 2013 #32
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #33
dkf Jul 2013 #34
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #35
dkf Jul 2013 #41
Politicalboi Jul 2013 #51
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #55
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #56
truedelphi Jul 2013 #38
TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #46
truedelphi Jul 2013 #49
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #57
Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #20
dkf Jul 2013 #27
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #60
DURHAM D Jul 2013 #5
stranger81 Jul 2013 #8
NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #10
stranger81 Jul 2013 #14
TroglodyteScholar Jul 2013 #21
DURHAM D Jul 2013 #17
stranger81 Jul 2013 #26
Cha Jul 2013 #39
VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #29
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #43
TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #47
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #48
NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #9
naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #63
johnnyrocket Jul 2013 #11
madaboutharry Jul 2013 #16
Cha Jul 2013 #40
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #44
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #59
RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #18
johnnyrocket Jul 2013 #22
truedelphi Jul 2013 #30
Tx4obama Jul 2013 #25
dkf Jul 2013 #28
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #36
JDPriestly Jul 2013 #50
Tx4obama Jul 2013 #52
JDPriestly Jul 2013 #54
stopbush Jul 2013 #37
truebluegreen Jul 2013 #53
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #42
BainsBane Jul 2013 #45
Hong Kong Cavalier Jul 2013 #58
Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #61
Initech Jul 2013 #62

Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:52 PM

1. Well, she was following the Defense attorney's orders not to use her common sense.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:53 PM

4. LOL so she follows THAT instruction??

Of all the things she was told, it figures she'd pay attention to THAT one!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:55 PM

6. Doesn't sound like she has any common sense.

Or at least any concept of one event preceding another.

One wonders how she ties her shoes in the morning without assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:59 PM

12. Common sense is for the elite, citified arugula eaters

 

Or something.

I don't even know anymore.

It's cuckoo bananas out there.

Stay safe, people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:53 PM

2. It sounds like she probably read that on a website and wasn't paying attention in court


Probably Freerepublic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:53 PM

3. If that was the timing of the phone calls, why doesn't that make sense?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:56 PM

7. Completely self contradictory

She wants two things that are mutually exclusive to be true, and because they aren't she doesn't believe Rachel's testimony.

She thinks police dispatch should have heard the interaction.

But, she admits that Z hung up with dispatch 2 MINUTES before Trayvon and Rachel hung up.

And she thinks Rachel is the wonky one.

Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:08 PM

23. I didn't follow the minute by minute...

 

But might she not have been saying the details of what happened prior to the call end, if you draw back all that happened according to Rachel, it would have started as z was still on the phone with the dispatcher?

That might be difficult to determine for us, not having all the times or the details at hand.

Honestly I've never tried to do that analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:59 PM

13. It's not the timing of the phone calls.

The calls are in the timeline and reflect the phone records. She is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:01 PM

15. Yes, she IS wrong. But she used "that fact" to render a witness testimony as unreliable

Unfuckingbelievable. She should go hide, not go on national television!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:04 PM

19. There is contradictory evidence tht the jury must weigh:

Consideration One: that it was stated that if Trayvon's friend while on the phone to Trayvon, heard him say "What you followin' me for?" and the jury is told that this question was never made, because if it had happened, the dispatcher would have also heard the question Trayvon asked Z.

Consideration Two: But then the contradictory offering - that Zimmerman must have already hung up before that happened. If that statement is true, then it doesn't matter that the dispatcher and the dispatcher recording did not have Trayvon's remark down.

But apparently the jury followed an instruction not to pay attention to the second consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:10 PM

24. Were those scenarios presented to the jury and by whom?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #24)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:06 AM

31. Down in reply/post number 25, there is the

Entire section of the interview that is pertinent to the OP. You an listen to it and make up your own mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #31)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:07 AM

32. I heard what she said. I don't know if she plotted this timeline herself or if it was presented.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #32)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:13 AM

33. The phone record logs were presented as evidence

so the jury would have been able to see exactly when the phone calls were made and how long they lasted.

How she could have that info in front of her and STILL make the illogical conclusion she did is way beyond me. I am left seriously befuddled by how this juror makes decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:17 AM

34. The screams went on for 40+ seconds, so you need to subtract that out.

 

With all the things she said she heard, when would the first confrontation have started? The "why are you following me" or whatever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:27 AM

35. My understanding of what phone calls she was talking about

were a) Z on the phone with police dispatch and b) Rachel on the phone with Trayvon.

None of those involved the screams. The screams came later, when neither TM nor GZ were on the phone with anyone. The screams were heard on a 911 call made from a resident.

The first confrontation according to Rachel was the "Why are you following me" one. I'd have to look at the logs and her testimony again to be sure of exactly which call it was, if I understand your question.

Someone had presented a timeline in court, sure wish I had that in front of me now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:17 AM

41. She said on Piers Morgan her phone had her cut off at 7:16 and they reported he died at 7:17.

 

That would have had her listening to the screams right? Those were on the 911 call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:23 AM

51. A minute of screaming is a long time

 

So it's possible the screaming started right after the disconnect. And this woman somehow thinks we should be able to hear Trayvon talking to GZ through the phone of the witnesses calling in. Had she went back and listened to how long the screams lasted, she would probably be surprised they lasted a minute or less. But I guess she had that book deal to start, time is money so they say.

Like in the OJ case, "They was deliberated".

I hope this is investigated. This whole thing stinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #51)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:33 PM

55. Hold on, are you saying you think this juror thought

that the "911 scream" call should have captured Trayvon/Rachel convo? Or the Trayvon/Z "why you following me?" part?

Either is ridiculous, but since she specifically mentioned GZ's phone call to NEN as the one she was talking about (ended 2 mins before TM/RJ one did), did she take a mystery leap in her story so that now she's talking about a different phone call?

And she has the nerve to say that Rachel was incoherent and unreliable??? JFC!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:35 PM

56. First, the phone company guy made the point many times that phone call times are rounded UP

to the next minute. So, there could be your 40 seconds of screaming.

Yes? No? Or am I not understanding your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:32 AM

38. I don't know what her argument for not considering her own stated "fact" that

Zimmerman had hung up two minutes earlier, and so Trayvon could have said what he said to Jaentel without the dispatch hearing it.

But this is how people are when they have decided to do as they want to do. The "logic tree" is abandonned, and they simply do what they want.

This style of mis-logic summarizes the entire history of the "inferior races" as viewed by the superior race, the white man. The white person's own arguments present information they refuse to actually utilize to understand what is happening due to the apartheid influences in the nation.

I can remember sometime back in the Seventies, this guy I worked with bragging about how his connections to the inner circle of Democrats who ran Chicago had landed him a plush weekend job. "Yeah," he said, "without those connections, I wouldn't have had a shot at the job. Not a shot." The job required abut zilch in terms of effort - but paid very well. Then about five minutes later, he starts dissing African Americans - "You know, if you wanna work, you can always find something. There's no excuse for them lazing around."

And of course, you can substitute any ethnic group you want to in place of the African Americans.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 02:07 AM

46. there was no such instruction in the jury instructions

However, during the trial the jury was instructed to disregard Serino saying that he thought Zimmerman was being truthful, but by this woman's admission she said that she found that statement by Serino to be a big part of why she voted not guilty. She didn't as instructed by the judge during the trial disregard that statement Serino made.

Why if this was just a big reason that she voted not guilty did she not bring this up to the other jurors in deliberations as surely at least one of them would have recalled or noted they were to disregard Serino's statement, and surely if there was any question about it why did they not clarify this admonishment with the judge? That is a HUGE mistake by the juror and the jury as a whole.

I'm actually beginning to believe that this woman might have been a plant. I'll freak out if it's discovered that she was the foreman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 02:39 AM

49. You are right and thank you for the clarification.

I mis-typed.

I don't know that this woman was a plant. I think people in Florida happen to be like this!

Not all people, but certainly enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:37 PM

57. She wasn't the foreman n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:04 PM

20. Because that is not the timing of the phone calls


See here:

7:13:41 The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.[14]
7:16:00 - 7:16:59 Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:18 PM

27. If you back up the screams though, and all that she said happened, when does confrontation begin?

 

Is THAT what is conflicting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #27)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:41 PM

60. Tell me the precise time of the 911 scream call

I don't have it in front of me. At what exact time did the screaming begin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:54 PM

5. Everyone noticed that the Prosecution did not develop a narrative of the case

but instead "worked" with the defense contrived fable. Little did we know the jury had a leader pushing her own narrative. Perhaps she is a fiction writer irl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:57 PM

8. Speaking of leader, do we know who the forewoman was yet?

Do we know whether or not it was her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:58 PM

10. I think she said it wasn't her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:01 PM

14. I cannot see whatever Ignore posted. If anyone else knows, still curious -- thx. [n/t]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:05 PM

21. Seems to defeat the purpose. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:03 PM

17. I have been wondering that myself.

I am thinking this juror probably volunteered and/or demanded the position. No doubt she probably used her husband's credentials to burnish her qualifications and I assume to add weight to her "positions".

Given how quickly she has jumped out in front for interviews and book deals she has been planning to line her pockets from day one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:13 PM

26. That's what I was speculating.

Her eagerness to profit from this situation is appalling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stranger81 (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:53 AM

39. ..

Ignored said he didn't think it was her. I sure don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:26 PM

29. And the police testifying for the Defense?

 

when does that happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:23 AM

43. yeah, that's a very weird thing, that the prosecution didn't do their own timeline.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #43)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 02:14 AM

47. they did

Had it all on an exhibit and everything. Apparently, this juror chose to ignore everything from the prosecution and ignore direct admonition from the judge in ignoring certain testimony that never should have been allowed to be uttered in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #47)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 02:19 AM

48. must have missed it then.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:58 PM

9. There was never any doubt...

that the jurors were not going to like Rachel Jeantel. Witnesses' personalities are a big part of whether or not the jurors will believe their testimonies. Right or wrong, that's how it is.

I don't think the prosecution ever got any traction after Jeantel's testimony. They were on their heels from then on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #9)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:50 PM

63. I disagree

 

I thought Jeantel was their only good witness. Every other witness almost was a total disaster.

The prosecution should have made the entire case on Zimmerman following TM on the known timeline, Jeantel's testimony, and then the lack of blood on Trayvon's hand's etc. and then pitched the clear narrative of a kid being stalked and murdered.

Instead they meandered around sort of casting doubt on Zim's story but every time seemed to be bringing up more "what ifs.

My personal belief is that they were dealt a difficult case that they had to prosecute for political reasons and to save their own careers just sort of through everything at the wall to see what would stick so that later they could say "look we presented everything to the jury in a case we didn't want, don't blame me" when going for job interviews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:59 PM

11. Trayvon was a boy of color.

Zimmerman is a good person who likes to help people.

I would be comfortable with George being on neighborhood watch, and with a gun.

I know George feared he would die, without a doubt.

Those people don't have a good education. (Regarding Trayvons friend on the phone)

.....

Should I go on? This woman is a piece of work!!! What the FUCK was she doing on a jury!?

Holy shit, god help us all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyrocket (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:02 PM

16. Several times in the interview

with Anderson Cooper she called Zimmerman "Georgie"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:55 AM

40. Oh no! sounds like

she's in love with a cowardly stalker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:24 AM

44. sounds like she knows him personally.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:38 PM

59. Are you sure?

I thought I heard that too, but then my brain decided she must have said "George, he" without much of a pause. But I didn't re-listen to confirm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyrocket (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:03 PM

18. She was doing exactly what the defense wanted, I expect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:07 PM

22. Very very suspicious. That is NOT juror without preconceived notions of the case.

I swear to god that woman sounded like she could have been George Zimmerman himself, if George Zimmerman were a woman and happened to be on his own trial's jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyrocket (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:54 PM

30. Here is what the Domestic Goddess herself, Roseanne, tweeted about the jury

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:11 PM

25. CNN Anderson Cooper interviews Juror B-37 (Full, 36:49 minutes) below





Btw, the Judge instructed the jurors to disregard the comment Serino made about believing that Zimmerman was telling the truth.

But listen to what the juror says at 3:25 minute mark - she did NOT do what the Judge said to do !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:21 PM

28. She had an entire NIGHT to ruminate on this.

 

It's hard enough to disregard after its been said, but after you've left enough time for it to sink in as reality it's hard to undo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #28)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:31 AM

36. Maybe so but I sure as hell wouldn't run onto national TV a couple days later

and tell the world that my decision was heavily influenced by something the judge told me to disregard.

It tells us something very important about how she viewed this case and the process and the instructions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 02:57 AM

50. She was very confused about fitting Stand Your Ground law with Manslaughter law.

This juror said that Zimmerman had gone too far. He didn't use good judgment. She made the case for manslaughter. But then, she said that Zimmerman had the right to defend herself. Clearly, the prosecution did not make clear why the jurors should view Zimmerman as doing something unlawful, why, in this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor. That was the fault of the prosecution. Seems to me. The prosecution seems to have failed in explaining why Zimmerman was not exonerated by the Stand Your Ground law.

The juror seemed confused by that fact. She could not reconcile the manslaughter law with the Stand Your Ground law. The prosecutor should have clarified that in his closing argument. Apparently, the prosecutor did not point out that Zimmerman made the decision to follow Trayvon Martin and that it was that decision that was the aggression. Perhaps the prosecutor did not see it that way.

Further, I think the prosecutor erred big time in presenting the videos of Zimmerman telling his story. He should have left that out and forced Zimmerman to decide either to testify and face cross-examination or not have his story told in his voice. That was downright stupid on the prosecutor's part -- unless he really did not want to convict.

I don't want to live anywhere near Zimmerman. I sure hope he doesn't move to California. I don't think he would like it here.

7782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
. . . .
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
. . . .

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.07.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
. . . .

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #50)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:29 AM

52. I'm sleepy so I'll read your full comment tomorrow - but I wanted to say...


One thing I'm pretty sure I heard on TV the other day was that in Florida the standard 'jury instructions' regarding 'self-defense' has the same wording as the standard 'jury instructions' regarding 'stand your ground'.

Anyway I'll come back to this tomorrow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #52)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 04:04 AM

54. I'd be interested in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:32 AM

37. So, in spite of all the media speculation that the prosecution put on a bad case,

or that the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) was too high, Juror B37 is showing that GZ was found not guilty based on the EXISTING PREJUDICES and STUPIDITIES of the jurors themselves, NOT on any evidence or lack thereof.

Why am I not surprised?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #37)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 03:32 AM

53. Or bad instructions from the judge

 

or All of the Above. Seems to me the fix was in across the board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:18 AM

42. There's an old saying that applies to juries in the South - "They sure can pick em".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:51 AM

45. She was never going to vote guility

It didn't matter what evidence was presented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:38 PM

58. I agree. She had her mind made up the moment she stepped in the courtroom.

And I don't buy her "don't believe in media" crap. I bet she listens to Right-wing radio and watches Fox News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hong Kong Cavalier (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:42 PM

61. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:48 PM

62. This woman is a complete moron. I wonder why they didn't just declare a mistrial.

Or how much the NRA is paying her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread