Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Juror B29, the only minority juror in the Zimmerman trial, felt that Zimmerman was guilty. She feels the need to apologize to the Martin family because she "let them down". Zimmerman can escape the law but will be judged by God.
Comments
Why didnt she just keep her mouth shut? Instead she brings the gas can to the debate, to keep the flames going. Did she have actual proof, that Zimmerman did commit murder, rather than the taking of a life of someone assaulting him? .... It took the rest of the jurors to explain to her reasonable doubt? She opens her mouth and proves to the world, she had no business on the jury. ..... Of course God eventually sorts it all out. How many will be set straight, when St. Peter at the golden gate; declares to all, who care to learn and accept the truth, Zimmerman acted reasonably in order to defend himself? Reminding me of the Good Samaritan who was attacked, beaten and left on the side of the road. only this good samaritan was able to protect himself?
by Resistance on Fri, 07/26/2013 - 7:48pm
I think she's just saying what I was saying all along. There was a slimmer of doubt in her mind, which was enough to prevent her from finding Zimmerman legally guilty. Meanwhile, she thinks it is most likely that he is guilty. That's why I don't think he'll be so lucky when the civil suit comes, as it only requires a preponderance of evidence.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 07/26/2013 - 8:19pm
The character of Zimmerman, as has been reported since that fateful night has again shown G Zimmerman, to be a good Samaritan. To convict him in civil court, one would have to ignore facts. The oppositon has only to rely upon, sympathy for the assailant? How twisted is that?
by Resistance on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 2:30pm
Some undisputed facts:
Now, most of the other points of interest are disputed, with the prosecution saying one thing and the defense saying another. I understand that you seem to believe you have a metaphorical crystal ball that tells you that the defense's version of events is correct and not the prosecution's, but I don't believe you do have such a crystal ball.
You seemed to believe that the jury finding Zimmerman not guilty in a criminal court made him innocent. Why would you not feel that if he was found liable in a civil court that he wasn't liable? (Similarly, do you also feel that OJ Simpson is innocent of his crimes?)
I'm not wanting to rely upon sympathy for the assailant (i.e., the person who shot someone), nor for T. Martin. I'm wanting to rely upon the preponderance of evidence.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 3:37pm
Your comment made me think: civil suits are an answer when laws like Florida's stand-your-ground have bad effects like encouraging people that they can use firearms in a knee-jerk fashion without fearing possible consequences. That our system ain't half bad, that the different levels of evidence required are one thing we got right.
I am going to be naughty again and point to O.J. Simpson. Who would argue he really truly got away with murder without any repercussions? He hasn't had the punishment meted out to most convicted murderers but it hasn't been a return to life as usual due mostly to the civil judgment.The civil suit angle insures there is still deterrence in our system when criminal trials can't.
by artappraiser on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 3:13pm
The civil suit in OJ's case is a bit misleading - there was overwhelming forensic evidence to back up the claims, and the famous "if the glove won't fit" was more a parlor trick than factual but good as a "get out of jail free" card. Once.
Much of the public expectations of something different came from botched reporting in the early days (as well as the Martin family's attorney expertly corralling public support)
There is little in the Zimmerman-Martin case that looks different in a civil suit. Zimmerman was in his car much of the time. He was a Neighborhood Watch guy (not "self-appointed") even if not on watch at the time in a gated community with Neighborhood Watch notices on both gates.
The only mention of race in the 911 call were as a response to the dispatcher's question ("911 dispatcher: OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black", later "And he’s a black male"), as was the description of what Martin was wearing ("911 Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing? Zimmerman:Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes."). Note: no Skittles or ice tea reported.
The reason for the suspicion to call were given up front and non-racial (and it wasn't 911 emergency, and Zimmerman had made 46 calls over *8 years*, not 11 months as originally reported):
In the first part of the call, Martin sounds the most confrontational (from Zimmerman's view):
The famous "stalking" aspect can be reasonably inferred to be answering a dispatcher's questions:
At this point he's out of the car already, figuring out where Martin is heading, seemingly in agreement with the dispatcher. Now:
If you follow the time stamps that's max 10-16 seconds of pursuit outside of the car, when you can hear Zimmerman stop running/jogging and respond with an agreeable voice to the request.
(yes, I get the idea that Zimmerman might look around a bit from where he is after the call - is that "stalking" or observing until police arrive to answer the types of questions the dispatcher asked? would I myself go to the corner to look at the grassy area between buildings to see if I could see where he'd gone? quite likely. Does this pass the "reasonable man" defense or the "reasonable white man" as it might apply in different racial ways of looking at things?)
There's no compelling proof that Zimmerman tried to catch up with Martin, tried to confront him closely 1-on-1. Considering Martin's dead, he can't refute, and no evidence clearly shows that Zimmerman attacked Martin while his initial story to police was that Martin hit him in the face and his broken nose can support that. [there is a question whether Martin would throw a punch while holding a mobile phone, but even that would require using DeeDee's testimony to refute Zimmerman]
So it's hard to imagine what a 1) government civil rights suit or 2) a civil damages suit will bring up that this trial didn't.
I still think much of this story is prompted by the initial framing, including the photo of a much younger Trayvon vs. a sinister looking Zimmerman mug shot, the "innocent kid only buying Skittles", the false "ignored the command of the dispatcher", and the "stalked".
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/29/2013 - 2:12am
In your many comments on this matter, you keep speaking as if you were there at the time of the killing with a videotape of the event. You weren't.
by moat on Fri, 07/26/2013 - 9:32pm
I hate that many want to lynch Zimmerman with little more than a hunch, that he committed, MURDER? One could accuse Zimmerman as a manslayer before God, but that label could apply to all soldiers too or any who support the War Machine. I wasn't there and I have only expressed my opinion as an audience jurist, who after following the case for many DAYS and hours, I too would have had reasonable doubt to convict Zimmerman. So please quit , attributing bad motives to me. Zimmerman had a trial and the prosecution failed to prove it's case. The reason I believe they failed, is that Zimmerman's claims of what happened that night seem reasonable and plausible. If this particular juror, was so positive he committed murder, she should have stood firm in her conviction, instead; NOW opening her mouth claiming Zimmerman did in fact commit murder and got away with it; so as to incite others; to do, what she herself couldn't bring herself to do. If a court and a jury acquitted Zimmerman, it is the responsibility of all citizens to stand behind the decision, to do otherwise, leads to anarchy.
by Resistance on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 2:31pm
I am not attributing motives. I don't know why you speak as if you were a witness some of the time.
In the matter of reasonable doubt, is your performance a parody of those who are certain of Zimmerman's guilt?
by moat on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 3:33pm
I liked this take
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 07/27/2013 - 12:03pm
As I've come around to the view that Florida Stand Your Ground laws have changed even the self defense standards in manslaughter laws I understand and accept what the jurors did. I see how the law is wrong and not the jury decision and that the only long term remedy is to change the law. But that doesn't mean I like it. What if we were to choose a different case.
My heart went out to her and I wanted to find her innocent. But the law is very clear. Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus when she knew she was required to sit in the back. I had to find her guilty.
Or
The sign on the door clearly stated, "No Colored Allowed." The law allows businesses to chose who they will serve so I had to find the Negroes guilty of trespass.
Would you still say this is, " powerful reminder that our legal system ultimately relies on the honesty and integrity of ordinary Americans." Is there any point where honesty and integrity rise above blindly enforcing the law?
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 4:03pm
I'm much more likely to support the concept of jury nullification to set a de jure guilty woman free than I am to support the concept of jury nullification (if that's even the appropriate term in this case) to incarcerate a de jure not-guilty man.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 4:12pm
I agree. While there was some implied endorsement of jury nullification I deliberately didn't bring it up for that reason.
I just had a problem with what I see as an injustice being portrayed in such noble terms of honesty and integrity in the link. If I was on the jury I would see it as a choice of the lesser of evils. A situation where there is no purely honorable or ethical choice. I would have been forced to make the same choice as the jury. But I would not speak of it in lofty terms of honesty and integrity as the link did.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 5:12pm
First, I did not say it but I think I do agree. Maddy may feel (heart) that Zimmerman got away with murder, she either did not feel it beyond reasonable doubt (head) or she is a coward who succumbed to peer pressure in the jury room. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, just not in this case. There were no eye witnesses. Reasonable doubt is far too important a concept to ignore just because the victim is more sympathetic than the defendant.
by EmmaZahn on Mon, 07/29/2013 - 4:16pm