1 of the Jurors would be totally fine as Zimmerman as security guard at her community

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Provide a link for us to her admitting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So if you are scared then you can shoot someone and get away with it? You clearly don't understand the statute. Zimmerman made his claim for self defense. The reasoning that he gave for being afraid does not bear out. You cannot just say, "I was scared," and that exonerates you. There were plenty of reasons why

Physical evidence: The fight went 40 yards from where it started near the sidewalk to where the shooting took place in the grass, witnesses state they saw two people chasing one another in the yard. Zimmerman said he was hit at the sidewalk and Martin was found dead 40 feet from the sidewalk.
Zimmerman's story: Martin jumped out of the bushes sucker punched him, he fell down and Martin jumped on top of him immediately.
My thoughts: amazing how someone can move 40 feet from the concrete where Zimmerman said he was being beaten to 40 yards away absent the witnessed chasing around. It didn't happen like he said it did.

Physical evidence and ME testimony: Two small lacerations on the back of the head which an ME states was not consistent with repeated slamming of the head into the ground.
Zimmerman's story: He would try and get up and each time he did, Martin would slam his head into the concrete again and again.
My take: His head was not slammed into the concrete repeatably. As such Zimmerman's account is not what happened.

Physical evidence: audio recording of someone screaming for help immediately before the gunshot.
Zimmerman's take: He was the one yelling for help. Right before he shot Martin, Martin was choking him.
My take: You cannot scream and not be able to breathe at the same time. Either he was not the one screaming or he was not being choked.

Physical evidence: Martin's lungs were perforated with shrapnel when he was shot. With holes in one's lungs no upwards pressure can be generated to push air across the larynx.
Zimmerman's story: Martin said, "you got me," right after Zimmerman shot him.
My take: Martin could not have said anything as he had holes in both lungs from the bullet exploding in his chest. Either Martin had said nothing demonstrating again that his story was not the truth or worse Martin said that before he shot him.

The physical evidence is mutually exclusive to Zimmerman's account of events that happened immediately before the shot was fired. Now please point to me the physical evidence that I cited that I am wrong about or the accounts of Zimmerman that I got wrong. Try and be specific. I was.

---

If this is all so painfully clear to you, why wasn't this a slam dunk for the State?

What is your view on Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman? Does an assault not deserve a response?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

---

So because she found the witnesses testimony to be credible and truthful you claim she is disregarding the judges instructions.
:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName

If this is all so painfully clear to you, why wasn't this a slam dunk for the State?

What is your view on Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman? Does an assault not deserve a response?

---

MY view is that Zimmerman's account of what happened was not true. As for why it wasn't a slam dunk, we already have one juror that out and admitted that she was swayed by something that the judge told her to disregard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

So because she found the witnesses testimony to be credible and truthful you claim she is disregarding the judges instructions.
:lol

---

When the statement in question was told to be specifically ignored then that is exactly what that means. It shouldn't be a difficult concept. Apparently it is for the both of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

MY view is that Zimmerman's account of what happened was not true. As for why it wasn't a slam dunk, we already have one juror that out and admitted that she was swayed by something that the judge told her to disregard.

---

So you, FuzzyLumpkins, know more about crime than lead detective Sorino? :lmao How many crimes have you investigated? How many times have you been called upon as a key witness in a murder case?

You're just trolling now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

When the statement in question was told to be specifically ignored then that is exactly what that means. It shouldn't be a difficult concept. Apparently it is for the both of you.

---

It's only human nature to have Sorino's comment stick in your head, regardless of what the judge instructed. His comment stuck in the heads of every single juror, that shouldn't be a difficult concept.

If a juror willfully ignores the judges instructions, I'm pretty sure that's at least a factor in an appeal/mistrial scenario, no?

Willfully is the kicker here. She pretty much makes that clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

When the statement in question was told to be specifically ignored then that is exactly what that means. It shouldn't be a difficult concept. Apparently it is for the both of you.

---

Happens all the time in a courtroom sparky. By both sides.
Wake up.

You're just butthurt the juror found the investigator to be credible with information that hurts your fabrications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Happens all the time in a courtroom sparky. By both sides.
Wake up.

You're just butthurt the juror found the investigator to be credible with information that hurts your fabrications.

---

The jurors generally don't make a point of pointing it out tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

If a juror willfully ignores the judges instructions, I'm pretty sure that's at least a factor in an appeal/mistrial scenario, no?

---

:lol The Travbonz Straw Graspers Group will be meeting at Fuzzys for tea and crumpets on Thursday afternoons.

Look, buttmunch. Just weighing in on the concept. Don't be so threatened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Willfully is the kicker here. She pretty much makes that clear.

---

I'm sure it happens all the time, but yeah I've never heard one come out and pretty much say it.

Careful, or you'll scare Fabbs with that crazy talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Happens all the time in a courtroom sparky. By both sides.
Wake up.

You're just butthurt the juror found the investigator to be credible with information that hurts your fabrications.

---

:lol fabrications

She made her decision on a statement that she was told specifically to ignore. You can rationalize all you like but she spoke directly to the first quote in my sig and ignored the judge. She was in the wrong and there really is no question about that.

I would also add that half of the jurors came out wanting to convict. We have one of the ones wanting an acquittal doing it on an incorrect basis. I hope we get a chance to hear what the other jurors have to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName

It's only human nature to have Sorino's comment stick in your head, regardless of what the judge instructed. His comment stuck in the heads of every single juror, that shouldn't be a difficult concept.

---

Speak for yourself and quit talking out of your ass. When another juror out and says that then you have a point until then enough with the fantasy land.

I do love how you have gone to generalized dicksucking of someone that says something you want to hear and have given up on talking about specifics. It's a definite pattern for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Speak for yourself and quit talking out of your ass.

---

Oh shit this is golden coming from the crime scence computer detective claiming he knows more of the truth than the lead detective in the case.

Quote:

---

When another juror out and says that then you have a point until then enough with the fantasy land.

---

I doubt the others are going to be dumb enough to admit it to the public, but fine, I'll concede that one.

Quote:

---

I do love how you have gone to generalized dicksucking of someone that says something you want to hear and have given up on talking about specifics. It's a definite pattern for you.

---

I don't care what she says, and had nothing I wanted to "hear" out of her. I just find it funny that you couldn't see, and still can't see how the jury couldn't convict.

Trayvon suckerpunches and gets on top of Zimmerman and continues to beat him. Zimmerman fears for his life and shoots him. Self defense, pretty easy if you ask me.

And like I've said before, I don't think Zimmerman was right to get out and follow Trayvon, but he did and that is not illegal. Did he make a bad choice? Sure, and he has to live with that. Did Trayvon make a bad choice? Sure, and now he's dead. Again, no winners in this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

:lol fabrications

She made her decision on a statement that she was told specifically to ignore. You can rationalize all you like but she spoke directly to the first quote in my sig and ignored the judge. She was in the wrong and there really is no question about that.

---

Oh really?
So do tell and prove what exactly the Judge was instructing the jury about in your 30 second You Tube extrapolation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I would also add that half of the jurors came out wanting to convict. We have one of the ones wanting an acquittal doing it on an incorrect basis. I hope we get a chance to hear what the other jurors have to say.

---

I could say the half that wanted to convict were going on emotion and not the law, would we ever know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Oh really?
So do tell and prove what exactly the Judge was instructing the jury about in your 30 second You Tube extrapolation.

---

This is boring. You keep moving the goalposts.

First it is 'where did she say it.' Then its the 'who cares that she ignored the instruction.' Now it's 'what did she really say.' Do you know what sophistry is?

I will give you some keywords when you listen again: 'disregard' and 'truthful.' It's a similar exercise they teach in middle school english. Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingsFanWithoutName

I could say the half that wanted to convict were going on emotion and not the law, would we ever know?

---

You do have a penchant for talking fantasy land out of your ass so I'm not exactly surprised. I will go with what we know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You do have a penchant for talking fantasy land out of your ass so I'm not exactly surprised. I will go with what we know.

---

Fine, let's go with what we know.

We know Trayvon punched Zimmerman in the face and broke his nose and then got on top of him and beat him up some more which lead to him apparently fearing for his life which lead to him shooting Trayvon dead. Not much to argue about there as YOU can not say Zimmerman didn't fear for his life. That is simply impossible as you were not there and you are not him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I will go with what we know.

---

Do you know Zimmerman was not fearing for his life?

Simple question please answer simply.