3rd Juror speaks.... Liberal "intellect" on display.

[_Bazooka]

Ohhhhh.... That horny toad is so cute!!!

Thanks for reminding me of some enjoyable childhood memories, chasing the lizards and horny toads and having them as friends.

by the way, I would recommend you read my response to his post. I debunked the claim for the straw-man it was.

The point........Zoooooom...........Woooooosh..............>>>>>>>>

*miles*

ldsfaqs's head.

[_subgenius]

So, ldsfaqs, what you're saying is that even if you have very strong feelings that a certain proposition is true, if facts and evidence don't support that proposition, then you can't rely on your feelings to justify your belief in that proposition.

Right?

In a court of law, yes, that is Right.
Surely you understand the distinction....Right?

[Guest]

So, ldsfaqs, what you're saying is that even if you have very strong feelings that a certain proposition is true, if facts and evidence don't support that proposition, then you can't rely on your feelings to justify your belief in that proposition.

Right?

In a court of law, yes, that is Right.
Surely you understand the distinction....Right?

But not in a court of love....Right?

Were this juror a Mormon ascribing her feelings to the Holy Ghost prompting her what to do, should she ignore the Holy Ghost?

[_beastie]

So, ldsfaqs, what you're saying is that even if you have very strong feelings that a certain proposition is true, if facts and evidence don't support that proposition, then you can't rely on your feelings to justify your belief in that proposition.

Right?

In a court of law, yes, that is Right.
Surely you understand the distinction....Right?

Whoa there, apostate. The Holy Ghost testifies of the truth of ALL THINGS.

[_ldsfaqs]

Whoa there, apostate. The Holy Ghost testifies of the truth of ALL THINGS.

You are correct, and since you are the actual "apostate" thus not having the Holy Ghost anymore (little anyway) it's not a wonder that almost everything you say has NO TRUTH in it.

[_beastie]

I haven't listened to her entire interview, but from the excerpt I did hear I suspect she's saying, somewhat imprecisely, that the current laws are inadequate. She felt that GZ should have been able to be legally convicted of a wrong-doing, but the current law did not support that, in my opinion. I think it's a very understandable position.

[_ldsfaqs]

Problem is is the only actual "wrong-doing" was by Trayvon, and he got his sentence already.

Tell us oh wise one..... What great "wrong-doing" should Zimmerman have been convicted of?

- Concern for his neighborhood?
- Directing cops to suspect location as he was even instructed to most of the call until the end?
- Killing a man in self defense because he was violently attacking him?

Further, maybe you should have actually listened to the whole thing, because as usual you don't know what you're talking about. She even said that the case shouldn't have went to trial, that it was "political". So tell us oh wise one..... When a person say's something shouldn't have even went to trial, how does that translate in your mind they they SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF "something"???? Clearly she thought he wasn't actually "guilty" of anything in the "legal" sense, but should have simply been punished "somehow" simply because someone died, thus should have been punished "morally".

Maybe she thinks Zimmerman should be allowed to be hanged on a tree like many of you want, street justice?

[_krose]

By the way, did this juror reveal her political preferences anywhere in this interview? She must have, given the words "liberal intellect." I did hear her voice a religious belief that Zimmerman will get what's coming to him in the next life.

Also, if she is the "3rd juror" to speak out, who was the second? I've only heard two.

[_ldsfaqs]

By the way, did this juror reveal her political preferences anywhere in this interview? She must have, given the words "liberal intellect." I did hear her voice a religious belief that Zimmerman will get what's coming to him in the next life.

One doesn't actually have to "say" what they believe in order to SEE what they believe.
Further, it seems also that part of the disconnect between the statements is that the liberal media manipulated her interview in order to try and make her testimony more along their ideology. So, she may not be entirely guilty, though she did say he was guilty of "something" and then went on to say the contrary things, so despite the manipulation, one can see some of that ideology coming through.

Also, if she is the "3rd juror" to speak out, who was the second? I've only heard two.

The second one to speak out was the "Alternate" juror, i.e. the backup guy in case one of the juror's is lost for whatever reason. The sit through the entire trial. The only thing they don't do is deliberate at the end with the main jurors.

[_krose]

One doesn't actually have to "say" what they believe in order to SEE what they believe.

I see. You have a feeling in your heart (one might even say a testimony) that she is a liberal.

Got it.