Zimmerman juror

[jazyd]

Said she wanted to apologize to Martin family, wanted to find him guilty but evidence wasn't there. Sorry lady but yo can't convict on feelings, there s such a thing as law. And where did the media get that there wasn't any black women on the jury? She definitely looked black to me, not " maybe Hispanic looking"

She just ave the race baiters plenty of ammo

[blueboss]

I saw that, of course the media grabbed a hold of it immediatly, GZ recued the family from the overturned burning car on the 7-17 and it wasn't mentioned until the following week.

This lady is setting up her morning talk show tour and getting all the free publicity she can muster for her upcoming book. Sorry not buying your story, I wanted to convict him but he was innocent!! The onlt good thing that might come of this is might ease the racial tensions between the hispanics and the african americans the two races involved in this whole debacle.

[CattyWampus]

“As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…"

She actually said that. She's an idiot.

[Doc]

Reads to me the jury heard the evidence and did what they were asked to do. Based on the evidence they found him not guilty, so why all the hubbub? I have no problem with them telling the victims mother they wanted to find him guilty. Bottom line is they didn't and based that on the evidence presented.

[CattyWampus]

I have no problem with them telling the victims mother they wanted to find him guilty.

The jury's job is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence. To suggest that it's OK for a juror to tell Martin's mother that they wanted to find Zimmerman guilty is a little puzzling. Why is that acceptable?

[Doc]

The jury's job is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence. To suggest that it's OK for a juror to tell Martin's mother that they wanted to find Zimmerman guilty is a little puzzling. Why is that acceptable?

The jury did make the determination based on the evidence. Even though she wanted to hold somebody responsible for the killing of a person, they rendered a verdict the GZ was not responsible based 100% on what was presented. They were asked during jury selection if they could base decision on the evidence and that's exactly what they did. Why is that unacceptable?

[blueboss]

Buy the book, she'll explain why the innocent man was judged to be innocent. If she came out and said the opposite would anyone really be interested in the book, you already know she wouldn't get the morning talk show gigs.

[jazyd]

Doc, I would have preferred she say that she was sorry the Martins son had died but Zimmerman was innocent. No need to apologize for finding him innocent which he was per the law and no need to say she wanted to find him guilty, that served no purpose other than get her more money doing more interviews.

The jury did make the determination based on the evidence. Even though she wanted to hold somebody responsible for the killing of a person, they rendered a verdict the GZ was not responsible based 100% on what was presented. They were asked during jury selection if they could base decision on the evidence and that's exactly what they did. Why is that unacceptable?

[Darrell KSR]

Lot of misconceptions flowing through this thread.

The jury did not find George Zimmerman innocent of any charges. They found him not guilty. It is not their job to determine guilt or innocence; it is their job to find a defendant guilty or not guilty.

I commend the juror for following the law, rather than her heart, her instinct, her gut, or her belief. I could easily find myself in the same situation of believing someone was guilty, but finding him not guilty of the crime. I would hope most Americans could do the same.

As far as her comments are concerned, I have no "major" problem with them. They are misleading, but I could easily find myself making comments like that to comfort the loved ones of a deceased. For all of us, I suspect, we have a natural tendency to want to comfort, and the idea of finding "justice" for Trayvon Martin is appealing toward that end. But thankfully, the juror followed the law, and the law requires guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard was not met.

Would this juror have found George Zimmerman liable for the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin under a far lesser standard of preponderance of the evidence in a civil lawsuit? Maybe. Again, I commend her for following the law in the criminal trial in that vein.

[dan_bgblue]

Darrell, I am not arguing any point with this question. Do you think the defense team would have let her thru the selection process if she had told them she wanted to find their client guilty?

[Doc]

Lot of misconceptions flowing through this thread.

The jury did not find George Zimmerman innocent of any charges. They found him not guilty. It is not their job to determine guilt or innocence; it is their job to find a defendant guilty or not guilty.

I commend the juror for following the law, rather than her heart, her instinct, her gut, or her belief. I could easily find myself in the same situation of believing someone was guilty, but finding him not guilty of the crime. I would hope most Americans could do the same.

As far as her comments are concerned, I have no "major" problem with them. They are misleading, but I could easily find myself making comments like that to comfort the loved ones of a deceased. For all of us, I suspect, we have a natural tendency to want to comfort, and the idea of finding "justice" for Trayvon Martin is appealing toward that end. But thankfully, the juror followed the law, and the law requires guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard was not met.

Would this juror have found George Zimmerman liable for the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin under a far lesser standard of preponderance of the evidence in a civil lawsuit? Maybe. Again, I commend her for following the law in the criminal trial in that vein.

You stated what I wanted in far more words but with better clarity. IMO in such a public case any potential jurist is going to have some idea of guilt or innocence based on reports in the media . That's natural. What a jury is asked to do is determine guilt based on the evidence presented during the trial being enough to convince beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to meet that standard hence "not guilty". In other word the justice system worked as it was designed

[suncat05]

There's another thing that may be playing into this........which network was she on? Now, she's probably never been on TV before, so wouldn't it be a possiblility that she was being lead by the types and styling of the questions he was being asked?
I didn't see the interview, so I can't say one way or the other anything about what she said, but.........we all know how the left-leaning media loves to get people to say what THEY want to hear, so could that have been what happened, the media 'leading' her in the direction they wanted the interview to go?

[CattyWampus]

There's another thing that may be playing into this........which network was she on? Now, she's probably never been on TV before, so wouldn't it be a possiblility that she was being lead by the types and styling of the questions he was being asked?
I didn't see the interview, so I can't say one way or the other anything about what she said, but.........we all know how the left-leaning media loves to get people to say what THEY want to hear, so could that have been what happened, the media 'leading' her in the direction they wanted the interview to go?

It looks like ABC might have taken a few liberties in their editing process.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...button_toolbar

[CitizenBBN]

It looks like ABC might have taken a few liberties in their editing process.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...button_toolbar

suncat nailed it.

Just like the editing of the 911 call tape, the media is out to further an agenda, and if they have to make up the "evidence" they will.

Kudos to suncat for calling it, and woe to our nation as the national media closes ranks with Leftism and takes us to a place that was the nightmare of the Founders.

[CitizenBBN]

Re the juror I don't have a problem with her having a personal opinion that differs from her actions on the jury. I do have real doubts about her motives given the financial concerns and her going so public. It's not the role of jurors to become public figures beyond their service. They were not privy to any information to which we were not all privy, and there is nothing much to learn from the deliberation process that offsets the damage she's going to do simply by speaking out regardless of what she says.

The case was decided at law and is not a crucible for broader issues. It was a trail about one person, one situation, not a statement about racism or anything else. Her going on the speaking tour tries to turn it into something it isn't, and is inappropriate and distorting.

[kritikalcat]

My biggest issue here isn't why or what she has to say. It's that the first juror who shared her experience and viewpoint was almost immediately shot down, treated like she was a clueless idiot and a bully, and pressured into abandoning plans to write about her experience.

It's pretty clear, and not surprising, that the jurors had similar views - and divergence in views - as the public at large. I would guess that the report from the first juror to speak publicly - that the initial split was 3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter, 1 murder - was accurate. I think a lot of people made their opinions on this case on moral, rather than factual, grounds and then tried to fit facts to their moral viewpoint. (That some people still insist on arguing "facts" that have been shown to be media distortions is indicative of this; though I think it's been done by people on both sides.)

Some people support the right of a law abiding citizen to legally carry a weapon. Some people believe fundamentally that anyone doing so is a "gun toting vigilante"

Some see a stockier 29 year old grown man killing a 17 year old child who was just walking home and scared of the strange man stalking him. Some see a 17 year old delinquent who was 4 inches taller instigating an unprovoked assault on another person who was only checking to see what this stranger kid was doing in his neighborhood.

Some people believe that any killing of another - even in self-defense or war - is "murder." Some don't believe there should be legal distinctions in degrees, manslaughter, etc. Murder is murder. Some believe that it's immoral to use a weapon to protect yourself against a person without a weapon.