I know I said I wasn't going to post about this again, but this juror's comments are troubling to me.
From the Huffington Post:
"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said. "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
She admits she has no proof, but yet then says he got away with murder. This seems incoherent.
Maybe she means her intuition strongly says Zimmerman got away with it, but she had no actual proof to show for it, so her "logical mind" and "emotional mind" were conflicted. That I could understand, but that doesn't appear to be what she is claiming.
Thus, the verdict should not cause her to lose sleep at night, because it appears as though she followed the legal instruction she was given. The evidence just wasn't there to convict Zimmerman of murder. And, that is exactly how our justice system is supposed to work. If there is a lack of evidence against an individual, even if the individual is guilty, then the person deserves to go free.
I just hope this juror isn't looking at the reaction to the Zimmerman verdict and attempting to soften the hard feelings some may hold towards her. She should stand her ground.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 … 54183.html
If there are second thoughts or backpedaling, I hope it isn't acquiescing to public pressure or out of fear for her safety, or that of her family. I hate to see such tactics bear fruit.
There's a real danger of mob rule here. If a jury believes the majority of the public believes a verdict should go a certain way, and doesn't want to be disliked for going against that sentiment...well, our fragile justice system, that is already in desperate need of repair, will become nothing but show trials.
I think we all have a tendency to confuse justice with the rule of law.
Stand your ground laws and relaxed concealed weapon laws make it easy to kill people in Florida legally.
I don't fault the jury, I think they followed the law as it is written and explained to them. We should blame the people that write bad laws but we re-elect them
Life is cheap here in Florida, especially if you are black.
Note that we haven't heard from the NRA encouraging young black men to arm themselves
Have you looked or are you just assuming?
The NRA has a new voice, and he doesn't fit the usual part
There is a new face of the NRA, and he's becoming an internet sensation. Colion Noir, a 29-year-old, African American attorney, caught the NRA's attention after he made a series of edgy, pro-gun videos that drew a large following. This year, the NRA signed Noir as one of their commentators and released a video of him praising the NRA.
http://now.msn.com/colion-noir-is-the-n … usual-part
Well the NRA didn't organize and tell all young black men to arm themselves did they? They are a very white organization.
Do they speak a message that responsible individuals should arm themselves?
What is the difference?
First it's like looking at a Republican convention,there you see a sea of pasty white faces. I don't think they're all deliberately racist but they do nothing to attract minorities. You see the same effect at an NRA convention, they're all white. Politicians may get away with painting targets on their opponents and asking for Second Amendment solutions . What would we do to a black man that suggested the same thing?
the question in my mind is what would have happened if the races were reversed. I think Trayvon would have been locked up right away, yet it was Trayvon who was stalked by an armed man.
Sounds more to me like she did not understand the legal term "murder".
To her, any killing is murder. The law differentiates from that designation in many ways, but it also requires that there be no reasonable doubt in such a charge. So many people simply do not understand those two parts of our legal system.
I dare say that all of them would appreciate it if they were the accused, though - our system is correctly set up here. Self defense is a viable defense, as are other actions, and it should require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" before locking someone away for 20,30 years or more. To take some money from them not so much, but to effectively ruin a persons life should require far more than a "feeling" or intuition. To do differently lowers us all to the status of the real murderer, who needs no reason to kill.
Sooner.....What I clearly understood from her comments in the interview was: The way the laws read....the jury had no choice but to vote "not guilty".....therefore, in her mind...setting him free from being convicted of murder.......OR, in other words....he got away with murder, due to the laws they had to follow and adhere to in their verdict. This is what she stressed in her statements.
Yes. Her idea of what murder is didn't jibe with what the law says it is.
Guilty when using her definition, innocent if using the legal definition. It's a part of what would make being a juror so difficult as personal definitions and intuitions don't matter.
wilderness......I not only "get" what you say......I also see that:
Actually, being forced to follow the laws, as they are.....more often than not, yields justice. All the rest of it.....yields a frantic mob of angry, hateful, crazed and out of control anarchists.
I FEEL for the victim and family. I FEEL for the defendant & family. I FEEL for the Jurors & families.
Exactly WHAT can my feelings solve...and HOW do we begin to arrive at a single solution?
Well the law says you need evidence right?
She stated explicitly she didn't have any. That's what bothers me so much about her statements.
This second jurors comments in an interview with ABC and the other jurors comments in an interview with CNN are most revealing and gives a clearer picture of the dynamics that took place. This juror deserves empathy and understanding considering the divide along racial lines that caused her to feel "forced into a verdict", she did make the right call for a conviction on second degree murder...however she had the same jury instructions as the rest that had no mention of intent and could have understood them clearing without having someone else explaining the instructions to her in a way that would persuade her to change her vote to Not Guilty..
In her heart she knows Chicken George got away with Murder and she is most troubled that she allowed it to happen.
When a tree falls in the forest And no one is around to hear it did it make a sound?
Are we saying if there was no one around to hear the tree fall then it did not make a sound? If the tree failed and did not make a sound then it is going against the laws of physics.
All we really saying that we are to inapt to rationalize and conclude that even though there was no one around it is more likely than not that this event occurred.
That lone "hold -out" juror is expressing her own anguish over her decision to change her vote to not guilty. Very revealing. She didn't have any confusion about the terms Murder or Intent and the jury instructions explained the term "reasonable doubt" very simply and clear. After discussing the evidence and reviewing the jury charge she concluded Chicken George was guilty of second degree murder...she got it right even with the stand your ground language in the charge she concluded he was guilty. And she knows now that she should have held out even if it met having a hung jury. She couldn't and she voted instead Not Guilty. She went along with everyone else which happens a lot on juries. Most go along with everyone else. It would have taken an individual with a strong constitution to hold out in this case and this particular juror sadly succumbed to relatively mild pressure from her fellow jurors.
by chipsball3 years ago
Having survived the "Rites of Passage of an African-American Teenager in America" myself as a teenager and having raised four African-Americans teenagers in America I feel so blessed today that none of them...
by chipsball3 years ago
The most important phase of this criminal trial will be the selection of six (6) jurors and (4) alternate jurors who will determine the outcome. Selecting jurors who can set aside their feelings towards either the State...
by Longhunter4 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/official-charges- … 38994.htmlIt's about damn time but can he get a fair trial?Will all groups on both sides of this issue accept the outcome of a trial and move on?
by SpanStar3 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one...
by SpanStar3 years ago
Frankly I have to catch my breath...I find it hard to believe.
by Sooner283 years ago
http://www.kpho.com/story/22831147/zimm … ack-internThis is the last discussion I will start on this trial. I am just throwing this out there for those who insist that Zimmerman was a racist who profiled...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.