Juror B37 in the Zimmerman Trial

I'll repeat. Since last February, 2012, when George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin confronted one one another and Trayvon lost his life, over 700 black men or teens were murdered in Chicago, yet, why is there no mass discontent about them? Surely, some of those 700 killed were of a white-black situation and more numerous black on black killings. Some were no doubt police shootouts. I am sure some of those killings in Chicago violated civil rights also.

Juror B37 of the George Zimmerman trial has come out and publicly spoke about the jury deliberations. She is articulate and provides insights about how poorly the prosecution presented the case to prosecute Zimmerman. The jury went in divided and over 15 hours of looking at evidence and legal definitions that totally convoluted their thinking. Legal speak to lay persons frequently does this. The jury had already ruled out what everyone knew-no 2nd degree murder charge, that left manslaughter. That is when the jury asked the judge to clarification. Once that occurred, five of jurors said not guilty, one remained undecided and leaned towards manslaughter.

One can only surmise what happened next- pressure from the other five to conclude the deliberation. After 15 hours and with only one juror holding out, it would be fair to say the others presented their own arguments and peer pressure finally turned the last juror to agree with the others. None of this is odd for a jury trial.

Juror B37 weighed all the evidence, became emotional over their final decision for she knew no decision would be good , yet one had to be made. She examined the details of the case and tried to mesh the facts as presented with the black letter law, which is controversial by itself. She showed more sympathy for the Zimmerman side than the Martin side. She had more in common with Zimmerman as far as lifestyle and culture than with Martin. But, that is not her fault, it is just how it is. Juror B37 doesn't need to know how the black community talks or lives and I am sure she does not. All she has to do is weigh the evidence and how it fits with the black letter law of manslaughter. She indicated that Trayvon could have avoided the whole event, just as Zimmerman could have. Yes, Z could have just remained in his car and waited for police or even drive around the complex. Trayvon could have simply gone home, some 100 yards away, after detecting someone was following. He probably thought Z was a thug, how ironic.

Yet, neither did either. Maybe T wanted to prove something as a teen. That frequently happens with any teen. So, he circled back not knowing if they would meet again. But, Z could have announced to T who he was before emotions took control. All this is, "could've and should've" after the fact. Both made bad decisions. Most in the position of Trayvon and being followed at night would seek a secure place and avoid confrontation at all costs knowing what could result. Trayvon was so close to home. Many would start to run or walk fast to be out of harm's way in this situation, I know I would. I would not force a confrontation unless there was no way out. Both had a way out, neither took it.

Juror B37 states that for the jury, it never was about race. It was a crime. It was a situation that bad decisions caused a death during a struggle. Only those who want to inject race into it for past injustices, either historical or personal, make it seem like it was racial. I wonder what would be done if the jury had contained three black jurors and the not guilty outcome still came. Would Al Sharpden and the NAACP still be wanting a federal civil rights violation?

There was no racial profiling.There was criminal profiling based upon burglaries in the condo complex just a few days before they met. Z knew about this. The white victim of one the burglaries by two black men was horrifying to hear in her testimony. It was a scene out of a movie and this was only a few days before the event. So, naturally, Z's senses were heightened as a watchman that night. As B37 said, Z did nothing legally wrong except he overreacted and "went over the top" in his duties.

Many agree with juror B37, many do not. Regardless, it is time to move on.