New juror: Zimmerman 'got away with murder' based on bad Florida law, offers apology to Trayvon's parents

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 25, 2013 9:24 PM GMT
    In other news, water is wet.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1A juror in the George Zimmerman trial says she feels the man who killed Trayvon Martin "got away with murder."

    "George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Juror B29 told ABC, according to an article posted on the network's website Thursday. "(But) the law couldn't prove it."

    The juror, who used only her first name of Maddy out of concerns for her safety, told ABC that she and others on the panel felt Zimmerman was guilty, but that wasn't enough.
    "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," she said. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

    Maddy is the second juror to speak about the high-profile case since the six-person, all-female jury acquitted Zimmerman earlier this month.

    Juror B29 told ABC that the decision is still weighing heavily on her, and she thinks she owes Martin's parents an apology.

    "It's hard for me to sleep, it's hard for me to eat because I feel I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin's death," she told ABC. "And as I carry him on my back, I'm hurting as much (as) Trayvon Martin's mother because there's no way that any mother should feel that pain."


    Americans agree, 40% to 26% (http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3343223). Guess most Americans are decent, law-abiding citizens who don't want their streets turned into the Wild Wild West. Bad news for the gun nut Rethuglican Party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 25, 2013 11:36 PM GMT
    Right.
    She said, "In our hearts we felt he was guilty but we had to go by the evidence."
    Damn that evidence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 25, 2013 11:39 PM GMT
    It's great when an actual JUROR from the TRIAL says that. Not me, and not the rest of us here, but a JUROR who heard the entire trial.

    I gotta say, though, that I think this juror, and any other who have may have thought this way, should have been parsing actual JUSTICE instead of the finely-worded points of the law. If she thought Zimmerman was guilty, then he was guilty, period. Leave the word-smithing to the lawyers, which is fine for corporate law, but not always in determining criminal guilt. "Getting off on a technicality" comes to mind.

    And now she apologizes to Martin's family for letting a guilty man off the hook? And blames the law for how it's written? Throughout US history, beginning in colonial times, juries have had the discretion to override those mistakes and failings in the law (see John Peter Zenger trial, 1735).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2013 1:55 AM GMT
    Knowing this, maybe you should volunteer for jury duty.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2013 2:17 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidKnowing this, maybe you should volunteer for jury duty.

    Me? I'm permanently exempt, due to my epilepsy. Also because I'm a former US Army Military Police Officer, most defense lawyers would use a peremptory challenge against me.

    But I did once make a dramatic appearance in a court, when I was 19. A neighbor had been accused of a crime, an incident I had witnessed without anyone's knowledge.

    I learned of the trial the very day it was taking place. I hastily drove to the court, and stood up in the public gallery and called out at some point in the trial, risking a contempt of court. The judge allowed me to come forward and give evidence. A very "Perry Mason" moment.

    My testimony refuted the charges against my neighbor. She was found not guilty. I'm still kinda proud of my actions that day (as you can see), though just really a kid at the time.

    So yeah, I'd volunteer for jury duty in a heartbeat, if I could. And you? I'd hate for a Right-Wing bigot like you to sit on any jury hearing a case that involved me. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2013 2:42 AM GMT
    I'd want you to be on the jury if I were on trial, I'd get away with anything.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 26, 2013 3:07 AM GMT
    ART_DECO saidAnd now she apologizes to Martin's family for letting a guilty man off the hook? And blames the law for how it's written? Throughout US history, beginning in colonial times, juries have had the discretion to override those mistakes and failings in the law (see John Peter Zenger trial, 1735).


    +1

    It's a crying shame that juriers are not instructed on their jury nullification rights in regards to unjust and ridiculous laws.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/15/1223742/-Jury-Nullification-in-the-Zimmerman-Case

    http://fija.org/

    No juror should have to live with letting a murderer walk on her conscience as this juror must because the judge failed to instruct her on her rights.

    I am not in favor of jurors using their jury nullification powers to find defendants like Zimmerman guilty, but jurors should damn well feel empowered to hang a verdict if the law as adjudicated is immoral, as the 40% plurality of America who know Trayvon Martin's murder was unjustified rightly believe. Judges and and lawyers do not want juries to be fully informed, however, as it would be the end of the grift and corruption that all-too-often dominates their profession.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2013 3:14 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidI'd want you to be on the jury if I were on trial, I'd get away with anything.

    Nobody would get away with anything. Nor would the innocent be convicted. A far different result than if you sat on a jury, guided only by Right-Wing political and Christian fundamentalist principles, rather than with the facts as presented.

    If I sat on your jury, you would get the fairest trial you could hope to have. Even in the unlikely case I knew you were Blakes7, one of my tormentors here, I wouldn't let that influence me.

    No, you would only want me on your jury if you were innocent, not guilty. Your defender if innocent, your condemner if guilty. What you chose depends upon what you expect you will be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2013 3:20 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said Judges and and lawyers do not want juries to be fully informed, however, as it would be the end of the grift and corruption that all-too-often dominates their profession.

    I'm very impressed you know my reference above, to jury nullification in the 1745 Zenger acquital.

    Another reason I would probably be anathema to most defense lawyers choosing a jury, since I know the true power that juries have. And wouldn't be caught up in legalistic arguments about the semantics of the law, but would focus instead on the fundamental issue of actual guilt or innocence.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 26, 2013 2:19 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidIn other news, water is wet.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1A juror in the George Zimmerman trial says she feels the man who killed Trayvon Martin "got away with murder."




    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/22/abcwapo-poll-40-think-zimmermans-shooting-of-martin-wasnt-justified-26-think-it-was/comment-page-1/#comments



    What is even more illuminating than this poll is reading the comments that follow it in the article.

    One thing I know for sure is that if I were a juror, especially one who had been sequestered for any amount of time, if I felt strongly a certain way, whether it be of GUILT or of INNOCENCE, that is the way I would vote, and no amount of intimidation or the way the law reads would sway my vote. I find it absurd that a juror would vote "Not Guilty", then go public afterwards saying "He got away with murder". Well, Lady, if that's the way you felt, you helped make that happen by voting to acquit.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 26, 2013 4:42 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidWhat is even more illuminating than this poll is reading the comments that follow it in the article.


    Illuminating indeed. The comments on Hot Air tend to "illuminate" the word impulses of the fringe right and demonstrates why the Republican base is shrinking to *ahem* rural Southern whites.

    In general, decent people should steer clear of internet comments sections, the same way they steer clear of the sewer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2013 5:46 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Me? I'm permanently exempt, due to my epilepsy. Also because I'm a former US Army Military Police Officer, most defense lawyers would use a peremptory challenge against me.


    Up until a few years ago, the English legal system had a long list of occupations and professions that were barred from jury service (including police officers). The rules were changed in order that jury composition should more broadly reflect society and now police officers, judges et al may be called for jury service. My brother, who is a serving police officer, served on a jury in a rape trial.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 26, 2013 8:20 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    ART_DECO said
    Me? I'm permanently exempt, due to my epilepsy. Also because I'm a former US Army Military Police Officer, most defense lawyers would use a peremptory challenge against me.


    Up until a few years ago, the English legal system had a long list of occupations and professions that were barred from jury service (including police officers). The rules were changed in order that jury composition should more broadly reflect society and now police officers, judges et al may be called for jury service. My brother, who is a serving police officer, served on a jury in a rape trial.


    What was the reasoning for excluding officers and the other professions that were so excluded?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2013 8:40 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said

    What was the reasoning for excluding officers and the other professions that were so excluded?


    I think the assumption was that anyone employed in the criminal justice system might be perceived as being biased toward that system, which might bring into question their impartiality (which was baseless and pretty insulting to those so employed).

    Serving armed forces personnel are excused jury service for quite different reasons, ostensibly because it could interfere with their operational commitments. In reality, if, as a member of the armed forces, you are summoned for jury service, your CO applies for a standard exemption, certifying your absence would be 'prejudicial to the efficiency of the Service', irrespective of whether your absence from your unit would cause a real problem or not. In other words, this form of exemption can be (and often is) abused for the sake of convenience rather than used out of military necessity.