There you go. Making assumptions and predisposed without hearing all the facts empanelled. No jury duty on this for you, friend.
Really? Saying that I don't know all the facts and don't know what would be the proper legal remedy in this case would keep me off the jury?
Awesome. Until now, I've avoided jury duty by either being in the middle of, or having already completed, a move out of the jurisdiction. Letting the attorneys know that I'm open-minded and undecided is a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than moving to get out of jury duty!
Sorry if I unintentionally offended you. It just seemed to me from your comment that your mind was already predisposed that letting Mr. Z. go scot-free would not likely serve justice, nor would a murder conviction. Saying:
"I’m not sure what would be proper justice if that scenario happened."
would be a fair and impartial statement. But under questioning in voir dire about any leaning you already had, if you added to the above and answered with:
"Certainly not murder, but letting Zimmerman go scot-free may not be justice, either."
then I doubt that either the judge, prosecutor, or defense would seat you. The only mindset acceptable would give the message:
"I will only know when I have heard all the testimony to be given."
In truth, pretty much whatever you have heard on this website or other media outlet is hearsay; and not fit, no matter how compelling, for causing one to be swayed from neutrality in the matter as regarding jury service. N'est ce pas?"