Posted on 07/26/2013 11:37:11 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29’s remarks during ABC’s Robin Roberts' interview about the Zimmerman verdict. The big headline from the story is “George Zimmerman got away with murder,” but that is an inaccurate distillation of Juror B-29's statements. Rather, the substance of the juror’s other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Here’s a key exchange that got my attention:
Juror B-29 says, “For myself, he’s guilty, because the evidence shows he’s guilty.”
Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, “He’s guilty of?”
Juror B-29 responds, “Killing Trayvon Martin. 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.”
We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, we’ve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someone’s hands, the person responsible is guilty of SOMETHING. Indeed, it is natural to feel this way. In a self-defense case, however, that fact that the defendant committed a homicide is stipulated -- it is undisputed. However, self-defense is one of the instances under the law when homicide is justifiable. People may disagree with self-defense laws, but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about. Based on her statement, it seems Juror B-29 looked at the law, and whether or not she agreed with the law, she did her job and made her decision on a legal basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at omaralawblog.com ...
She is the very model of a modern major juror girl.
This skull full of mush does not know what ‘guilty’ means. He was not charged with killing TM. He never denied that he did that. He was charged with Murder and that is different than Killing. He did not ‘get away with murder’. The verdict was that no murder too place.
they are used to jury nulification, following the law is too confusing for them.
(see star trek original series “mirror mirror”, a civilized man can act the savage but a savage can not act the civilized man.)
I agree with this and I’d take it one step further.
What if this juror did her civic duty and now feels threatened by the mob and his saying “guilty” out of justifiable fear for her own personal security and safety?
....and,black. Wadda ya know?
The MSM needs to but out IMHO
Yup! Juror B-29 dropped the bomb!
O’Mara is cutting her more slack than I will. Her statements are confused and contradictory. Thousands of juries have delt with the same insructions but she couldn’t figure them out on her own. The other jurors had to set her straight. I wonder how long she alone held up the verdict. She’s also conflicted from the blowback for being the minority juror who “let him off”.
I agree. A jury isn’t the place for personal feelings or opinions. She did her job regardless of how she felt about it. She should be commended for that. As for her comments now, she can say what she wants about it and people will make a judment accordingly.
The prosecution had a better case than they had against Zimmerman, and a jury of twelve took about an hour to deliberate and come to the conclusion we could not convict the guy.
One hour. We had someone who was going to be a hold out, a guy as weak minded as this woman. He posited it was a set up to kill this guy, we reminded him there WAS NO PROOF of his assertion, that we had to find the guy guilty without a reasonable doubt or send up an acquittal. One hour.
If a neighborhood watchman can’t follow a strange person to see where they go, then why have a watchman?
O’Mara makes a fair point.
But Zimmerman did "intentionally" kill Martin. He deliberately pointed the gun at his chest and pulled the trigger.
This was stipulated by the defense. The question was simply whether he was justified in intentionally killing Martin and the answer to that was yes.
Black Hispanic = jury of his peer.
I thought it was an all-white jury that ‘let George Zimmerman hunt a child down and shoot him like dawwwwwwg!’ ?
MoM nails it. The media took what the juror said and twisted it to say something she did not intend to say. That should be a lesson to other jurors, that the media, who work for the enemies of the Republic, will do the same to any of them. George did kill Treyvon. It was justifiable homicide. Instead of black people getting the me3ssage that they cannot thoughtlessly assault anyone they want because they can be shot dead for the foolishness, the media is herding balck people to an erroneous conclusion meant to extend their exploitation by evil people like holder, Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama.
100's of thousands were "killed" during WWII; but few were "murdered".
Today, you can stir up the 95% who voted for The Messiah/aka "The Black Guy", just by pointing out the perps/criminals/rapists/muggers/etc. are black even when the fact is known, but the State-Run-Media leave out the Race of the perps, unless they're white, OR, they can point out they drove an SUV.....
Thanks for posting.
The lawblog is very informative, and O’Maras simple description shows the difference between the headline grabbing media, and someone who speaks simple, understandable english is striking.
Gilbert and Zimmerman?
Yes, this is indeed that juror. Funny how these things all connect back to Chicago, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.