She can not be sued for her decision in court nor could she be sued simply for stating what she did in the manner of’ Zimmerman KILLED Martin’ because that is simply a matter of absolute readily conceded and admitted by Zimmerman and his lawyers as well as the police.
HOWEVER, phrasing it as ‘Zimmerman is a MURDERER’ could bring exposure since she said it not while in court or as a protected jury member but after the fact in public.
It is the word MURDERED which causes the problem due to the actual technical and legal definition and what the word conveys. There obviously and legally a difference between KILLING and MURDERING which brands someone as either righteous or horrifically immoral.
Even the bible differentiates between KILLING someone either by accident or in self defense and MURDERING someone by laying in wait and/or ambushing they.
In the case of accidental or not premeditated killing as in self defense there were seven ‘cities of refuge’ established where the one who killed someone else could flee to and be protected from retaliation.
Also the bible shows how someone such as King David could pursue the invaders who captured his family members and retrieve them even if it meant that he had to kill the offenders to save his family. King David is referred to in the bible as a ‘man after Gods own heart’ and was the author of most of the book of psalms.
Even in military matters there is a clear difference between killing in warfare and murdering innocent civilians.
Unfortunately this juror is showing a complete lack of understand of the definition of killing and murdering and a lack of understanding of hoe she is slandering Zimmerman and causing him harm by her ignorance.
She should be held accountable for the harm she is causing my her mischaracterization of Zimmerman.