Posted on 06/13/2013 11:39:53 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
SANFORD -- With Trayvon Martins parents watching uncomfortably from the courtroom gallery, a potential juror on Thursday suggested the slain teen was a pot smoker and aspiring street fighter who was going down the wrong path.
The woman interviewed on Thursday, on the fourth day of jury selection in the second-degree murder case, said she believed George Zimmerman was a law-abiding gun owner.
I do believe George was protecting himself, she said, adding that prosecutors would have to work very hard to convince her otherwise if she is selected for the jury.
Her forceful words in defense of Zimmerman were an anomaly.
Most of the potential jurors questioned so far have said they havent made up their minds on the facts of the case. At least 20 have been selected to move on to a further round of questioning.
It was unclear Thursday if the woman, who insisted she would have a bulls eye on her back if she served on the jury, would be dismissed before a future round of questioning.
Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, Trayvons parents, left the courtroom immediately after the womans questioning was finished....
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
She’s already got a bullseye on her back. Might as well serve on the jury.
Sounds like she does not want to be on the jury. I don’t blame her.
"It's OK to demonize George Zimmerman, though, and we encourage you to do so."
Sounds like an honest woman.
I suspect that her real agenda may be to get kicked off the jury.
True any juror who makes statement such as this for or against must know they well be dismissed.
In America, if you want to get KICKED OUT OF A COURTROOM, TELL THE TRUTH.
Just mention Jury Nullification and see what happens.
Isn’t it amazing that telling the truth gets you kicked off as a potential juror, but by lying you go to the next round.
Too bad Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton could not stand the truth. This punk was sick.
I remember when I was questioned as a potential juror. One question the attorney for the party suing the city asked was, “if the evidence supports the assertion that the city was negligent in it’s maintenance of the city park, could you find in the plantiff’s favor?”
My response was “Yes.”
However, what I was thinking was, “But my bar is pretty high. If their playground was as safe as the day it was built (mid-50’s) and was considered typical, I would not consider that negligence.
And sure enough, I was the driving juror that considered an asphalt surface under an 8’ children’s slide to be fine. Rubber might have been better, but the babysitter watching the three year old should not have let him wander over to the big kids stuff while she got stoned with a friend...
i.e. How Jurors answer, and what their words actually mean, can lead to incorrect inferences on the part of the person questioning them. ;-)
She should have lied and gotten on the jury.
That’s the rules the Obamatons play by, and while horrid, it’s the only way to fight back.
They will pack the jury with lying liberals... his only hope is a couple sneak in and a hung jury..
forget all that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff... that's now how it works in this case. Zim's guilty until proven innocent (which ain't gonna happen)
How would you like to be the 1 or 2 honest jurors in that room, though? A lamb among 11 other gangsters.
“Sounds like she does not want to be on the jury. I dont blame her.”
If that’s her intention she said the perfect thing. She’ll be rejected in a NY minute.
That's why I have never served on a jury, even though I have summoned several times. I don't lie in court.
He was a delicate little angel wasn’t he?
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.