« | »

Juror: Zimmerman Had Right To Defend Himself

From a deeply disappointed CNN:

Juror: ‘No doubt’ that George Zimmerman feared for his life

By Dana Ford | July 16, 2013

(CNN) — One of the jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman said she had "no doubt" he feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict.

The woman, who was identified just as Juror B37, spoke exclusively to CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360" on Monday night. She is the first juror to speak publicly about the case.

She said she believes Zimmerman’s "heart was in the right place" the night he shot Martin, but that he didn’t use "good judgment" in confronting the Florida teen.

"I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," she said.

"But I think his heart was in the right place. It just went terribly wrong." If anything, Zimmerman was guilty of not using "good judgment," the juror said.

We’re not quite sure where he went wrong.

"When he was in the car, and he had called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car," she said.

So we should just sit by and let the thugs take over?

She also said she believes Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation that followed.

"I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn’t going to let him scare him … and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him," she said.

Zimmerman felt his life was in danger before shooting Martin, and it was his voice that was heard screaming for help in 911 calls, the juror said she believes.

"He had a right to defend himself," she said. "If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him, or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

The right to protect your life trumps the civil right to beat people up for watching you? Who knew?

An initial vote was divided. Three of the jurors first voted Zimmerman was guilty, while three voted he was not guilty, she said. Juror B37 was among those who believed he was not guilty from the start.

Isn’t it rather unusual for preliminary jury votes to be released by the news media?

"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something and after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there’s just no way, other place to go," she said…

You see? Most of the jurors really thought he was guilty, but they got hoodwinked and bamboozled by the evidence and the facts. Which is why ‘Trayvon [sic] needed a jury of his peers.’ To quote the Reverend Jackson.

The juror said she did not believe Zimmerman profiled Martin, who was African-American, because of the color of his skin. She believes he thought Martin was suspicious because of the way he acted.

"Anybody would think anybody walking down the road, stopping and turning and looking — if that’s exactly what happened — is suspicious," she said. "I think all of us thought race did not play a role," the juror said . "We never had that discussion." …

What an outrage! How can you have a black person killed and not discuss race? That’s a reason to declare a mistrial right there.

The juror was planning to write a book about her experience with the case, literary agent Sharlene Martin said before her interview aired.
But hours later, the agent released a statement from Juror B37 saying she would no longer write one.

"Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury," the juror said.

"I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to (protect) our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case."

Why should this case have been any more painful than the seven people shot to death in Chicago last weekend?

True to form, note what the Associated Press decided to highlight from this interview:

Juror: Some wanted to convict Zimmerman initially

MIAMI (AP) — Three jurors in George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial initially favored convicting him of that offense or manslaughter, but the six-woman jury ultimately voted to acquit him after more closely examining the law, a juror in the case said Monday…

The woman, known as Juror B37, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that when the jury began deliberations Friday, they took an initial vote.

Three jurors— including B37 — were in favor of acquittal, two supported manslaughter and one backed second-degree murder. She said the jury started going through all the evidence, listening to tapes multiple times.

"That’s why it took us so long," said B37, who said she planned to write a book about the trial but later had a change of heart.

When they started looking at the law, the person who initially wanted second-degree murder changed her vote to manslaughter, the juror said. Then they asked for clarification from the judge and went over it again and again. B37 said some jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was just no place to go based on the law.

B37 said jurors cried when they gave their final vote to the bailiff.

‘‘I want people to know that we put everything into everything to get this verdict,’’ said the juror…

And behold the top story on Google News, from USA Today:

Juror: Zimmerman should have stayed in his car

By Laura Petrecca | July 15, 2013

When the six jury members in the George Zimmerman trial went in for deliberation, three were for acquittal, one was for second-degree murder and two were for the manslaughter charge, one of those jury members told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday…

She added that Zimmerman did have the right to carry his pistol, but he should have stayed in his car that night and not have gotten out to follow Trayvon…

Our media guardians are nothing if not dependable.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, July 16th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Juror: Zimmerman Had Right To Defend Himself”

  1. “but the six-woman jury ultimately voted to acquit him after more closely examining the law

    Well, hells bells! I would think that would be the pull quote from that interview. The fact that this jury did not buckle to pressure, did what the law requires and did not rely on the emotional nonsense the prosecution was peddling says a lot about their respect for our laws and our system. They should get our respect instead of the disdain that the press and the racist protesters have for them.

    First jury polls are notorious for being emotionally driven because they are taken just after the closing arguments. And they are almost always split. Once a jury looks at the evidence and reads the jury instructions and the appropriate law they usually make the right decision. Even in California….most of the time.

  2. “We cried”

    (mumble mumble mumble)

    Is it relative ease, wealth and leisure-time that’s made Americans so weak, stupid and emotional?




« Front Page | To Top
« | »