• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'

I just watched the video... I'm glad that woman had enough sense to follow the law, rather than, well... whatever it is in her where her irrational beliefs come from.. Her saying that Zimmerman got away with murder is just a big a crock, and just as ridiculous as when Sharpton or Jesse Jackson says it.


Two points:

1. You notice that this is the first time a juror has appeared on the big 3, and of course it's a big deal because she says exactly what they want to hear.

2. Hey Shewolf, notice she was the holdout juror and the one who almost caused a hung jury? So what is different about her from the other women? Why would she say he got away with murder and the evidence showed this even though we all know it didn't?
 
If I were this juror, I would've kept my mouth shut. She's going to be more of a target now from the rabid anti-Zimmerman crowd because she didn't, oddly enough, stand her ground.
The Trays will love her. She is saying exactly what they want to hear, till she gets to the part where there should not have been a trail and no evidence to convict George. And Bernie used a pre-emptive challenge to throw off a black man to get her?? I think Bernie did throw the trial. Imagine being a fellow juror and trying to explain things to her, although to their credit, the court was asked to elaborate on "manslaughter" which both the prosecution and judge refused to do.
 
Last edited:
The Trays will love her. She is saying exactly what they want to hear, till she gets to the part where there should not have been a trail and no evidence to convict George. And Bernie used a pre-emptive challenge to throw off a black man to get her?? I think Bernie did throw the trial. Imagine being a fellow juror and trying to explain things to her, although to their credit, the court was asked to elaborate on "manslaughter" which both the prosecution and judge refused to do.


She also said it had nothing to do with race...bet they ignore that too
 
The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.

The court had sealed the jurors' identities during the trial and still hasn't lifted the order, but Juror B29 edged out of the shadows in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts. She allowed her face to be shown, but -- concerned for her safety -- used only a first name of Maddy.

Watch More of the Interview Thursday on "World News" at 6:30 p.m. ET and Friday on "Good Morning America" at 7 a.m. ET

The nursing assistant and mother of eight children was selected as a juror five months after she had moved to Seminole County, Fla., from Chicago.

All six of the jurors were women and Maddy, 36, who is Puerto Rican, was the only minority to deliberate in the racially charged case. Zimmerman, 29, was a white Hispanic and Martin, 17, was black.

Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn't want to speak for her fellow jurors.

But her feelings about Zimmerman's actions are clear.

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

When the jury of six women—five of them mothers—began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge.

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.

Zimmerman concedes he shot and killed Martin in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintains he fired in self-defense.

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "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."

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."

"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.

As a mother, Maddy said she has had trouble adjusting to life after the verdict, and has wrestled with whether she made the right decision.

"I felt like I let a lot of people down, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?'" she said.

"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."

Maddy said she has sympathy for Martin's parents and believes she, too, would continue the crusade for justice if this had happened to her son.

She said she believes she owes Trayvon Martin's parents an apology because she feels "like I let them down."

"It's hard for me to sleep, it's hard for me to eat because I feel I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin's death. And as I carry him on my back, I'm hurting as much Trayvon's Martin's mother because there's no way that any mother should feel that pain," she said.

Maddy is the second juror to speak in a televised interview, and the first to show her face.

Juror B37, whose face and body were hidden, appeared last week on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, and said that she believes Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place" when he became suspicious of Martin and that the teenager probably threw the first punch.

Since then, four other jurors distanced themselves from B37's remarks and released a statement saying B37's opinions were "not in any way representative" of their own.

George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder' - ABC News


Take that B**tches
bam.jpg
 
Just can't help thinking: if this had been a white man shooting another white man would this minority woman STILL have been the lone holdout who almost hung the jury? Somehow I doubt it.
 
Take what, exactly?

Many, let's call them Zimmerman supporters, claimed throughout their many posts about this case to have known that the jury members considered Zimmerman innocent and that they completely believed his stories. I argued that they don't actually know that and won't until or unless other jurors step forward and share what they thought themselves.
 
In reading articles about the interview, it is clear to me that she felt GZ committed murder. Yet, when reading the law, it became clear GZ did not and she had to put her feelings aside. She stated the evidence was not there for a conviction.

Someone can feel whatever they want. In court cases, the jury must follow the law and base decisions on the law. Not how they feel.

It facinates me how so called journalist like to hype a story.
 
she says Zimmerman got away with murder then explains why he wasn't guilty of murder. She is a very weak minded individual either because she was talked onto going against her original conclusion or she regrets her decision for a not guilty verdict not because it was a wrong decision but because of the protest about the verdict. she probably caught a rash of **** from her friends and or family and this interview was a way to save face and make amends
 
Take what? That she followed the law as she was told to do?

I consistently said she followed the law and should have. I respect our system however flawed. The point of the BAM was that I had also always argued, against those that claimed to know what all the jurors believed Z was innocent, that you can not make that statement until the jurors come out and tell us what they were thinking and what went on for them. Also, that not guilty does not mean innocent. She supports both my arguments.
 
I consistently said she followed the law and should have. I respect our system however flawed. The point of the BAM was that I had also always argued, against those that claimed to know what all the jurors believed Z was innocent, that you can not make that statement until the jurors come out and tell us what they were thinking and what went on for them. Also, that not guilty does not mean innocent. She supports both my arguments.

Who thinks "not guilty" means "innocent"?
 
In reading articles about the interview, it is clear to me that she felt GZ committed murder. Yet, when reading the law, it became clear GZ did not and she had to put her feelings aside. She stated the evidence was not there for a conviction.

Someone can feel whatever they want. In court cases, the jury must follow the law and base decisions on the law. Not how they feel.

It facinates me how so called journalist like to hype a story.

You are not getting it. What in shows is that a person can return a not guilty verdict because of the way a law is written or because of the charges the prosecutor chose to file not because they do not think the defendant is actually innocent.
 
Who thinks "not guilty" means "innocent"?

I have had multiple debates with people on this site who could not understand the distinction.
 
You are not getting it. What in shows is that a person can return a not guilty verdict because of the way a law is written or because of the charges the prosecutor chose to file not because they do not think the defendant is actually innocent.

no your not getting it. we are a nation of laws and the law states you are innocent till proven guilty and guess what he was found not guilty there for he is innocent never did he ever lose his innocence. now if you don't like that law you can always move to some other country that your guilty till you prove your innocence
 
You are not getting it. What in shows is that a person can return a not guilty verdict because of the way a law is written or because of the charges the prosecutor chose to file not because they do not think the defendant is actually innocent.

Oh I get it. We have laws for a reason. To eliminate "feelings". If a law is written and the majority don't like the law, then the majority needs to elect reps who will change the law. Till then, the law stands.

So, I feel OJ should have been convicted of murder. The jury disagreed. So by law, OJ was found not guilty. If enough of us "feel" OJ is guilty, can we have him arrested and tried again. Oh wait, there is a law that says we can't do that. I feel the law is unjust in this case. What this shows is "feelings" have no place in court. The law and the evidence is all that should count.

In the article then we would most likely would have had a hung jury. One person out of six does not equate to conviction.

We will disagree. I understand your point. I just don't accept it. Like I stated. The State should have taken the case to a grand jury first. They chose to play politics instead.
 
The jury had to consider Stand our Ground as part of Flor-i duh's law and as such found Zimmerman within that cowboys law's liberal interpretation of what "self defense " means.
In a normal state with normal self defense laws he would be seen as a murderer. He would be in jail right now. Flor-i-duh's law is ****ed up.
 
Many, let's call them Zimmerman supporters, claimed throughout their many posts about this case to have known that the jury members considered Zimmerman innocent and that they completely believed his stories. I argued that they don't actually know that and won't until or unless other jurors step forward and share what they thought themselves.

I don't know how anyone could say anything definitive about what the jurors believed, or what they deliberated about without statements by the jurors themselves. I don't recall seeing such comments by posters here, but no big deal.
 
In a normal state with normal self defense laws he would be seen as a murderer. He would be in jail right now. Flor-i-duh's law is ****ed up.

Wrong!

In any other state he would have been freed by self defense also.
 
The only thing this woman is doing wrong, or did wrong was talk to the media about it.

I fully understand what she's saying, but she shouldn't be saying it. At least not now.

I see her at this point as whoring herself out. Grabbing attention.

All she's really doing is just making things worse, not better.

She should shut her damn mouth and say nothing about the trial for at least a year.
 
The only reason for a juror to speak out is to have a personal publicity stunt.
Well she does have 8 kids to feed. Did she get paid for this interview?
 
The only thing this woman is doing wrong, or did wrong was talk to the media about it.

NO! The only thing she did wrong was allow the other jurors to sway her vote! If she honestly believed he was guilty of murder and she still thinks so NOW, then she should have stuck to her guns however long it took and settle on a Hung Jury if nothing else.

Talking this crap afterwards? Either she is lying to try to distance herself from the verdict SHE VOTED ON; or she must take full responsibility for failing in her duty as a juror. In either case she deserves no respect for her current public position. :smash:
 
Last edited:
He got away with it scot-free.
 
NO! The only thing she did wrong was allow the other jurors to sway her vote! If she honestly believed he was guilty of murder and she still thinks so NOW, then she should have stuck to her guns however long it took and settle on a Hung Jury if nothing else.

Talking this crap afterwards? Either she is lying to try to distance herself from the verdict SHE VOTED ON; or she must take full responsibility for failing in her duty as a juror. In either case she deserves no respect for her current public position. :smash:


No - you can believe someone is guilty, but understand that the evidence does not support your gut feeling.

As a jurist, your job is to make a decision based on the evidence and the law - not your gut feeling.
 
Back
Top Bottom