• 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'

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.

Again, a juror is supposed to START from a position that the defendant is innocent. It is the evidence presented that is supposed to lead you to a belief the defendant is guilty. If she believed he was guilty based upon her participation in the trial then it should have been based on the evidence she saw. Her "gut feeling'" should not even exist. For her to come out later and state she thought he was guilty but could not prove it? That's pure b/s.

I'm not saying he is innocent, although I give him the benefit of the doubt. I am saying no juror should be trying to prove he was guilty, that is not their job. They are supposed to use the evidence to support a good faith belief in guilt when discussing it, and if she continued to feel that way she was entitled to hold out and vote guilty until a hung jury was determined.
 
Last edited:
Again, a juror is supposed to START from a position that the defendant is innocent. It is the evidence presented that is supposed to lead you to a belief the defendant is guilty. If she believed he was guilty based upon her participation in the trial then it should have been based on the evidence she saw. Her "gut feeling'" should not even exist. For her to come out later and state she thought he was guilty but could not prove it? That's pure b/s.


#1) Do you think it's even remotely possible for any juror to walk into day one of that trial with no pre-conceived notion of guilt or innocence?

#2) "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is and always will be the key phrase.

The evidence fully supports a not guilty verdict. You base your decision as a juror on evidence. Not emotion. Not gut feeling.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Do you think OJ Simpson is guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend?

You can easily "know in your heart and soul" that somebody is guilty of a crime, yet logically find them not-guilty based on the evidence and strict interpretation of the law.
 
#1) Do you think it's even remotely possible for any juror to walk into day one of that trial with no pre-conceived notion of guilt or innocence?

#2) "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is and always will be the key phrase.

The evidence fully supports a not guilty verdict. You base your decision as a juror on evidence. Not emotion. Not gut feeling.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Do you think OJ Simpson is guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend?

You can easily "know in your heart and soul" that somebody is guilty of a crime, yet logically find them not-guilty based on the evidence and strict interpretation of the law.

1. That is what jury selection is about, to weed out prior bias. Apparently the defense team didn't ask the right questions or she lied to get on the jury.

2. Exactly, and if she had a reasonable doubt, then her gut feeling post-trial statement is B/S for public consumption.

Do I think OJ is guilty of murdering his wife and her freind? The same answer I always give...I don't know and since a jury found him not guilty I opt to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he is innocent too. I will stick to that until he either confesses or new evdence comes to light absolutely proving he was guilty.
 
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

A person is not innocent until proven guilty. That's the most asinine misinterpretation of what the law calls for I've seen, and it's fascinating how many people think it is the case.


In a court of law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Presumed. Whether or not a person is actually guilty of committing a crime has nothing to do with what happens in court. Nothing.

A guilty person can be found not guilty. An innocent person can be found guilty. Their actual guilt or innocence is not affected by court proceedings. Only the legal system's presumptions about their guilt or innocence can be altered by court proceedings.
 
I don't take it as her "walking back" anything. She was for murder 2 right out of the gate but at that point she hadn't had the law explained to her. I actually commend her for putting her personal opinions aside and offering up a proper legal opinion.
But that does not require an apology to Trayvons parents.
These jurors should still be under a gag order with an impending DOJ indictment.
 
How does she know he's a murderer, which is a legal term, if there wasn't evidence to prove he was a murderer? Why does she claim she voted originally for 2nd degree murder if there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him? What does she accomplish, other than protection of herself, by claiming that he's a murderer but not guilty? She should have kept her mouth shut, period.

.

I think she says the term "murder" while what she means is "killing or killed"... killing is not necessarily murder... self defense would not be murder as was the finding result of this trial... so she probably simply misspoke.

What is troubling is that she feels this separate obligation, that she let down the Martin family. Trayvon let down his family, this juror was just assuring justice. While Zimmerman may not have been completely innocent of putting himself in a bad situation, that gives nobody a right to punch and break his nose then start jamming his head against the sidewalk...once taken that far then there is definitely the right to self defense.
 
I don't take it as her "walking back" anything. She was for murder 2 right out of the gate but at that point she hadn't had the law explained to her. I actually commend her for putting her personal opinions aside and offering up a proper legal opinion.

Point of information, during jury selection potential jurors are told that they are not supposed to enter trial with preconceived notions other than to presume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Go to court sometime and sit in on jury selection. Jurors know what's expected before the sit in trial. They only get specific instructions on how to handle evidence and how to make determinations ust prior to being sequestered.

NO JUROR should be for anything "right out of the gate." They may have evidence they think indicates guilt and can argue it, and they can use any piece of evidence which serves to preserve guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to stand their ground and vote guilty until there is a hung jury. But if they find that the evidence does not support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and they vote not guilty...then they need to stand by that decision and not wuss out to avoid responsibilty for their vote.
 
Last edited:
Point of information, during jury selection potential jurors are told that they are not supposed to enter trial with preconceived notions other then to presume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Go to court sometime and sit in on jury selection. Jurors know what's expected before the sit in trial. They only get specific instructions on how to handle evidence and how to make determinations ust prior to being sequestered.

NO JUROR should be for anything "right out of the gate."

People are human. If you tell them to do one thing half are going to start out doing the opposite. That's just life.
 
But that does not require an apology to Trayvons parents.
These jurors should still be under a gag order with an impending DOJ indictment.

No, it doesn't require an apology but if she went into this thing thinking "guilty" (and I'd be really surprised if she didn't) then I can understand the comment. This woman isn't a lawyer and probably doesn't know much about the law in general so she was primarily going off what she felt was right until she ran into the the law and found out that feelings don't apply there.

Is she, perhaps, covering her backside from the crazies? Maybe, and that would be understandable too but I'm sure not going to condemn her for it. She's free to believe whatever she wants to believe as long as she performed in accordance with the law during the trial.
 
Are you suggesting she lied to get on the jury?

I'm suggesting that she may very well have had some preconceived notions before her selection. I don't know that she would have necessarily characterized them as such but I'd be surprised if they weren't there. Again, most people don't have any idea when it comes to legal definitions of things so when the lawyer or judge ask about "preconceived notions" that may well have meant "ham sandwich" to her.
 
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

She apparently thinks everytime someone dies it is murder, self-defense apparently means nothing to her. Glad she stuck to the letter of the law though and not her emotions.
 
No, it doesn't require an apology but if she went into this thing thinking "guilty" (and I'd be really surprised if she didn't) then I can understand the comment. This woman isn't a lawyer and probably doesn't know much about the law in general so she was primarily going off what she felt was right until she ran into the the law and found out that feelings don't apply there.

Is she, perhaps, covering her backside from the crazies? Maybe, and that would be understandable too but I'm sure not going to condemn her for it. She's free to believe whatever she wants to believe as long as she performed in accordance with the law during the trial.
Worried about the crazies? Dont show your face. Simple concept.
 
I'm suggesting that she may very well have had some preconceived notions before her selection. I don't know that she would have necessarily characterized them as such but I'd be surprised if they weren't there. Again, most people don't have any idea when it comes to legal definitions of things so when the lawyer or judge ask about "preconceived notions" that may well have meant "ham sandwich" to her.

That's why you need to sit and view some jury selection procedures. A defense attorney is not going to use "big words," he is going to ask straight out, do you think so and so is guilty? Then he will provide some scenarios and ask random jurors if they would find the person guilty or not. The whole process is done to isolate jurors who are biased and have them removed for cause, in order to save peremptory challenges for jurors they feel are bad news for their case.

Now, if she was unbiased but during the trial she heard evidence that tilted her to guilty, then that is the evidence she should have used to make her case in the jury room. ANY piece of evidence that she felt removed reasonable doubt would be sufficient. For example, if she felt that Trayvon's female freind's initial testimony was credible, but that the defense's repetitive questions to trip her up was a bad tactic, that's all she'd need to keep voting Guilty. Right up until a hung jury was declared.
 
"Six Angry Women", coming to theaters summer 2014.
I am sure B-29 has visions of Rosie Perez or Selma Hayek playing her.
 
Oh yeah, Blacks are "brown", Hispanics are kinda "brown".


First of all, this is a serious misstatement even though it was an attempt at ridicule. If you look at this particular juror, I would suggest that she is more culturally Hispanic and by race she appears to be more black Hispanic... I live part-time in Panama, there are distinct differences between Hispanics/Latinos who are more indigenous, or more black or more of European descent.

Makes perfect sense that they'd think alike, and that all members of both groups would think identically.
Nobody was saying that, "all" of anything... does not mean there is not a high likelihood, that there does seem to be a provable defacto understanding of what should and can be said in and about the black community by members, and extended members, of the black community. If you step out, like say a Condoleezza Rice or a Clarence Thomas, you are not considered a valid part of the "community"... and are often subject to, and objects of, scorn.

To deny this is to deny the truth.
 
He got away with it scot-free.

Yes, he got away with self defense, like everyone else should, scot-free... so what is your point?

And I would rather think this has taken quite a toll on his life... he should never have been charged and I think he should start taking his sorely earned restitution claims to the courts and make those who were grandstanding this the whole time pay with losing their jobs... and shelling out some bucks for this disservice to a fellow citizen.
 
B-29 is looking to get paid. Pretty obvious.

I have no doubt that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etal, are in contact with her and her representatives now preparing to parade her out as the poor juror who knew the truth but got railroaded into a wrong verdict by those viscious white women. Let the exploitation begin.
 
Last edited:
Yes, he got away with self defense, like everyone else should, scot-free... so what is your point?

And I would rather think this has taken quite a toll on his life... he should never have been charged and I think he should start taking his sorely earned restitution claims to the courts and make those who were grandstanding this the whole time pay with losing their jobs... and shelling out some bucks for this disservice to a fellow citizen.

My point? You committed murder but they hand out a booklet to you and tell you, you are not guilty of murder.
 
This woman's experience demonstrates why there needs to be fairness in the judicial process. Trumping up charges based off misleading statements, avoiding the grand jury protection, and waxing emotional the entire trial from opening remarks to closing statements without regard to the evidence of the case should be criminal. The prosecuting attorneys obviously have done harm this woman by building up such an emotional case while placing her in a position where her only reasonable choice, known from the outset, was not guilty. They literally backed her into an emotional corner and to her it probably felt like she was being forced to stab TM and his family in the back. Jurors need to be respected and protected within the legal system. Damaging them in this way is the result of an irresponsible and morally reprehensible prosecution. Such prosecutorial tactics should not be tolerated as they do more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
What I don't get is that she said she went into deliberations believing it was second degree murder but then she goes on to say she thinks it should never have gone to trial. Does this make sense???
 
My point? You committed murder but they hand out a booklet to you and tell you, you are not guilty of murder.

Ok, lets say I pop out from behind a bush, punch you in the nose, break it, jump on you and start bashing your head against a concrete sidewalk... what do YOU do then? Scream until your brains are on the sidewalk and you cannot scream anymore? Or would you, if you had a way, defend yourself?

How is it you get murder from that? And what would self defense mean to you? It can only occur in your own house maybe? Anywhere else you are attacked you just have to take it? Just wondering how far this silliness might go.
 
First of all, this is a serious misstatement even though it was an attempt at ridicule. If you look at this particular juror, I would suggest that she is more culturally Hispanic and by race she appears to be more black Hispanic... I live part-time in Panama, there are distinct differences between Hispanics/Latinos who are more indigenous, or more black or more of European descent.

Excellent analysis!

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, dark skinned Puerto Ricans and African Americans are more or less the same thing because they have similar dark skin tones.

Any analysis on how dark skinned Hispanics feel about fried chicken and watermelon?

Nobody was saying that, "all" of anything... does not mean there is not a high likelihood, that there does seem to be a provable defacto understanding of what should and can be said in and about the black community by members, and extended members, of the black community. If you step out, like say a Condoleezza Rice or a Clarence Thomas, you are not considered a valid part of the "community"... and are often subject to, and objects of, scorn.

To deny this is to deny the truth.

So what you're saying is that the "black community", in whatever outrageous manner you wish to describe it, considers President Obama an objecy worthy of scorn because he doesn't sag his jeans and drink 40s on the White House stoop?

Honestly dude, he started digging the hole, then when he got tired you decided you'd pick up the shovel.

So now we've got ignorantracisim^2.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
What I don't get is that she said she went into deliberations believing it was second degree murder but then she goes on to say she thinks it should never have gone to trial. Does this make sense???

It does not really make any sense, no. She, apparently, was being educated into the nuance of killing versus murder as the trial progressed. I think there is a shallowness of thought of many who have just never taken the time to see the subtle or stark differences. Fortunately she learned, kinda... hard to tell with her contradictory statements as you indicated.
 
Ok, lets say I pop out from behind a bush, punch you in the nose, break it, jump on you and start bashing your head against a concrete sidewalk... what do YOU do then? Scream until your brains are on the sidewalk and you cannot scream anymore? Or would you, if you had a way, defend yourself?

How is it you get murder from that? And what would self defense mean to you? It can only occur in your own house maybe? Anywhere else you are attacked you just have to take it? Just wondering how far this silliness might go.

Hear it from a second juror.

ORLANDO, Fla. – The second juror to speak publicly told ABC News in an interview made available Thursday that she feels George Zimmerman got away with murder for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, but that there wasn't enough evidence at trial to convict him under Florida law.


Read more: Zimmerman trial juror says she owes Martin's parents apology | Fox News
 
Back
Top Bottom