• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Juror says Zimmerman went "above and beyond" and has "learned a good lesson"

Status
Not open for further replies.

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
A juror in the George Zimmerman trial made her first public appearances since the trial reached its verdict on Saturday, saying race did not play a role in the jury’s decision but admitted she believes Zimmerman went "above and beyond" his role as a neighborhood watch member.

Juror B37, who asked to remain her anonymity, said she did not find the prosecution’s witnesses to be credible and that race did not play a role in the jury’s decision.

However, she also acknowledged her belief that Zimmerman went "above and beyond" in his decision to ignore police direction by confronting Trayvon Martin.

Appearing on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” she said neither she nor any of the other jurors discussed race when reviewing the case.

“I don’t think it did. If there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian; if they came in the same situation as Trayvon did, I think George would have reacted the same way,” she said.

“I think all of us thought race did not play a role. We never had that discussion. I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anyone that was acting strange.”

However, she did acknowledge that the jury was initially split on the decision, saying that two jurors initially pushed for a manslaughter charge and a third pushed for a second-degree murder conviction. Eventually, all settled on not guilty verdict.

And in a revealing moment, the juror said Zimmerman went “above and beyond” acceptable action by confronting Martin.

“[Zimmerman] got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he should have,” she said. “It just went terribly wrong. I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and called 911 he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.”

Juror B37 says she wants to maintain her anonymity but she has been willing to speak out on the case. As reported earlier on Monday, juror B37 announced plans to write a tell-all book about her experiences on the jury in the Zimmerman trial .

“Nobody knew exactly what happened,” Juror B37 said when asked about the specific details of the case. “I don’t think anybody knows.”

When asked if she feels sorry for the death of Trayvon Martin, she responded, “I feel sorry for both of them.”

“I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into,” she added. “I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.”

And in another revealing exchange, the juror said that while she agrees with the decision to return Zimmerman’s gun, she at first appeared hesitant when asked if she would want him serving in neighborhood watch in her own neighborhood.

“I think he has every right to carry a gun. I think everyone has a right to carry a gun.”

But Juror B37 paused for several seconds when Cooper asked about serving on a neighborhood watch in her own community.

“If he didn’t go too far,” she said. “He didn’t stop at the limitations he should have stopped at. I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson. I think he didn’t know when to stop.”

Juror B37 said she never wants to serve on a jury again. And admitted she has concerns about her own safety following the verdict.

“I’m not really scared, but I want to be cautious,” she said. “We cried over it afterwards. I don’t think any of us could ever do anything like that again.”
http://news.yahoo.com/-juror-says-z...ut-that-race-was-not-an-issue--010659567.html


Her initial Q&A with the counsel

A brief bio:

- A middle-aged white woman.

- Has worked for a chiropractor for 16 years and has many pets.

- She described protests in Sanford as "rioting."

- She has two daughters: A 24-year-old dog groomer and a 27-year-old who attends the University of Central Florida.

- She used to have concealed weapons permit, but let it lapse.

- Her husband is an attorney and has a CCW.

Why Did They Let Her on the Zimmerman Jury?: The strange, strange case of juror B37.-Slate

Gail Brashers-Krug, a former federal prosecutor and law professor, is currently a criminal defense attorney in Iowa. She also jumped back when B37 said, ”You never get all the information.“ “That's exactly what a defense attorney loves to hear,” says Brashers-Krug. “That's reasonable doubt, right there. If I were a prosecutor, that would make me extremely nervous about her.” She adds that B37’s devotion to animals might raise flags for her as well. “The animal thing is weird. She doesn't know how many animals she has, and she mentions her animals far, far more than her two daughters. She strikes me as eccentric and unpredictable. I never, ever want eccentric, unpredictable people on a jury.”

Brashers-Krug has another reservation about seating B37: “She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html
 
What a horrible precedent.

Killing an unarmed minor is acceptable because he didn't use good judgement.

...............

No. Fucking. Words.
 

cdkee

Banned
These jurors are ridiculous. Where do they find these people. I even read that one has signed a book deal, profiting from Martin's death, smh.
 

Smellycat

Member
Terrible. I would never want a jury of citizens to judge me if I somehow went to trial. So much ignorance and stupidity.

That line about writing her own book makes me sick.
 

DarkKyo

Member
I think the system no longer works if the public deciding these verdicts has become watered down with stupidity. Half the problem here was that it was half a jury and all women. The other half of the problem is that they are floridians.
 
“I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into,” she added. “I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.”



Wut? I don't...wow. I guess I won't ever go for Skittles in a light rain.
 

alterno69

Banned
Did the whole jury forgot the fact that a young man died at the hands of that man? When walking around his neighbothood? And he got his gun back too? I didn't know that but it is beyond fucked up, i'm sure Zimmerman learned a lesson alright but not the one they are expecting.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
I do not know how I would have voted on that jury, especially after following the trial as closely as everyone has. To much area where I wouldn't know EXACTLY what happened, and being told to sentence a man to a a long jail sentence when I couldn't say 100% sure "this is how it happened" would eat at me for all my life. That would make it hard to even go for a manslaughter charge, knowing I couldn't prove exactly how things went down.
 
I don't really know shit about the law, but sometimes things like this should just be handled in a different manner. Holy fuck this is nuts. He learned a good lesson?

So, a also on the wrist? Hell, I'm not we can even call it that since he can easily profit from this whole ordeal. He not only won, he came AHEAD!

This dude lied about things and we are supposed to believe him? That is not smart.
 
Imagine if everyone got a "gimme" as long as you "learned your lesson" afterwards.

There is something seriously wrong with a legal system that will put you in jail for smoking weed but turn a blind eye for taking another person's life.
 

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
Why Did They Let Her on the Zimmerman Jury?: The strange, strange case of juror B37.-Slate

Gail Brashers-Krug, a former federal prosecutor and law professor, is currently a criminal defense attorney in Iowa. She also jumped back when B37 said, ”You never get all the information.“ “That's exactly what a defense attorney loves to hear,” says Brashers-Krug. “That's reasonable doubt, right there. If I were a prosecutor, that would make me extremely nervous about her.” She adds that B37’s devotion to animals might raise flags for her as well. “The animal thing is weird. She doesn't know how many animals she has, and she mentions her animals far, far more than her two daughters. She strikes me as eccentric and unpredictable. I never, ever want eccentric, unpredictable people on a jury.”

Brashers-Krug has another reservation about seating B37: “She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html
 
I'm glad I live in Canada. The justice system in the USA makes me sick.
tumblr_mpkziqSW5m1sykvbko1_500.gif


plus in Canada, it's super hard to get off murder using a firearm. Yeah we have shorter jail sentences but murderers go to jail
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Thankfully I've never done Jury duty, so I remain absolutely baffled as to how three people went from "its manslaughter/murder" to "oh, he's not guilty of ANYTHING". Good work on backing down to get out early!
 

Crocodile

Member
I obviously missed this but why did this trial only have six jurors and why were they all the same gender? Of the few trials I've followed, I've only seen/heard of twelve jurors of mixed gender. I'm also curious as to their ethnicites if anybody knows.
 

Cmerrill

You don't need to be empathetic towards me.
Thankfully I've never done Jury duty, so I remain absolutely baffled as to how three people went from "its manslaughter/murder" to "oh, he's not guilty of ANYTHING". Good work on backing down to get out early!

Yeah, that is super weird, eh? It's disgusting really.
 

kirblar

Member
“I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into,” she added. “I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.”



Wut? I don't...wow. I guess I won't ever go for Skittles in a light rain.
It's the exact same reason the person reacting to a bully gets punished in school.
 

ZeroFate

Member
“I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into,” she added. “I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.”

Fairly certain one of them did try to make the decision to walk (run) away. Stupid cunt.
 

RangerX

Banned
This is reprehensible. This womans words are utterly indicative of the mindset that allow the laws that acquitted Zimmerman to be passed in the first place.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Thankfully I've never done Jury duty, so I remain absolutely baffled as to how three people went from "its manslaughter/murder" to "oh, he's not guilty of ANYTHING". Good work on backing down to get out early!

I imagine when you do the initial vote its far easier to say your "gut feeling" then it is after you've talked it out and heard everyone’s point of view. I stand by the fact I need a world of proof and hard evidence to put someone away. Its easy to say "jesus christ he obviously went after the kid with the intent to kill him, no way that was self-defense!" but a lot harder to then be told "ok sir, please sit down and make a choice about this man’s life, you yourself need to vote on what will happen to him". That takes it from an opinionated spectator to an actual person casting judgment, and that is a heavy weight. My opinion does not require much to sway, but when that opinion changes from just a personal view to something that could destroy a mans life with a simple "guilty/not guilty", I'll be FAR more critical of every single piece of evidence.
 

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
I added her initial interview with the counsel to the OP as well as the follow up Slate article that talks about why her interview should have set off red flags.


Also video is below.

Her initial Q&A with the counsel

A brief bio:

- A middle-aged white woman.

- Has worked for a chiropractor for 16 years and has many pets.

- She described protests in Sanford as "rioting."

- She has two daughters: A 24-year-old dog groomer and a 27-year-old who attends the University of Central Florida.

- She used to have concealed weapons permit, but let it lapse.

- Her husband is an attorney and has a CCW.
 
I stand by the fact I need a world of proof and hard evidence to put someone away.

Whether he had the intent or not, it does not change the fact that a otherwise innocent minor was killed directly as a result of this man's action and this man pulling a trigger.
 
This interview is fucking *stunning*.

This is what the jury deliberations sounded like in my imagination:

J1 - "This is so terrible. This is just so terrible. How can he not be held responsible for this? Screw the law. This is a heinous moral crime, whatever our laws say about it."
J2 - "Yes, we all know that. But we have a job to do."
J3 - <sobbing>
J2 - "Let's keep it together. By the letter of the law, are we in agreement that the prosecution has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?"
J3 - <sobbing> "I guess so."
J1 - "I can't believe this is happening. But yes..."
... and so on.

In reality, it seems that it looked a bit more like:

J1 - "It's sad that this all got so out of hand! Ack!"
J2 - "Haha! I know! Ugh! Sometimes this is what happens when you try to help people!"
J3 - "That George Zimmerman is so dreamy!"
 

MThanded

I Was There! Official L Receiver 2/12/2016
This interview is fucking *stunning*.

This is what the jury deliberations sounded like in my imagination:

J1 - "This is so terrible. This is just so terrible. How can he not be held responsible for this? Screw the law. This is a heinous moral crime, whatever our laws say about it."
J2 - "Yes, we all know that. But we have a job to do."
J3 - <sobbing>
J2 - "Let's keep it together. By the letter of the law, are we in agreement that the prosecution has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?"
J3 - <sobbing> "I guess so."
J1 - "I can't believe this is happening. But yes..."
... and so on.

In reality, it seems that it looked a bit more like:

J1 - "It's sad that this all got so out of hand! Ack!"
J2 - "Haha! I know! Ugh! Sometimes this is what happens when you try to help people!"
J3 - "That George Zimmerman is so dreamy!"

Yes I agree. I actually believe that he gets acquitted off the evidence. However, the comments the juror made makes it seem like that was not what was going on in that room.
 

marrec

Banned
This interview is fucking *stunning*.

This is what the jury deliberations sounded like in my imagination:

J1 - "This is so terrible. This is just so terrible. How can he not be held responsible for this? Screw the law. This is a heinous moral crime, whatever our laws say about it."
J2 - "Yes, we all know that. But we have a job to do."
J3 - <sobbing>
J2 - "Let's keep it together. By the letter of the law, are we in agreement that the prosecution has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?"
J3 - <sobbing> "I guess so."
J1 - "I can't believe this is happening. But yes..."
... and so on.

In reality, it seems that it looked a bit more like:

J1 - "It's sad that this all got so out of hand! Ack!"
J2 - "Haha! I know! Ugh! Sometimes this is what happens when you try to help people!"
J3 - "That George Zimmerman is so dreamy!"

Having sat in on a Jury... that's not exactly too far from the truth for some people.

I'm not quite understanding the Juror's reasoning for acquitting Zimmerman. She acknowledges that he went too far... but he learned his lesson? I thought we had laws so that people could be appropriately punished and reformed, not to teach lessons.
 

kirblar

Member
Yes I agree. I actually believe that he gets acquitted off the evidence. However, the comments the juror made makes it seem like that was not what was going on in that room.
Well, with half of them at least. The half that started on Manslaughter/Murder likely weren't thinking that way.
Saying that what the juror said was salt in the wound is unacceptable on GAF now?
The post implies this thread is salty.
 
Yes I agree. I actually believe that he gets acquitted off the evidence. However, the comments the juror made makes it seem like that was not what was going on in that room.

Unless B-37 is on a different planet than the other jurors, it's clear that this was never even a contest.

I made a remark last week about 90% of trial outcomes being determined at jury selection. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. But... wow!
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I imagine when you do the initial vote its far easier to say your "gut feeling" then it is after you've talked it out and heard everyone’s point of view. I stand by the fact I need a world of proof and hard evidence to put someone away. Its easy to say "jesus christ he obviously went after the kid with the intent to kill him, no way that was self-defense!" but a lot harder to then be told "ok sir, please sit down and make a choice about this man’s life, you yourself need to vote on what will happen to him". That takes it from an opinionated spectator to an actual person casting judgment, and that is a heavy weight. My opinion does not require much to sway, but when that opinion changes from just a personal view to something that could destroy a mans life with a simple "guilty/not guilty", I'll be FAR more critical of every single piece of evidence.

I'm sure many other people have weighed in on this a hundred times, but living personally in a society where people dont randomly carry guns around and play make-believe super cop, I just can't see how this man can be absolved of everything without some terrifying mental gymnastics. After reporting someone for no reason other than "looks shifty!", he then takes the law into his own hands and hunts a kid down who UNSURPRISINGLY doesn't react well. Then shoots him.

And a jury of peers has just agreed thats a-ok. No probs here.
 

kirblar

Member
I'm sure many other people have weighed in on this a hundred times, but living personally in a society where people dont randomly carry guns around and play make-believe super cop, I just can't see how this man can be absolved of everything without some terrifying mental gymnastics. After reporting someone for no reason other than "looks shifty!", he then takes the law into his own hands and hunts a kid down who UNSURPRISINGLY doesn't react well. Then shoots him.

And a jury of peers has just agreed thats a-ok. No probs here.
You know how some kids travel to school along 1 foot wide mountain roads every day and don't think anything of the danger? That's the problem in the US when discussing firearms with people who have grown up with them.
 
Thankfully I've never done Jury duty, so I remain absolutely baffled as to how three people went from "its manslaughter/murder" to "oh, he's not guilty of ANYTHING". Good work on backing down to get out early!

There are alphas and betas in juries. One side pretty much breaks the other down and it is what it is.
 
I'm sure many other people have weighed in on this a hundred times, but living personally in a society where people dont randomly carry guns around and play make-believe super cop, I just can't see how this man can be absolved of everything without some terrifying mental gymnastics. After reporting someone for no reason other than "looks shifty!", he then takes the law into his own hands and hunts a kid down who UNSURPRISINGLY doesn't react well. Then shoots him.

And a jury of peers has just agreed thats a-ok. No probs here.

Every time I try to think through the case, I wind up getting stuck on the fact that the motherfucker is carrying a goddamned killing machine through the streets. And then I have to check myself and go "Remember, TruthJunky: they're allowed to carry guns there!" And then I go "What the fuck?!?!"
 

Seanspeed

Banned
I imagine when you do the initial vote its far easier to say your "gut feeling" then it is after you've talked it out and heard everyone’s point of view. I stand by the fact I need a world of proof and hard evidence to put someone away. Its easy to say "jesus christ he obviously went after the kid with the intent to kill him, no way that was self-defense!" but a lot harder to then be told "ok sir, please sit down and make a choice about this man’s life, you yourself need to vote on what will happen to him". That takes it from an opinionated spectator to an actual person casting judgment, and that is a heavy weight. My opinion does not require much to sway, but when that opinion changes from just a personal view to something that could destroy a mans life with a simple "guilty/not guilty", I'll be FAR more critical of every single piece of evidence.
Well said.

Don't forget that any charge has to be proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
 

wildfire

Banned
Unless B-37 is on a different planet than the other jurors, it's clear that this was never even a contest.

I made a remark last week about 90% of trial outcomes being determined at jury selection. So I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. But... wow!

Considering the prosecution has the power to refuse a limited amount of potential candidates I'm wondering if they screwed up or everyone else was clearly worse. If the latter, I would have a dim view of Florida.
 
The fact that she so casually says "he learned his lesson" shows just how little she and her fellow jurors valued TM's life. And they say this isn't about race. Give me a break.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom