• 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.

About Juror B29. Did George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder?

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Did George Zimmerman Get Away With Murder?

The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true.


By William Saletan|Posted Friday, July 26, 2013, at 1:27 PM

Did George Zimmerman get away with murder? That’s what one of his jurors says, according to headlines in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers. Trayvon Martin’s mother and the Martin family’s attorney are trumpeting this “new information” as proof that “George Zimmerman literally got away with murder.”

The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first name, Maddy. She’s been framed as the woman who was bullied out of voting to convict Zimmerman. But that’s not true. She stands by the verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty. And she wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of race and justice.

[...]

1. The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth.
[...]

2. She stands by the verdict.
[...]

3. She thinks the case should never have gone to trial.
[...]

4. The jury was not ethnically divided on Zimmerman’s culpability.
[...]

5. Race wasn’t discussed, and she didn’t focus on it.
[...]

6. She was no pushover in the jury room.
[...]

7. To the extent she feels racial or ethnic pressure, it’s against Zimmerman.
[...]

8. Acquittal is not personal—or national—exoneration.
[...]

Did George Zimmerman get away with murder? No. Juror B29 is being framed. - Slate Magazine



I still think she was a stealth Juror.
 
People who like the verdict tend to hold her up as a model juror. Frankly, I find her to be so all over the place that I disagree independent of the verdict. She is trying to say things to feed both sides. She is going to take her 15 minutes of fame however she can get it.
 
I have no sympathy for a juror that goes on television to state that they didn't have a choice but to find the way she did behind the closed door of the jury room. I saw her interview, and she is playing to the press and the minority groups that are upset with the verdict. What a joke.

If a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be found guilty of the crime for which they are charged. If they are not guilty, they are so found, as evidently in this case.

This person has no credibility with me.

The evidence, not the emotion or wishes of anyone involved, is what made the determination. The excuse by many that "Peer" pressure made her change her vote is ridiculous. The evidence was not there for a murder conviction. If it was, she would have, or at least should have, held to her vote and opinion. This woman needs to be careful or she may end up on the wrong end of a liable suit.. and in my opinion, she should.

If she felt he had committed murder, she should have hung the jury or swayed the other jurors by the evidence, and stuck to her opinion. If she truly believed he was guilty, she would have not moved off of that opinion. I've been on a capital murder jury, and held to my opinion against most of the other jury members. It was very difficult, and took us almost two weeks to deliberate.I held to the facts of the case, and stuck to just the evidence. It was a very emotional case. A child killed by a man that was trash. A blight on the community. But emotion has no place in the jury room when you're debating the future of another person's life. I hated the bastard. He was a piece of trash. But he was not guilty of murder. We found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which was offered to us as a lesser charge. Did I want to find him guilty of murder? You're damn right I did, I wanted him to fry for what happened, but he wasn't guilty of that charge.

The same, in reverse, goes for this "juror" and she should have stuck to her belief and her opinion, even if it meant a hung jury. But she obviously couldn't because the evidence was not there. This woman, IMHO, is only trying to justify her vote in the jury room, and to prevent being painted as a racist or something else derogatory by the civil rights industry that's making hay out of this case.

The law is the law. The facts are the facts. And, this case is over.
 
My guess is she was affected by the reaction after her release from sequester. The uproar, protests, probably heard from friends or family. All that made her second guess herself.
 
My guess is she was affected by the reaction after her release from sequester. The uproar, protests, probably heard from friends or family. All that made her second guess herself.

I think people who second guess themselves do not book interviews. She is in it for her. "I'm gonna get mine."
 
What gets me is that despite her acknowledgement that there was no evidence to support a conviction, she would say ( or repeat ) anything that would enable anyone to construct even an edited interview that suggested she felt there was.
Willingly or not ... she was used.
 
Back
Top Bottom