Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
lady, you were on the jury; if you thought he was guilty of murder, why didn’t you convict him? “The law couldn’t prove it.”
Now wait a minute. If the law couldn’t prove he committed murder, then he didn’t commit murder. You are the one who sat through the entire trial, heard all the evidence, heard the jury instruction, and found him not guilty. “Murder” is a specific crime. He didn’t commit murder. You said so.
Yes, Zimmerman killed a man. Lots of soldiers and cops have killed men, too. But none of them committed “murder.”
She’s accusing him of a horrible crime that she, herself, decided he didn’t commit. That’s slander. Somebody should tell her to pipe down.
Joe Doakes
When I first heard the story, the first thing I thought was “George Zimmerman should have a pretty righteous defamation case”.
The second? I think it was PJ O’Rourke who said the problem with our justice system is that your fate is decided by 12 people who couldn’t get out of jury duty…
It’s the same problem we’ve had for eons. The Commandments are often translated as “Thou shalt not kill” when it’s really “Thou shalt not murder.” But folks often mistake one for the other. Would killing Hitler during WW2 really have been murder?
It reminds me of the story I heard of the biker who was confronted by a PETA activist who said that a cow was murdered to make his jacket. To which the biker replied, “I didn’t think there was witnesses. Now I gotta kill you too.”
I have to disagree with Joe – it is a perfectly tenable position to say that “I believe he did it, but the state didn’t prove that to me beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s actually demonstrating a remarkable willingness to set aside your own prejudices and decide the case according to the rule of law.
That she’s now going out and doing interviews about it is a demonstration of the remarkable inability of average people to pass up the chance to collect their 15 minutes of fame.
johnsq316 wrote:
“I have to disagree with Joe – it is a perfectly tenable position to say that “I believe he did it, but the state didn’t prove that to me beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Did what, Johnsq316? If she has a reasonable doubt, how can she say “I believe Zimmerman murdered Trayvon”? Wouldn’t it be just as accurate (or confusing) for the juror to say “I have a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon”?
Innocent is not one of the options for jurors and for good reason.
I suppose I’m being too technical, but the specific word “murder” bothers me.
The FBI recently conducted an internal investigation that concluded every single one of its 150 shootings in the last 20 years was justified.
So is it fair to say FBI agents routinely get away with murder? The FBI is a murderous agency? FBI agents are murderers?
No. Because if it’s justified, it’s not murder. Murder specifically means unjustified. There was no doubt Zimmerman killed Trayvon, everybody admitted that. The question was solely whether it was justified. Zimmerman proved it was, to the jury’s satisfaction.
So it was not murder. And she shouldn’t say it was.
.
The comment by johnsq316 is correct.The juror did well to apply the law as it was explained to her. Proving that a jury of peers can be trusted to enforce the laws, rather than write their own inside their heads. .
Proving that a jury of peers can be trusted to enforce the laws, rather than write their own inside their heads
Said Ron Goldman and Nicole Smith never.
Lets go over a couple of facts about this juror:
One, she said that she wanted to find George Zimmerman guilty of something. That was what a lot of people were afraid that was going to happen.
Two, now that she is in public and maybe want to avoid mobs going after her not to mention make money she wants to say that okay the law sucks so I will call it murder even though the state of Florida doesn’t.
Three, she said that she owes the Martin family an apology. Well where’s the apology to George Zimmerman? After all she agreed with the law and defense that George Zimmerman was acting in self defense therefore she can’t use the word murder.
Four, she made a comment which the left seems to be ignoring that George Zimmerman is going to have to explain this to God some day. Mind you I think saying that I made mistakes which I ask to be forgiven for and lived all my life with will be a good enough explanation.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
One, she said that she wanted to find George Zimmerman guilty of something.
An important reason for adopting the Bill of Rights was that the delegates did not like the idea, not uncommon in European courts, of inventing crimes so people could be found to have committed them. This is exactly what most blacks and some whites want: they want Zimmerman found guilty of . . . something. ‘Overzealous self-defense’, perhaps? Whatever it is, the definition of the crime will change the first time it is applied to someone the blacks and libs don’t want to see charged with it.
@MBerg
When you have a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law is the foundation of the legal system to the jury that provided a verdict in accordance with the law. Not your role to provide moral interpretations