Did racism skew the Zimmerman verdict?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Jury Rigged

One of the six jurors in the Trayvon Martin case, identified only as juror B37, has come forward to explain George Zimmerman’s acquittal. Her account, presented on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 over the last two nights and in a statement today, clarifies many things. Some of her revelations are shocking. Many are illuminating. Here’s what we can learn from them so far.

1. She’s one of the most pro-Zimmerman jurors. Bear this in mind before you impute her views to others. She told Cooper the jury’s initial vote was one for second-degree murder, two for manslaughter, and three for acquittal. She was in the acquittal camp. Nearly everything she told Cooper matched what the defense had argued. Four of the other five jurors have issued a statement warning, “the opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below." Also see Dahlia Lithwick’s thorough examination of this juror’s peculiarities.

2. Her understanding of racial bias is narrow. She said race was never discussed in the jury room. Beyond that, she didn’t purport to speak for anyone else. When Cooper asked whether Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin, she said, “I don't think he profiled him as a racial thing,” and “I don't think race had anything to do with this trial.” She gave three reasons why Zimmerman’s suspicion wasn’t racial. First, the neighborhood had suffered many robberies, and Zimmerman was a watchman, so it was his job to look for possible criminals. Second, Martin’s behavior, by itself, was suspicious: “He was cutting through the back. It was raining. [Zimmerman] said he [Martin] was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. … [it was] dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking … is suspicious.” Third, given this behavior, Zimmerman “would have reacted the exact same way” if Martin had been white.

3. Several jurors thought Zimmerman was morally culpable. “There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something,” the juror said. “I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses.” He “went overboard” and “got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there.” She concluded: “He's guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn't have gotten out of that car.”

4. She thinks Zimmerman told some lies, but they don’t matter. “With all the evidence of the phone calls and all the witnesses,” she said, “I think George was pretty consistent and told the truth, basically. I'm sure there were some fabrications, enhancements, but I think pretty much it happened the way George said it happened.” Apparently the prosecution’s focus on discrepancies in his accounts didn’t work. She had decided that the fibs were small and that he was basically an honest guy.

5. She thinks Martin started the fight. Nobody but Martin and Zimmerman saw this part of the incident, so it requires inference and speculation. When Cooper asked whether Martin threw the first punch, she said yes. “Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let [Zimmerman] scare him and get the one-over-up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.” She assigned much of the blame to Martin: “He played a huge role in his death … when George confronted him, and he could have walked away and gone home. He didn't have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight.” Come back indicates that she thinks Martin wasn’t cornered. She thinks he chose the altercation. She told Cooper that she thought the other jurors felt that way, too. But she doesn’t know.

6. She used forensic evidence to infer what happened in the fight. When Cooper asked why she thought Martin threw the first punch, she cited “the evidence of on the T, on the sidewalk, where George says he was punched—there was evidence of his flashlight and keys there, and then a little bit further down, there was a flashlight that he was carrying.” When Cooper asked why she believed that in the end Zimmerman was sufficiently afraid to justify using his gun in self-defense, she answered, “I believe because of his injuries.” She said Zimmerman’s head had hit the concrete “enough to get damage, bruising, swelling. I think it was definitely enough to make you fear when you're in that situation.” And this, in turn, justified her conclusion that the man whose voice could be heard crying for help on phone recordings was Zimmerman: “Because of the evidence that he was the one that had gotten beaten.” She also cited an eyewitness whose account indicated that Martin had been on top.

7. The jury confined its focus to the end of the story. The prosecution emphasized that Martin entered the scene carrying only Skittles and a can of iced tea. Juror B37 found this “ridiculous,” because “anybody can be armed with anything. You can bash somebody's head against a tree or a rock or this concrete.” By the end, in her opinion, Martin did have a weapon: the sidewalk. Zimmerman, on the other hand, had made bad decisions leading to the fight—“He started the ball rolling. He could have avoided the whole situation by staying in the car”—but these didn’t count. Once he got out and followed Martin, “the roles changed.” In the end, “I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.” He “had a right to protect himself at that point.”

8. She thinks Zimmerman should get to keep his gun. Despite her conclusion that Zimmerman “went overboard” and was “guilty of not using good judgment,” the juror dismissed Cooper’s question as to whether Zimmerman should now have a gun. “It doesn't worry me,” she said. “I think he would be more responsible than anybody else on this planet right now.” Strange as it may seem to outsiders, this is how many people steeped in gun culture see the world: Character drives all other questions. A man who has “good in his heart” should be allowed to keep his firearm, even after using poor judgment and killing an unarmed adversary.

Today, juror B37 issued a further statement: "My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions,” she said. “No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured.” Whatever else you may think about her or the case, that conclusion seems well-warranted. Several jurors thought Zimmerman should be held accountable for his part in causing the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. On this question, Florida law, as they understood it, barred them from imposing justice. That law should be changed.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/zimmerman_jury_bias_did_racism_or_stand_your_ground_skew_the_verdict.single.html

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Duh.

[Sousuke 1,214]

That article title makes a point about racism but fails to actually connect racism with the jurors.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Oh god.

[Jacque67 7,328]

So you got failed by your liberal college ?

[Karee 4,191]

Seems like everything is spot on until you get to the last paragraph.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Who keeps deleting my posts?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Send me a PM and let me know what's up.

[Harsh_77 718]

Who keeps deleting my posts?

GZ..!! Edited July 24, 2013 by Harsh_77

[SMOKE 1,426]

Who keeps deleting my posts?

its a test of the new race baiting filter. it appears to be working properly.

[Teddy B 17,252]

its a test of the new race baiting filter. it appears to be working properly.

[RGinWA 816]

#8 makes no sense.

He's a moron, but lets give him another shot at it to be sure.

Genius.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Duh.

Yeah. like who didn't know this? The prosecution knew it was rigged and that is why they presented piss-poor evidence because they knew there was no chance to convict him with that jury. Duh! I mean, why even bother? Oh yeah...nm.

Only a few low information morons thought he could be convicted. Can those people vote? I see this week they are all back to watching Judge Judy.

its a test of the new race baiting filter. it appears to be working properly.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

#8 makes no sense.

He's a moron, but lets give him another shot at it to be sure.

Genius.

Patriot gets a lot wrong ang totally missed the legal part of the trial but you should not call him a moron

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

#8 makes no sense.

He's a moron, but lets give him another shot at it to be sure.

Genius.

You think guns should be confiscated from people with no criminal record?

He was acquitted, but his property should be siezed anyway? Have you heard of due process? Should we take his apartment and car because if he didn't live there and had no car this wouldn't happen?

There is no possible way you are a divorce attorney, or even watched any law TV shows, which is disappointing because I really wanted you to be Alla's attorney if she ever divorces me.

I mean how badly are you people upset over the fact that you had no clue what the law entailed. The result was no surprise to anyone that can read the law, there was never any other possible outcome. That you imagined there was does not obligate the justice system to appease you by abusing American's rights!