Zimmerman supporters seem to think that because he was found not guilty that forecloses any further debate on the issue! It doesn’t! I and everyone else can still question and analyze the jury’s findings. There is a long history of jury decisions being considered “mistakes”. The most notable instance of this of course is the OJ trial. Yes, he was found not guilty by a 12 member jury. However, the jury was composed of a majority of African Americans from Central Los Angeles. Their collective experiences with law enforcement was negative, thus they were extremely suspicious of police. It was easy for them to believe OJ’s defense team’s argument that much of the massive evidence of OJ’s guilt had been planted by the police. The overwhelming feeling that OJ was guilty was not silenced by that verdict.
A jury decision is not a MIB neuralyzer or a Jedi mind trick light saber. Many Zimmerman supporters wave the NG decision in his case around as if it erases the facts of the case, elevates GZ’s story of what happened to unassailable truth and forestalls any debate regarding GZ’s culpability in TM’s death.
It does none of that. It only means that 6 people felt that Zimmerman was not guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime charged. It doesn’t make him innocent. Our system of justice is partly based on Blackstone’s formulation “”It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard, and some persons who are “guilty” will not be found guilty. I and many others, feel Zimmerman is guilty based on the facts of the case and common sense. The jury decision does not preclude such a debate.
Now if GZ supporters want to believe his story, that’s their prerogative, but that doesn’t mean it is supported by forensic evidence or common sense. The jury’s decision doesn’t make his story anymore credible. Did the overwhelming evidence that OJ was guilty suddenly disappeared because of the jury decision? Of course not! It does not disappear in Zimmerman’s case either. GZ’s domestic violence attorney, Jayne Weintraub did not believe his story. You think she suddenly believes it now because of the jury decision? I respect the jury system, but it is not infallible.
The verdict in the OJ case is not the only instant of a jury verdict, especially in the South, being considered wrong. There is also a name for such a phenomena. It’s called jury nullification.
There is the first Rodney King verdict, Arthur McDuffie verdict and Emmett Till verdict (where the killers actually confessed once they had been found not guilty) and many verdicts involving Ku Klux Klan beatings and murders where a jury could not reach a verdict or acquitted members of the KKK men who were clearly guilty. Thus, anyone is free to question, scrutinize and debate the George Zimmerman case, notwithstanding the verdict.
The interview (Video) with the foreman of the jury (“Juror B37”) was very telling and one could argue that the George Zimmerman not-guilty verdict was a case of jury nullification considering the jury forewoman’s predisposition to believe Zimmerman was not guilty regardless of how incredulous his story was. One would expect that she had a certain amount of influence over the rest of the jury panel. Let’s look at some of her statements (post from ThinkProgress)
1. Trayvon Martin was a “boy of color.”
This is how Juror B37 described Trayvon Martin during voir dire, i.e. she saw Trayvon’s race as his most salient characteristic. Can you image her describing a Caucasian boy as “a boy of no color.” IMHM, his race was a factor in her decision as well as her lack of impartiality. suspect. Especially considering that she claimed that race was not an issue in the case. Yet, this to her was TM’s most salient quality! The color of his skin. His race!
2. I feel sorry for both Travyon Martin and George Zimmerman
Juror B37 was asked if she felt bad for Trayon Martin. She responded that she felt bad for both of them. Well, Trayvon Martin is dead at 17! George Zimmerman has only been inconvenienced. He suffered neither death or any significant bodily injury, yet Juror B37 acted as if he been affected the same way Trayvon Martin had.
3. She Was Comfortable with GZ returning to NW Watch
Astounding, GZ killed an unarmed boy who was simply returning to his home because he thought he was a criminal. He violated at least two of the tenets of NW, (1) do not pursue suspects (2) do not carry a weapon! Yet she would be comfortable with him remaining on Neighborhood Watch! The ramifications of this cannot be understated. That “lesson” involved the death of an innocent boy! Too bad, so sad that it cost TM his life! It was as if TM was a mere traffic cone run over by a Student Driver! That is how insignificant TM’s life was to her! More notably, she would never have to worry about GZ thinking she was a burglar and that is all she is concerned about.
4. She thinks GZ Went Above and Beyond What he Should Have Done. Ironically, this statement implies that GZ did something wrong which might just qualify as manslaughter. One could argue that she was biased and her she did not render a decision based on the law.
5. She Was Sure That GZ Feared For His Life and That It Was Him Screaming on the 911 Call.
She completed discounted the huge inconsistencies in GZ’s story. In order for her to believe that Zimmerman’s story, she had to believe:
(a) TM hit GZ in the face 12-25 times hard enough to slam his head on the concrete, yet GZ only had 2 small abrasions and a bloody nose? Surely his injuries would have been much greater had this been true!
(b) TM only had one small cut on his ring finger. If GZ’s story was true, TM would have many abrasions on his hand. GZ’s current domestic violence attorney Jayne Weintraub pointed this out when she stated that GZ was not telling the truth. There was also none of GZ’s DNA under TM’s fingernails.
(c) GZ claimed that TM grabbed for his gun and that is when he shot him. It was dark and the gun was in a holster on GZ’s back so it would very difficult for TM to see the gun. Also, neither TM’s prints or DNA was on the gun.
This article details more evidence that Zimmerman is being untruthful. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/09/1214336/-DNA-Report-does-NOT-support-Zimmerman-s-claim-that-Trayvon-Martin-caused-his-injuries
The point is, the jury in the OJ case ignored copious amounts of evidence that OJ was guilty much like the jury in the Zimmerman case. It happens. It happened before and it will happen again.