Zimmerman Juror: Self-Defense Laws Should Be Changed After Trayvon Martin Killing

zimmerman juror self defense

By Daniel Trotta and Bill Cotterell

NEW YORK/TALLAHASSEE, July 17 (Reuters) – A member of the jury that found George Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin called for changes in Florida’s self-defense law, which she said gave jurors no option but to acquit the defendant.

The juror’s statement adds to pleas from around the country to change the Stand Your Ground laws that more than 30 states have adopted. In Florida, demonstrators occupied a part of the governor’s office demanding that the state repeal or curtail its 2005 law.

With her identity kept secret, the juror, designated B-37, gave an interview to CNN on Monday that stirred further debate in the case that captivated the U.S. public and triggered lengthy discussions about race, guns and self-defense laws.

After receiving a torrent of criticism, including a statement to CNN from four other jurors who said she did not speak for them, the juror issued a statement further stressing her position that Florida’s self-defense law, commonly known as Stand Your Ground, forced the jury to vote not guilty.

“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,” juror B-37 said in the statement. “No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured.”

According to the instructions given to the jury, Zimmerman had “no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force” if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.

On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder questioned those laws in a speech. On Wednesday, the Florida president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) urged Republican Governor Rick Scott to return to the state capital, Tallahassee, to meet with scores of young demonstrators occupying his office to protest the verdict.

The protesters, hastily organized by a group called “Dream Defenders,” are among those demanding Scott call a special session of the Republican-led Florida legislature to repeal or curtail the 2005 Stand Your Ground law. The governor has said he supports the law, which was strongly backed by the National Rifle Association.

“The consequence of this verdict and the Stand Your Ground law has made Florida an increasingly unsafe state for its citizens, especially its black and Latino youth,” Adora Obi Nweze, president of the Florida State Conference of the NAACP, wrote in a letter hand-delivered to Scott’s office.

An aide said the governor was out of town.

VERDICT PROMPTS PROTESTS

After three weeks of testimony and 16 hours of deliberation, the jury of five white women and one of mixed race acquitted Zimmerman of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting death, inside a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012.

Shortly before the shooting, Zimmerman called police from his car to report a suspicious person, Martin, a house guest of his father’s fiancée, who lived inside the gated community. Zimmerman left his car and got into a fight with Martin that left Zimmerman with a bloody nose and head injuries. It ended when Zimmerman shot Martin through the heart with a 9mm pistol he had concealed and was licensed to carry.

The Democratic leaders of Florida’s legislature, who are in the minority in both chambers, were due to hold a news conference in Fort Lauderdale on Thursday to announce plans for action in response to the Zimmerman acquittal. They tried to get the Stand Your Ground law changed in the past session but never even got a committee hearing on the issue.

Juror B-37, a mother of two who grew up in a military family and used to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, said one holdout juror switched her vote to “not guilty” after half an hour of agonizing over the law.

“She wanted to find him guilty of something but couldn’t because of the law. The way the law was written, he wasn’t responsible for (negligent) things that he had done leading up to that point,” she said.

“I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses but … you can’t charge him with anything because he didn’t do anything unlawful,” said juror B-37, who also said she believed Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Four other jurors responded with a statement distancing themselves from B-37, who told CNN nobody on the jury felt raced played a role in the case.

“We also wish to point out that the opinions of juror B-37 expressed on the Anderson Cooper show (on CNN) were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below,” said the statement, which listed their juror numbers. (Editing by Dina Kyriakidou and Tom Brown)

Enhanced by Zemanta
This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Zimmerman Juror: Self-Defense Laws Should Be Changed After Trayvon Martin Killing

  1. Lee says:

    I find it sad and disturbing to see Antonio West’s death being used in the comment section to attack those who were so upset about Trayvon Martin’s death, and George Zimmerman’s release. That is no way to honor the life (and decry the death) of someone.

    Saying things like, “My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood” does nothing to advance your cause, unless your cause is to suggest that this 13 month old child was a racist who would rather have lived in a segregated neighborhood.

    Luckily, I think we are better able to recognize and repudiate divisive tactics which are used to turn us against one another. We recognize them in the media, and we recognize them in the comment section here.

    We are all ONE. It’s time we behaved that way.

    • Jean says:

      Thanks for this statement, Lee. I didn’t understand what was being said, but I knew something was wrong when I asked for more info. Hugs, ~jean

  2. Bill says:

    No one remembers me

    You won’t recognize me. My name was Antonio West and I was the 13-month old child who was shot at point blank range by two teens who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot. A Grand Jury of my mommy’s peers from Brunswick GA determined the teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty…too bad I was given a death sentence for being innocent and defenseless.

    My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a Hate Crime. Nor did President Obama take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

    I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation’s history, but the media doesn’t care to cover the story of my tragic demise, President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me – so he doesn’t care and the media doesn’t care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

    There is not a white equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me. There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller – I no longer have my life.

    So while you are seeking justice for Treyvon, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Treyvon.

  3. Tom Widlar says:

    >>>> “the juror issued a statement further stressing her position that Florida’s self-defense law, commonly known as Stand Your Ground, forced the jury to vote not guilty.”

    The is much debate over whether a judge’s instructions to the jury are even binding on the jury and whether a jury can disagree with a law. Wiki: “Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. A jury can similarly convict a defendant on the ground of disagreement with an existing law, even if no law is broken (although in jurisdictions with double jeopardy rules, a conviction can be overturned on appeal, but an acquittal cannot).”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s