TexasCHLforum.com

Hmm...this lady is extremely confused. She feels she owed it to the family of Trayvon Martin to convict Zimmerman. She says in the end she couldn't because the evidence didn't show he intentionally killed Martin. So now, she comes out with this interview. What good is this going to do for anyone involved???

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial.

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

Apparently, she has no concept of self-defense....

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-j ... ories.html

so, basically, she is sorry the justice system worked as intended?

Already posted in the Zimmerman thread - viewtopic.php?f=83&t=53427&start=2970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogueUSMC wrote:so, basically, she is sorry the justice system worked as intended?

That seems to be the jist of it. At least she chose justice instead of feelings. Let's not lose sight of the fact that there are more than a few people out there that think it is always immoral to kill another, even in self defense.

SQLGeek wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:so, basically, she is sorry the justice system worked as intended?

That seems to be the jist of it. At least she chose justice instead of feelings. Let's not lose sight of the fact that there are more than a few people out there that think it is always immoral to kill another, even in self defense.

She voted as she should have. The evidence did not support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean he's innocent, just that the state didn't prove he was guilty of the crimes charged.