Oh no. If you make a claim, then it is up to you to prove it.

I'll bet the break-ins stopped.

It's very simple don't you see? Zimmerman was doing the burglaries blamming them on Martin so that he could kill Martin and get off.
That Zim is a very crafty dude.... dont cross him Dodo.

I do agree that teenagers often lack the wisdom that age may bring. I do, however, believe that others should not bear the burden of those who chose a foolish path. That being said...

I don't believe that following someone (even against ADVICE) can be compared to knocking someone to the ground and beating him (supposedly even after he called for help).

We have to proof of the story going either way. Age cannot be taken into consideration, as from Z's perspective, he MAY not have had time to check T's identity card while he was being beaten.

I do, however, acknowledge that this story may have gone done very differently. Using the guidelines of objective thought, one cannot conclude any guilt. All one can do is hypothesize, and I, again, am glad that we cannot jail someone on just a hypothesis.

Furthermore, if one could call this case "racial profiling" then why isn't every arrest that is made from a physical description called into question? To suspect anyone matching a certain description would be profile of some sort, would it not?

Im not merely hypothesizing anymore than the jurors were

they believed one narrative, and I Believe another

mine is from the EAR WITNESS who they apparently chose to ignore,,,,,

Precious was busted lying.

so was coward Z,, but his were just 'little inconsistencies'

apparently

There are plenty of unknowns in this sad case, and, thus, the members of the jury could not decide beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of the crimes that he was charged with.

I agree, they had a plethora of experts and witnesses not all consistent in their account

and they didn't understand the manslaughter charge

so they decided upon a not guilty

Then good we respect your opinion and what you believe happened. But, sadly nothing or no one can change what happened that night. A tragic event, a young life was lost, ans event that no sane, rightous, person would want to happen. Young Trevon, an angel in Gods eyes, is with him now, hate and anger can't change that now. Remember Travon with good thoughts, he deserves that. God bless you Travon. You will be missed here on earth, but you will live on forever in heaven. God is good.

agreed, his memory and legend are already leaving behind great positive impact ,,,,

may he rip,,,,

Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News July 26, 2013


Only two of the six jurors in the controversial George Zimmerman trial have spoken out so far about their experience, despite intense public interest in how and why they declared the neighborhood watchman not guilty in the death of unarmed, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But jury experts say the panelists' hesitance to step forward makes sense, given the intense emotions kicked up by the racially charged case and the risks associated with going public as a juror.

On Friday, the Zimmerman trial's sole nonwhite juror, who identified herself only as "Maddie," told Good Morning America in an interview that she believes the neighborhood watchman "got away with murder," which is sure to anger the 32 percent of Americans who said in a recent poll that they strongly disagreed with the jury's not guilty verdict. Florida Judge Debra Nelson forbade the media from reporting the names of the all-female panel in part for their own protection, but the jurors are allowed to step forward on their own volition at any time.


The only other juror in the trial who has spoken out, identified as B37, was quickly dissuaded from her intention to write a book about the case after an army of Martin defenders made their disapproval known on Twitter and other social media sites. The juror's agent quickly dropped her, and the unnamed juror released a statement apologizing for even floating the idea.



Despite that juror's skewering, Maddie decided to appear on national television to explain why she believed she had to acquit Zimmerman, who shot and killed Martin in an altercation in 2012 but claimed he did so in self-defense. Maddie said she and other jurors believed in their "hearts" that the 29-year-old was guilty, but that self-defense law and the jury instructions prevented her from doing anything other than declaring Zimmerman not guilty.
"It's hard for me to sleep, it's hard for me to eat because I feel I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin's death," Maddie, a mother of eight, said.

Speaking out as a juror can be therapeutic, say jury experts, but it also carries risks.


"It's very common for jurors to want to explain their verdict because in many instances they feel the verdict doesn't adequately convey what their thinking was," said Joseph Rice, a clinical psychologist and the president of the Jury Research Institute. "There's something cathartic about explaining your position. But, as we're seeing more and more, there's a price for fame."


The Zimmerman trial stoked strong reactions among the public that was largely divided along racial lines, which might have made jurors in the trial particularly eager to explain their decision. Martin was black, and Zimmerman is half-white and half-Hispanic.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 86 percent of African-Americans disapproved of the not guilty verdict, with 31 percent of whites disapproving.

"In this case specifically there's been a lot of pressure for the jurors to speak out," said Sonia Chopra, a senior litigation consultant with the National Jury Project consulting firm.


And there are advantages to talking about the often arduous civic duty of arguing with your peers for hours and sometimes weeks about whether someone should go to jail or walk free.

Studies have shown that some jurors, particularly in death-penalty cases and those involving more gruesome crimes, can suffer from symptoms that resemble post-traumatic stress disorder long after the trial is over.

Seven of the jurors who declared Scott Peterson guilty in the murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son in 2005 disclosed in a book about the case, "We the Jury," that some of them went on antidepressants and one contemplated suicide because of the stress of deliberations. Two of the 18 jurors in the Charles Manson trial had an affair during their nine-month sequestration. Another had a heart attack, and one juror got divorced.

Chopra called it "cruel and unusual punishment" to prevent jurors from ever speaking about their experience deliberating, as Canada and some other countries do as a matter of law. But speaking about the trial in public can add its own stress, as you open yourself up to judgment from an often angry public.

"The therapeutic value comes from talking to friends, families, colleagues," Chopra said. "You can expose yourself to more stressors by going public, because there's the court of public opinion. That could just introduce a whole other layer of stress, which is disappointing because the public wants to know what happened."

There's also the risk of facing harassment from angry trial obsessives. "When they open that door, they're opening a Pandora's box to be scrutinized and harassed," said Susan Constantine, a Florida-based jury expert.

Constantine recalled that in Orlando, Fla., where Casey Anthony faced first-degree murder charges in the killing of her young daughter, local businesses put up signs saying "jurors not welcome here" after the jury acquitted Anthony in 2011.

Constantine said the Zimmerman case demonstrated that the decision to go public ultimately rests with each individual juror.

"The other juror already came forward, and we can see how she's been lambasted. Regardless of what (Maddie) says, it's not going to be the right answer for everybody," Constantine said.

But the juror testimonials after high-profile cases can offer a valuable glimpse into the criminal justice system, which average citizens tend to ignore absent a sensational trial.

"I understand their reluctance to put themselves out there, given how polarizing their decision has been," Chopra said of the Zimmerman panel. "I think it's unfortunate in some ways because it could make people not want to be on juries. We already have a hard time getting people to serve on juries. It's unfortunate that the public vilifies jurors who really did give up a lot of time of their lives."


www.news.yahoo.com

They didn't understand the manslaughter charge?

And you know this how?

indeed...

But because all we can do is hypothesize, i must reflect with relief that Z has not been accused. As we all should. Had they gone the other way, it would reflect poorly on our legal system. (Innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt)

Pressure from Media whores....

A Juror who speaks out to this kind of media frenzy is. in my opinion, really stupid.

When they do, they are pounced upon like a person trying to feed a bunch of starving cats.

when they were in deliberations, they asked the judge to clarify the charge,,which she didn't because the question wasn't specific enough

that's the grey in our system , isn't it?

whats 'reasonable' to some , isn't to others

there was no 'reasonable' doubt for me,,,

zs story , that a kid who had gone out of his way to avoid him suddenly turned into gangsta thug and doubled back to attack him,,,

was extremely 'unreasonable',,, in my opinion

Please, lets let it rest.

MH.
You claim Precious is a credible witness. Then, turn around and agreed she's a liar.

Mr Z told popo he saw a suspicious kid? Or, did he say person?

Dark, rainy and a tall person? How y'all get kid out of that?

Or, is it just more fairly tale?