Mrebo said:
As she said, she didn't believe the intention was there.
true, but she said "George Zimmerman got away with murder.
Aha, but that was the point of the article...she was repeating those words of the "journalist" as if thinking them over (watch videos!), but based on her own words following that, it does not seem she accepted that notion. She believes Zimmerman is morally culpable for taking a life. But she also accepted Zimmerman didn't act with a murderous intent.
Mrebo said:
The juror believes Zimmerman is morally culpable for Trayvon's death (and even Zimmerman should recognize that to some extent).
that is exactly what I said " She does seem to believe that morally George Zimmerman got away with murder"
But the word "murder" came from the journalist, and the juror was simply repeating that exact phrase, quite clearly considering its merit, but not endorsing it.
Which brings us back to Do:
Warbler said:
"Murder" can't be an abstraction.
an abstraction? please explain?
I mean it has an actual legal definition. And it lines up really really well with our moral definition. Yet taking a life should have moral weight even where clearly not murder. I agree with the juror that Trayvon's death was needless, that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole situation, but nothing in that makes Zimmerman a murderer. And the juror did not claim Zimmerman got away with murder. That was the journalist. The whole point of the article was that the media was distorting the words of a non-media savvy person, presenting a repetition of a question as if they were her own words.