The Pitfalls of a George Zimmerman Juror Book

Before I discuss a controversial or emotionally charged topic, I like to imagine something peaceful. It usually works until somebody starts yelling at me. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A lot of book ideas are really bad.  The book with no letter “E” was a bad idea.  Anytime a celebrity wants to write a children’s book, it’s a bad idea.  And a book about the George Zimmerman trial written by a juror is a really bad idea.  It’s so bad, that now it might not even happen.  You know a book idea is bad when it gets pulled within a few days after it’s announced. 

In one way, I sympathize with a juror who wants to write a book.  Being a juror stinks.  They don’t get paid (much, if at all). They have to spend a bunch of time away from their families (depending on the family, that might not be so bad) and listen to a bunch of boring details all day.  Then no matter what verdict they reach, a bunch of loud people who don’t know what they’re talking about are going to criticize them.  If I were a juror in a highly publicized trial, I might want to make some money too. 

But one potential problem is numbers.  There were six jurors.  What if each juror wanted to write a book?  That would dilute the potential book sales for each book and then it wouldn’t be worth the time and the criticism.  All six jurors could write a book together, but then they’d have to share (ugh… I can’t stand the word “share”) the profits, and dividing profits with five other authors takes the fun out of writing.  Maybe I wouldn’t mind splitting money with James Patterson or Tom Clancy, but splitting money with five other jurors would be unacceptable. 

From a juror’s point of view, maybe splitting the earnings six ways isn’t so bad.  A lot of juries have twelve or more people.  Dividing that up would stink even more.  Add all the lawyers, witnesses, family members, and reporters that may decide to write books, and it’s probably not even worth the effort. 

I’m not sure how insightful a juror’s book would be anyway.  The trial was televised.  Transcripts are a click away (they’re too long to read, but they’re out there).  If anything, the juror probably needs to read more about the case to find out all the stuff that the jury wasn’t allowed to see.  Sometimes the juries have the least amount of information of everyone involved. 

A juror writing a book about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin is a bad idea because almost everybody shouts when they talk about it.  They shout, and they interrupt, and I don’t like getting shouted at, and I really hate getting interrupted.  The people yelling, interrupting, and pounding their fists don’t know any more than I do, but their opinions are more set than mine.

I mean, I have an opinion, but I also recognize that my opinion is worthless because there’s so much about this case that we don’t know.  The more books that are written about this case, the more people will shout and interrupt, and I don’t think bad behavior like shouting and interrupting should be encouraged, especially when it’s about an emotional issue.  I haven’t learned a thing from all the shouting and interrupting, and I probably wouldn’t learn anything from the books. 

There’s a lot that I don’t know about the Zimmerman-Martin incident.    I don’t know who started what with whom that day, and we’ll probably never know.  There might be a lot of people who pretend that they know (and they pretend very loudly), but they don’t know, and I don’t know either.  But I do know that a juror writing a book about the Zimmerman trial is a really bad idea.