So, Juror #2 is kind of a squeaky voiced dude who's pretty shy about sharing his opinions. He tends to vote with the group and isn't very good at explaining himself whenever he's put on the spot. When the aggressive Juror #3 gets in his face about how much dumb talking the lawyers did in the courtroom, it's clear that #2 disagrees with him. But the best response he can muster is, "Well … I guess … they're entitled."
When Juror #8 questions #2 on why he thinks the defendant is guilty, all he can say is, "Oh. Well … (Long pause) I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise." #2 has clearly forgotten that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defense, but he's so lily-livered that he can't make a strong claim about anything without hesitating or backtracking, saying, "Well, sure, I've heard of it. I know what it is. I … what I meant … well, anyway, I think he was guilty."
By the end of the move, we even find out that Juror #2 has held back on some major issues just because he was afraid of bothering the group. As he says at one point, "There's something I'd like to say. It's been bothering me a little, and as long as we're stuck... There was this whole business about the stab wound and how it was made." This argument ends up leading to a key point in the case, and Juror #2 barely even mentioned it because he was too shy to speak up.
All we can say at this point is that it's a good thing he overcame his shyness for a few seconds and did the right thing.