1 of 5
1
Zimmerman Not Guilty??????
Posted: 14 July 2013 04:45 PM   [ Ignore ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I’m appalled and nauseated by the verdict in that Florida case.  Much of our country’s population is still a very long way from understanding that they should respect all humans equally and work hard to prevent vicious prejudiced attacks such as this against anyone.

Even the prosecutors have that stupid Florida mentality.  How the hell could they have allowed the jury chosen to be composed of six caucasian women?  A jury of only six is already dumb, but how about having some of Travon’s peers on it, too?

All I can hope is that there are enough people in his area who realize this injustice and react to him strongly negatively so that he will have a significantly degraded life for many years. 

Occam

[ Edited: 14 July 2013 04:48 PM by Occam. ]
 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2013 08:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2013-06-01

I didn’t pay attention to this case, but I think the jury selection process tends to exclude certain types of people - especially in a big trial like this.  Not everybody gets paid for jury duty so those people are excluded due to the financial hardship.  Also the lawyers can exclude a certain number of people with no justification.  I’ve noticed the juries always have a lot of retired women, but I haven’t seen the actual statistics.

We should do away with jury trials and use a panel of judges.  The jury system inconveniences people and it accomplishes nothing IMO.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2013 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 14 July 2013 04:45 PM

I’m appalled and nauseated by the verdict in that Florida case.  Much of our country’s population is still a very long way from understanding that they should respect all humans equally and work hard to prevent vicious prejudiced attacks such as this against anyone.

Even the prosecutors have that stupid Florida mentality.  How the hell could they have allowed the jury chosen to be composed of six caucasian women?  A jury of only six is already dumb, but how about having some of Travon’s peers on it, too?

All I can hope is that there are enough people in his area who realize this injustice and react to him strongly negatively so that he will have a significantly degraded life for many years. 

Occam

It’s Florida. What can you expect?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2013 08:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Unless you were there, had access to the same body of evidence that they jury did, and all you have is whatever made it to the 30 second soundbyte on the news, then none of you has any more idea whether the jury decided rightly or wrongly then I do.

Not one of you.

So far, all I’ve seen here is people framing their own arguments according to a particular party line.

Like it or not, the jury has spoken and both sides are just going to have to deal with it. Since the jury panel was AGREED upon by the prosecution as well as the defense, neither has any standing to complain.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2013 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2676
Joined  2011-04-24
ufo-buff - 14 July 2013 08:16 PM

I didn’t pay attention to this case, but I think the jury selection process tends to exclude certain types of people - especially in a big trial like this.  Not everybody gets paid for jury duty so those people are excluded due to the financial hardship.  Also the lawyers can exclude a certain number of people with no justification. 

Well, it depends on what you perceive as justifiable.

We should do away with jury trials and use a panel of judges.  The jury system inconveniences people and it accomplishes nothing IMO.

I agree.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 04:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
Occam. - 14 July 2013 04:45 PM

I’m appalled and nauseated by the verdict in that Florida case.  Much of our country’s population is still a very long way from understanding that they should respect all humans equally and work hard to prevent vicious prejudiced attacks such as this against anyone.

Even the prosecutors have that stupid Florida mentality.  How the hell could they have allowed the jury chosen to be composed of six caucasian women?  A jury of only six is already dumb, but how about having some of Travon’s peers on it, too?

All I can hope is that there are enough people in his area who realize this injustice and react to him strongly negatively so that he will have a significantly degraded life for many years. 

Occam

As mentioned above none of us were there so its difficult to criticize the jury. I can only base my opinion on the snippits of evidence I heard on the news and from that it seems the jury made the correct decision. The system takes into account the fact that we are never going to have high def video and audio from 5 different angles, along with all the facts leading up to the moment of the tragedy. We are usually left with far less than perfect evidence to base our decision on. We are then left with a situation where we have to balance the risk of incarcerating an innocent person with that of letting a guilty man go free. Our founders decided the first mistake would be far worse than the later and created a system that places the burden of proof on the people if we are going to put someone in jail.

In this case the jury had to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the attacker and was not at the moment of the shooting, in fear of his own life. It was dark. There were no video cameras, and the testimony of only witnesses on the scene painted a picture that was consistent with Zimmerman’s story as were his own injuries.

I’m not saying that Zimmerman is innocent or that he didn’t lie. He was also clearly negligent when he ignored the police and got out of his car to pursue Martin but that is not what the jury was asked to decide. They were asked to determine if Zimmerman went after Martin and shot him with intent and if the evidence proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if they felt that was what happened they could not convict him if there was significant doubt about the facts.

Two other quick points. For those who felt this was racial, Zimmerman was never shown to have had a racial motive. he may have but there is no evidence to support that contention. On the other hand Martin’s own friend who was on the phone with him before the shooting admitted that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “weird cracker”. There was probably some racism here even if it was not on a conscious level but it obviously existed on Martin’s side as well.

Secondly, for everyone screaming that the “reasonable doubt” approach allowed a murderer to go free, where were these people when O.J. Simpson was let free with far less reasonable doubt? Where were the cries of racism when a black man killed a white woman? It seems to me there is a bit of a double standard. I understand why there is but we need to start challenging the acceptability of that idea.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 06:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

We should do away with jury trials and use a panel of judges.  The jury system inconveniences people and it accomplishes nothing IMO.

Ahhhh…so you like Star Chambers staffed by people on a government payroll who thinks that Big Brother knows best.

Got it. (Wish I’d noticed this last night)

You know, as flawed as the jury and adversarial system is, at least it empanels people who are NOT on anybody’s payroll to make the decision and hold the state accountable. Until somebody comes up with something demonsterably better, I’ll stick with it.

In the meantime, since it looks like most (Though certainly not all….thank you MacGyver) people here are just going to form their opinions along party lines and go along with a mob mentality instead of being objective and rational, I’m not going to bother with this discussion any further

Secondly, for everyone screaming that the “reasonable doubt” approach allowed a murderer to go free, where were these people when O.J. Simpson was let free with far less reasonable doubt? Where were the cries of racism when a black man killed a white woman? It seems to me there is a bit of a double standard.

Mac, that is a very good point. Keep in mind, I’m of a mind to believe O.J. was guilty as hell, and if HIS nearly headless body had been found in that alley, I would have been looking towards Nicole as the one who either did it or (More credibly) arranged to have it done.

However, “Believe” is NOT good enough. The standard of evidence is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. given the way the prosecution didn’t have their ducks in a row and even had their star witness (Det. Mark Furman) commit perjury, I would have aquitted O.J. too.

Same with the Casey Anthony thing in Florida.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10

Allan Dershowitz was right, as were others.  Zimmerman was overcharged.  There was little potential for a conviction of second-degree murder under Florida law to begin with, and the prosecution’s case merely demonstrated that was the case.  That’s why the prosecution asked for instructions on reduced charges.  It’s possible the flimsy case for second-degree murder influenced the jury’s rejection of the manslaughter charge as well.

That said, Zimmerman should not confronted Martin to begin with, and his use of a gun in these circumstances merely serves to confirm that we shouldn’t be carrying them around, especially while playing Junior G-Man.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
ciceronianus - 15 July 2013 09:40 AM

That said, Zimmerman should not confronted Martin to begin with, and his use of a gun in these circumstances merely serves to confirm that we shouldn’t be carrying them around, especially while playing Junior G-Man.

That’s not what he was being tried for, though. Neither confronting Martin nor carrying a gun were against a law.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 15 July 2013 10:22 AM
ciceronianus - 15 July 2013 09:40 AM

That said, Zimmerman should not confronted Martin to begin with, and his use of a gun in these circumstances merely serves to confirm that we shouldn’t be carrying them around, especially while playing Junior G-Man.

That’s not what he was being tried for, though. Neither confronting Martin nor carrying a gun were against a law.

Evidently, in Florida, killing an unarmed, innocent person who is walking on a public street, doing nothing wrong, isn’t either.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10
George - 15 July 2013 10:22 AM
ciceronianus - 15 July 2013 09:40 AM

That said, Zimmerman should not confronted Martin to begin with, and his use of a gun in these circumstances merely serves to confirm that we shouldn’t be carrying them around, especially while playing Junior G-Man.

That’s not what he was being tried for, though. Neither confronting Martin nor carrying a gun were against a law.

Very true.  Nor is being a fool against the law.  Still, one young man is dead and the fool has ruined his own life.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 15 July 2013 06:30 AM

In the meantime, since it looks like most (Though certainly not all….thank you MacGyver) people here are just going to form their opinions along party lines and go along with a mob mentality instead of being objective and rational, I’m not going to bother with this discussion any further

Secondly, for everyone screaming that the “reasonable doubt” approach allowed a murderer to go free, where were these people when O.J. Simpson was let free with far less reasonable doubt? Where were the cries of racism when a black man killed a white woman? It seems to me there is a bit of a double standard.

Mac, that is a very good point. Keep in mind, I’m of a mind to believe O.J. was guilty as hell, and if HIS nearly headless body had been found in that alley, I would have been looking towards Nicole as the one who either did it or (More credibly) arranged to have it done.

However, “Believe” is NOT good enough. The standard of evidence is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. given the way the prosecution didn’t have their ducks in a row and even had their star witness (Det. Mark Furman) commit perjury, I would have aquitted O.J. too.

Same with the Casey Anthony thing in Florida.

I agree with you. I am just pointing out that the same standard needs to be applied in all cases regardless of what we may believe to be the truth in regards to guilt or innocence.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

When I was working because of my own feelings of social responsibility and because my job allowed it, I always accepted jury duty.  In talking with the other potential jurors in the waiting area I realized that most of them were there either because they didn’t know how to get out of it, because they had nothing else to do, or because they needed the few dollars a day pay.  Almost none were there because of civic duty.  I realized the true meaning of jury on one’s peers.  Since the dumber criminals are the ones most likely to be caught, they need equally dumb people to judge them.  downer

It would seem that anyone can get away with murder if they merely make sure there are no witnesses and can claim self-defense since the only other participant is no longer available to refute them, and all they have to do is introduce “reasonable doubt”. snake

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10
Lois - 15 July 2013 11:15 AM
George - 15 July 2013 10:22 AM
ciceronianus - 15 July 2013 09:40 AM

That said, Zimmerman should not confronted Martin to begin with, and his use of a gun in these circumstances merely serves to confirm that we shouldn’t be carrying them around, especially while playing Junior G-Man.

That’s not what he was being tried for, though. Neither confronting Martin nor carrying a gun were against a law.

Evidently, in Florida, killing an unarmed, innocent person who is walking on a public street, doing nothing wrong, isn’t either.

In other jurisdictions, it would seem a charge of reckless endangerment would have been appropriate, if manslaughter was not.  I don’t know if Florida has such a law, though.  My guess is it does not.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon has basically summed up my sentiments on the case. It’s innocent until proven guilty. Unless some of you here would prefer it to be the other way around….?  If so, then why don’t you pack up and move to those places in the Middle East where someone who has a grudge with you only has to anonymously accuse you of some kind of “blasphemy” against Allah, and have you stoned to death before you even make it out of your neighborhood.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Lois - 15 July 2013 11:15 AM
George - 15 July 2013 10:22 AM
ciceronianus - 15 July 2013 09:40 AM

That said, Zimmerman should not confronted Martin to begin with, and his use of a gun in these circumstances merely serves to confirm that we shouldn’t be carrying them around, especially while playing Junior G-Man.

That’s not what he was being tried for, though. Neither confronting Martin nor carrying a gun were against a law.

Evidently, in Florida, killing an unarmed, innocent person who is walking on a public street, doing nothing wrong, isn’t either.

He was doing something wrong: he was beating Zimmerman up.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 5
1