3 of 5
3
Zimmerman Not Guilty??????
Posted: 16 July 2013 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

Replying to Vtbrandon:

IQ test: Since each person who is required to show up has to fill out a short form
anyway, About five simple multiple choice questions could be included with black out
choices.  The clerk could easily slide it over each form and put the ones who missed,
say, three in a separate pile to be dismissed.

Challenges:  I don’t know how it’s done in your area but, as I recall, in So. Calif. they
call about thirty from the about a hundred in the bullpen to sit in the court room.  Twelve
are selected at random to sit in the jury box.  Then the lawyers question them one at a
time.  As each is finished, the lawyer says accept or challenge for cause.  Each lawyer
has a number of preemptory challenges allowed, without needing state reasons.  At
that point they can get rid of people since they don’t have to justify themselves. When
one is removed, another name is immediately drawn at random, seated, then
questioned. I think the lawyer should have to state his/her reasons for every challenge.
And, “The prospective juror has too much education or knowledge and might see
through my snow-job” shouldn’t be valid. 

I wasn’t criticizing public defenders in general.  Rather, the one on this case was very
young and inexperienced.  After the trial I saw the D.A. in the hallway and commented
that the P.D. didn’t seem to competent.  He said, “Give her time.  This was only her
second case.”  (I know the profession is tough.  My daughter graduated from Hastings
and passed the Calif. bar.)

As to the attorney that was striking jurors with intellectual backgrounds - there
are bad lawyers.

  I disagree.  The lawyer’s job is to do the best job of defending
his/her client, not be limited by ethics,  It’s the legislature’s job to assure that the rules
of law block unethical behavior.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2013 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Occam. - 15 July 2013 10:55 PM

First, I think there should be some sort of simplistic IQ test given to prospective jurors to eliminate the dumbest ones.

I agree.  But would you also be in favor of a similar test before a person could vote?  More people are affected due to peoples’ votes at the polls than jurors’ votes during trials.  Generally only one person is on trial at a time.  But potentially millions of lives are affected due to voters’ actions.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2013 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
ciceronianus - 15 July 2013 11:17 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.

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

So? It’s also very likely that Martin’s foolishness got him killed too.

 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: 16 July 2013 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
Rocinante - 16 July 2013 04:36 PM
Occam. - 15 July 2013 10:55 PM

First, I think there should be some sort of simplistic IQ test given to prospective jurors to eliminate the dumbest ones.

I agree.  But would you also be in favor of a similar test before a person could vote?  More people are affected due to peoples’ votes at the polls than jurors’ votes during trials.  Generally only one person is on trial at a time.  But potentially millions of lives are affected due to voters’ actions.

I’ve tried to bring this up before, but many here were against the idea, particularly because of the problem of figuring out who decides on the questions…

 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: 16 July 2013 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26

Juries, pfeh. I’m for instituting some sort of trial by ordeal system. Like a deadly obstacle course or an arduous, unprotected trek through savage wilderness or something. Let the gods and the accused’s own skill determine his innocence or guilt. And in civil cases, trial by combat. The defendant chooses whether they use weapons or fight bare knuckle. The plaintif chooses the arena. In the event of multiple plaintifs and/or defendants a champion may be chosen from among their ranks. In the event neither side is able to seize the advantage, wild animals are released upon them. May the cruel, indifferent laws of nature determine what is right.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2013 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  337
Joined  2008-09-10
Dead Monky - 16 July 2013 11:11 PM

Juries, pfeh. I’m for instituting some sort of trial by ordeal system. Like a deadly obstacle course or an arduous, unprotected trek through savage wilderness or something. Let the gods and the accused’s own skill determine his innocence or guilt. And in civil cases, trial by combat. The defendant chooses whether they use weapons or fight bare knuckle. The plaintif chooses the arena. In the event of multiple plaintifs and/or defendants a champion may be chosen from among their ranks. In the event neither side is able to seize the advantage, wild animals are released upon them. May the cruel, indifferent laws of nature determine what is right.

A proponent of Natural Law!  So that’s what it really means.

 Signature 

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

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2013 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1741
Joined  2007-10-22
George - 16 July 2013 02:18 PM

We have no idea who attacked whom. Following somebody is not attacking.

Locally there have been two attempt in the past ten years to set up a citizens patrol such as Zimmerman supposedly belonged to.  Both were not allowed by the local governments involved due to objections from the local residents (and police) objections. 

I think that these organizations are a quick way to a totalitarian society, we don’t need unsupervised amateurs with guns running around shooting whoever they “suspect” of not living up to their standards.  Personally I threw some of these idiots off my property and called the police when they refused to leave when I was having a (legal) bonfire with friends in my backyard.  They watched my house for about two months after that, until my lawyer sent a letter to their supposed leader threatening legal action.

Martin’s mistake was he didn’t call the police about the harassment that Zimmerman was engaged in, so a 17 year old kid was ended up being killed.

(Good thing I am in my mid 60s and not a teenager, a black who may not trust the police to do their duty, or I may be dead also.

[ Edited: 17 July 2013 01:48 PM by garythehuman ]
 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2013 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
garythehuman - 17 July 2013 01:45 PM
George - 16 July 2013 02:18 PM

We have no idea who attacked whom. Following somebody is not attacking.

Locally there have been two attempt in the past ten years to set up a citizens patrol such as Zimmerman supposedly belonged to.  Both were not allowed by the local governments involved due to objections from the local residents (and police) objections. 

I think that these organizations are a quick way to a totalitarian society, we don’t need unsupervised amateurs with guns running around shooting whoever they “suspect” of not living up to their standards.  Personally I threw some of these idiots off my property and called the police when they refused to leave when I was having a (legal) bonfire with friends in my backyard.  They watched my house for about two months after that, until my lawyer sent a letter to their supposed leader threatening legal action.

Martin’s mistake was he didn’t call the police about the harassment that Zimmerman was engaged in, so a 17 year old kid was ended up being killed.

(Good thing I am in my mid 60s and not a teenager, a black who may not trust the police to do their duty, or I may be dead also.

1. A “totalitarian society” is virtually impossible if it is not implemented by a centralized power base (a state). Allowing communities to develop their own preemptive defense systems, as long as they are legally recognized mechanisms, is actually an example of decentralization, which is the complete opposite of totalitarianism.

2. There is zero evidence that Zimmerman “shot someone that wasn’t living up to his standards”.

3. Most of the evidence lends to the idea that Martin was likely the aggressor, not to mention the fact that the only real wounds that he had were bruised knuckles (you know how you get those, right?) and a gunshot wound. Martin appears to have made a few more grave mistakes than not simply “calling the police”.

[ Edited: 17 July 2013 06:04 PM by Cloak ]
 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: 17 July 2013 05:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting Rocinante:

But would you also be in favor of a similar test before a person could vote?

  Good lord, the world is coming to an end.  I agree with Rocinante.  I also think a competence test prior to voting would be great, but it would have to be done far more fairly than it has been in the past.  I recall the about 1950 story of the African-American college language professor in the south who was given, one after the other, five sheets for him to read and translate:  Engish, French, Italian, German, Russian.  He did the first four but couldn’t do the fifth so was denied the vote.  Of course, Caucasian voters didn’t have to read any of these. 

Possibly have a reservoir of, say, 20,000 questions about our government structure, simple math, very simple science, logic, critical thinking, etc. submitted by a wide variety of educators.  Put the questions into a computer and have a program that chooses, say 20 multiple choice questions first, then the vote comes up.  One’s vote is given its value times the percent of questions the person got correct.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2013 06:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20
Occam. - 17 July 2013 05:59 PM

Quoting Rocinante:

But would you also be in favor of a similar test before a person could vote?

  Good lord, the world is coming to an end.  I agree with Rocinante.  I also think a competence test prior to voting would be great, but it would have to be done far more fairly than it has been in the past.  I recall the about 1950 story of the African-American college language professor in the south who was given, one after the other, five sheets for him to read and translate:  Engish, French, Italian, German, Russian.  He did the first four but couldn’t do the fifth so was denied the vote.  Of course, Caucasian voters didn’t have to read any of these. 

Possibly have a reservoir of, say, 20,000 questions about our government structure, simple math, very simple science, logic, critical thinking, etc. submitted by a wide variety of educators.  Put the questions into a computer and have a program that chooses, say 20 multiple choice questions first, then the vote comes up.  One’s vote is given its value times the percent of questions the person got correct.

Occam

Thanks for your reply.  I like your idea on how to administer such questions.  But you know that if just one question in that 20,000 were even tangentially related to evolution, there would be a firestorm.  grin

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2013 08:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Cloak - 16 July 2013 06:10 PM

So? It’s also very likely that Martin’s foolishness got him killed too.

What foolishness? The foolishness of carrying a can of ice tea and a bag of skittles for your little brother? The foolishness of going to the store at 7pm when others are out walking dogs and coming home from work? The foolishness of taking your time walking back home because you are talking to your friend on the phone? The foolishness of getting creeped out by someone following you for no good reason? The determination to ignore the creep because you are on your way home, talking to your friend and had done nothing wrong? The foolishness of wearing a hoodie against the cool evening and putting up the hood because it was raining? The foolishness of defending yourself when you were grabbed by the creep?

By the way, Zimmerman lied when he said his head had been slammed against the concrete again and again. The injuries were more consistant with falling backward…once, perhaps slipping on the wet grass after Trayvon hit him in the nose.. If your head is slammed against concrete, you end up with far, far more damage to the back of your head. You also end up with stitches, a c-spine Xray, an Xray of the skull and perhaps a CT scan. Zimmerman ended up with a band-aid. His injuries were inconsequential. I’ve seen injuries resulting from head slamming on concrete before, and these people had a full head of hair to do some cushioning, and they ended up with stitches, xrays and CT scans. Even the doctor treating him was not impressed.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2013 09:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
asanta - 17 July 2013 08:00 PM
Cloak - 16 July 2013 06:10 PM

So? It’s also very likely that Martin’s foolishness got him killed too.

What foolishness? The foolishness of carrying a can of ice tea and a bag of skittles for your little brother? The foolishness of going to the store at 7pm when others are out walking dogs and coming home from work? The foolishness of taking your time walking back home because you are talking to your friend on the phone? The foolishness of getting creeped out by someone following you for no good reason? The determination to ignore the creep because you are on your way home, talking to your friend and had done nothing wrong? The foolishness of wearing a hoodie against the cool evening and putting up the hood because it was raining? The foolishness of defending yourself when you were grabbed by the creep?

By the way, Zimmerman lied when he said his head had been slammed against the concrete again and again. The injuries were more consistant with falling backward…once, perhaps slipping on the wet grass after Trayvon hit him in the nose.. If your head is slammed against concrete, you end up with far, far more damage to the back of your head. You also end up with stitches, a c-spine Xray, an Xray of the skull and perhaps a CT scan. Zimmerman ended up with a band-aid. His injuries were inconsequential. I’ve seen injuries resulting from head slamming on concrete before, and these people had a full head of hair to do some cushioning, and they ended up with stitches, xrays and CT scans. Even the doctor treating him was not impressed.

Do you not see how you just blatantly inserted your own unfounded speculation into the story, based on little to no information to support it? Where is this idea that he ran up on him and “grabbed him”? Where’s your evidence for that? That is pure conjecture. You do realize that there are other versions of your preferred story, don’t you? Secondly, have you really done any research on Trayvon Martin? Are you honestly that sure that he wasn’t the likely aggressor here? And if so, why in the world are you so sure of this? Both of them have violent histories. Either one could have been the aggressor. What about the fact that Martin had a backpack full of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver? Do we just leave out everything that makes Trayvon Martin look bad? Are you so sure that you are not unintentionally arguing against an innocent man?

We can argue all day long about how “significant or insignificant” Zimmerman’s injuries were, and whether or not he should have waited for a medical specialist to come along and advise him that he was “now in enough danger to use deadly force”, but it’s all really pointless.

Here’s the bottom line: there are WAY too many blanks to fill in. Yes, sometimes you have to “connect the dots” where details are more implicit than explicit, but in this case, in order to decide against Zimmerman, you have to move into the dangerous realm of speculation. Whenever you do that, you run the high risk of burying innocent people. The African Americans that are making most of the noise on this issue wanted Zimmerman to be guilty from the beginning, even before all of the details came out! Everyone “just knew” that he was some racist creep who took out Martin just because he doesn’t like black people. (And this, despite the overwhelming evidence that has come out, showing that he is far from a racist). You know what that sounds like? That sounds just like what African Americans used to deal with back in the day. What about Tom Robinson (African American) in the story “To Kill a Mockingbird”? The guy never even had a chance. He was guilty before he had even set foot in the courthouse and everyone “knew it”. Stuff like that was the norm. Yet, now, blacks want other people to be done the same way?

It is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Can we please stop acting like we have more information than what was already presented, especially that which was heard by the judge and jury?

[ Edited: 18 July 2013 10:29 AM by Cloak ]
 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: 17 July 2013 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
Cloak - 17 July 2013 09:36 PM

It is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Can we please stop acting like we have more information than what was already presented, especially that which was heard by the judge and jury?

Trouble is anyone can get a gun and just go out and shoot someone. How can they be proven guilty if the law allows it?

In the U.K if not murder there would have been a lesser charge that Zimmerman would have been proven guilty of.

And that probably would have been enough to stop him doing it.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2013 01:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
StephenLawrence - 17 July 2013 11:17 PM
Cloak - 17 July 2013 09:36 PM

It is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Can we please stop acting like we have more information than what was already presented, especially that which was heard by the judge and jury?

Trouble is anyone can get a gun and just go out and shoot someone. How can they be proven guilty if the law allows it?

In the U.K if not murder there would have been a lesser charge that Zimmerman would have been proven guilty of.

And that probably would have been enough to stop him doing it.

Stephen

First of all, the law doesn’t just allow people to “go get a gun and shoot someone” without the law coming down on you. If you fail to demonstrate that it was self-defense, then you go to jail.

I can’t speak for the UK and how they would have ruled the case. However, I do know that they are counted as the “most violent country in the EU”, though, so they are far from being a shining example of morality. The strong gun restrictions in the UK would have made it likely that Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, sure, but it’s a moot point, because down here, we are allowed to carry. And statistics show that states with the lowest gun restrictions tend to have far less violence-related crimes than states that have high gun restrictions.

 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: 18 July 2013 06:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
Cloak - 18 July 2013 01:08 AM

And statistics show that states with the lowest gun restrictions tend to have far less violence-related crimes than states that have high gun restrictions.

Cloak, I have seen this statistic quoted many times even here and I think as a rational forum we should shine a little light on the silliness of this particular statistic. Its a simple case of confusing correlation with causation or misidentifying cause and effect. Its like saying the states with the most air conditioners also have the hottest weather so we should not use air conditioners because they cause hot weather.

States with the greatest restrictions on guns probably have such restrictions because they have high rates of violence. It is highly unlikely that the restrictions on guns are causing the violence. There is certainly no evidence to back up that contention which at least on the surface is highly counter-intuitive but is frequently quoted by gun rights advocates to support their point of view.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3