Zimmerman/Martin Jury
- Thread starter Stoked
- Start date
I think it's pretty bad for Zimmerman. I think women are much more likely to take a pacifistic view, opting to flee or just try to withstand the attack then to strike back. So, not having that mentality they are probably far less likely to understand it and be sympathetic to it.
Obviously this is just a generalization.
Obviously this is just a generalization.
He shot and killed an unarmed kid.
I don't see this ending well for Zimmerman, regardless of what happened.
I don't see this ending well for Zimmerman, regardless of what happened.
Regardless of guilt or non guilt he gets off free.
Where there is a difference of opinion, money should exchange hands. There is a better chance of Nickkk actually making a post that doesn't suck wang -- Siro-Style -- than Zimmerman being found guilty. I'd wager the money that I owe UGLI on it. You down?
Haha. No.
I actually have not followed the trial, all I really know about it is what I typed above. Save your money for important things, like your soft porn addiction.
Huge win for Zimmerman.
https://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/...in-judge-nelson-tom-owen-alan-reich?hpt=hp_t2
Experts who had said the screams heard on 911 calls belonged to Martin will not be allowed to testify. The calls can be played, but no experts will be allowed to say who they think it was screaming.
https://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/...in-judge-nelson-tom-owen-alan-reich?hpt=hp_t2
Experts who had said the screams heard on 911 calls belonged to Martin will not be allowed to testify. The calls can be played, but no experts will be allowed to say who they think it was screaming.
The report I read had some other acoustic/linguistic experts say that the methods they used to determine who was screaming on the tapes was foolish, unproven, unscientific...
But yes huge win for Martin.
So if (when) Zimmerman goes free what will be the reaction?
If that's true it's the right decision. One expert said it was Martin and the other said it's not Zimmerman, but didn't say who it was (but...it was one of them, so if not Zimmerman...).
Here's hoping for some L.A. Style riots down in FL. There is nothing I love more than watching stupid people burn down their own **** to prove just how g'damn dumb they really are, only to turn around and rebuild it with their own taxes.
Isn't this a jury of 6? I thought I read that somewhere. And yes, I am too lazy to look it up. Heck, I barely made it through typing this resp
Because legal experts would never have any interest is seeing a trial go one way or the other. The supreme court is made up of legal experts but they can't agree on hardly anything.
And saying that it is nothing more than 12 people picked off the street is disingenuous. There is a process where jury members are selected to try and weed out the riff raff.
That said, using a "jury of peers" is risky. If one were to go by the facts and using the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" to determine guilt there are probably thousands of decisions that should have gone a different route. People are people and let emotion get in the way clouding judgment.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Whether or not legal experts are biased or not is beside the point. So are members of the public. You can have a selection process for judges too. As a matter of fact, they do that in Europe.
The issue is that legal experts are legal experts. Your peers are not. I suppose having a public jury fits with the long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism. Everyone knows everything better than the experts these days, anyway.
What problems do you think the jury system causes? Have you ever participated in it? You do realize the judge gives the jurors a set of specific guidelines and the laws that are applicable in the case, right? It's not just a free for all with a bunch of yokels deciding if they like the plaintiff or the defendant better.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Yes, I've participated in it. The problem I have is that it's unnecessary. We have people who study and interpret laws for a living. Why introduce a middle-man, who then needs to be instructed by these very people who study and interpret laws for a living? Why can't we just let those people decide? They can't be trusted, but random members of public can?
Or let's turn it around? What's the benefit of being tried by a jury as opposed to a panel of judges?
Checks and balances- a corrupt judge is bad now. It would be worse if juries weren't involved on certain cases.
You mean Zimmerman was a double-amputee? He was physically incapable of being a physical threat?
It can be (though not in quite those terms). Jury nullification is legal in this country. I believe it in it some cases, and it's why I would never bet sat on a jury.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't it be easier to stop electing judges and making them political figures? Or having multiple judges look at a case? Aren't all those preferable to having amateurs look at the case?