ZIMMERMAN VERDICT IS IN - NOT GUILTY

Post Reply New Topic

Holy Cow! Batten down the hatches and stand by for the Trayvon Martin Memorial Riot.

No. Wait. Jesse Jackson has not arrived yet.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 14 Jul 2013, 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

May not know the American legal system like the back of my hand, but it largely based on ours, in which case it is unlawful to make a jury selection based on race requirements.

Primarily it is random, then they ask question based on if they have prejudicial views of the case, or are related to any of the people involved, etc.

Last edited by albedo on 14 Jul 2013, 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Someone's acquittal does not automatically mean the other party was guilty of something, even in a self-defense case.

It simply means that person cannot be convicted of that crime.

Last edited by albedo on 14 Jul 2013, 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

The verdict says the prosecution did not prove its case on the evidences presented. And that is all that one can say about the matter.

ruveyn

Precisely. I thought I'd get that in early before the predictable rants.

I completely disagree with your for these reasons....

1. Any jurist MUST be able to be impartial and decide a case on the evidence alone. If in doubt, they don't get seated. With all the media hype over this case before it ever came to trial, I'd propose there wasn't a single black person in the jury pool who both sides (including a judge who we know was pulling for the prosecution) found able to be impartial.

1a. Jury pools are drawn from voter registration lists. The number of black people registered determines the probability of them being available for selection in any given pool.

2. Zimmerman had an majority white (one Hispanic) FEMALE jury. Not one man was seated for this trial as well. Many (including myself) feel this was done to provide the greatest sympathy for the victim (a mother's love).

3. If indeed one black person would have resulted in a conviction or hung jury, you just proved the the outcome would be race-based and not evidence-based.

I think this jury was slanted in favor of the prosecution as much as possible. The prosecution certainly kept trying to make this case more about emotional appeal for "justice" rather than objectively proving that Zimmerman was lying about what happened the night he shot and killed Treyvon.

When Matthew Sheppard was murdered in Wyoming, the judge questioned about moving the venue elsewhere in Wyoming. Wyoming is not a "gay hating" state, but certainly it's not a haven for the gay community...very conservative. The judge chose to keep venue in Laramie where the murder happened because it was a college town and he felt that the most sympathetic jury to the victim was right where the murder happened. Some would argue that his decision guaranteed a conviction against the men accused of the crime, but then again, there was no question of what happened. The evidence was clear.

* as an interesting side note, Wyoming had (IIRC) 10 other murders that year...all more gruesome than Matthew Sheppard's....one being a 6-year-old girl (Kristen Lamb) who was raped, murdered and dismembered and left in a dumpster in Laramie, WY. Hardly anyone outside the region heard of these other murders even though they were more horrific than what happened to Matthew Sheppard.

Um, does this look random to you?

Sanford, Florida Demographics

White: 40.5%
Black or African-American: 30.5%
Hispanic or Latino: 20.2%

Zimmerman Jury

White: 83.4%
Black or African-American: 0%
Hispanic or Latino: 16.6?

Do you really believe that in a city where 30.5% of the population is black, they couldn't find even one black juror?

.

Incorrect, voter registration has nothing to do with it. I have never registered to vote in my life, but I have received many jury summonses.



Selecting all female jurors was a smokescreen to cover up their raciest jury selection process. I guess by your above theory, you must think that only white and hispanic females in Stanford register to vote. No men, no blacks.

Last edited by Max000 on 14 Jul 2013, 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

We can only hope. No justice, no peace.

Zimmerman protests turn violent in Oakland

One sixth of the jury was non-white. One of the alternate jurors was non-white.

What were you expecting. Six jet black Brothers with side turned baseball caps and boom-boxes?

ruveyn

http://gawker.com/will-you-white-cracke ... -599200777

Stop whining. It's over.

Either learn to deal with it or do something about it.

In a city that is 30% black and 20% hispanic, and if racism was not a factor, I would expect the jury to come out three white, two black, and one hispanic.

If you live in Florida and they do not use voter registration to identify potential jurors, then I stand corrected. In most states, as only a US citizen can be on a jury, they use voter registration rolls to identify and select potential jurors for jury duty. If you aren't registered to vote, they can't call you because they don't know you are there.



So you contend.

There is no doubt in my mind that this whole case was about race and politics, not facts. The state appointed a special prosecutor. The judge routinely acted in a way blatantly favorable to the prosecution. In light of that, I fully expected the jury was as "pro prosecution" as possible without blatantly violating the rule governing the voir dire process.

There is absolutely no legal requirement that a jury be ethnically proportionate to the general population. What is required is that they either not be tainted by the pre-trial publicity of the case or at least be on the record as able to judge the case solely on the evidence presented and not any pre-trial exposure to the case. I find this somewhat troubling, but in a mass-media society, it's more and more difficult to find any "untainted" jurist for a high-profile trial.

It is very likely there were no black jurists in the pool who would state that they were incapable of being impartial. Keep in mind that while the court may have been pulling for a guilty verdict, the last thing it would want is a hung jury. So, one black jurist who could not be impartial would likely produce a hung jury and force a retrial.

They also excluded any men from the jury. It may be there were no men who could agree to be impartial.

The jury pool is picked at random. There is no guarantee of what race/gender mix it will have, and again, juries are not required to be ethnically and gender representative of the community. Your contention would have merit if you could show there were black people in the jury pool who were screened for this trial who stated they could be impartial, and all of them were blocked in spite of the prosecution being okay with them.

Given the levels of voter apathy in America, you really don't have the wide diversity of potential jurists that you might think in places that use voter registration to determine who to summon for jury duty.

very very good point.Amanda Knox may very well be a truley inocent person.of all the famous aquitals in recent years,her seems most legit.

from what i read about the case im not sure she really inocent but i would myself though vote for aquital because the evidence just is not there.
i was making a joke,it was said zimmerman and anthony should hook up,and being that knox suposedly killed someone in a kinky sex game it was a good set up for the joke.


i will say about the anthony jurors this: it was not the jurors who screwed up it was the police.any time you have a missing person the first thing a compitent police agency does is search the perimiter of the area the missing person was last seen.the body was found less then a mile from where anthony lived.had police been out in force with dogs to track the scent and game wardens to help police find out of the way places in the woods caylees body could have been found in time to determine cause of death.

if you have ever watched the show "north woods law" about the Maine fish and game officers you would know that those game wardens could find a lost pet gerbal in 5000 acres of woods.combine fish and game officers with cadaver dogs,caylee would been found at the 30 day not 90 day stage of her disapearence.which means cause of death known.

without a known cause of death the jury no choice but to aquit.how can you show a differenciate a accident from a homicide without cause of death.

yes people have been convicted without the body ever being discoved,like the tom capano case in delaware.but in that case they had blood matching capano's wifes DNA in the house and capano's mistress said she loaned him her gun a week before his wifes disapearence and the mistress also let capano use her boat around the time of the murder.and they had motive; tom capano was a district attorney in wilmington delaware who had political hopes.if his adultry came out that would have ended in political career.they had proof that he had an affair because his mistress admited to being his mistressand when she learned that her boyfriends wife was missing she knew capano killed her because she unknowingly suplied the muder weapon and means to dispose of the body.

in the anthony case,
no witness could refute the accidental drowning,which left the evidence of a body in the trunk of there car moot.

as much as i strognly believe anthony had a hand in her daughters death.it was the police not the jury who dropped the ball.the jury did what the connsitution of this nation forced them to do

Which was to render a verdict based on the evidence and testimony as presented, and not on the shouting lynch mobs, the media circuses, or the emotional reactions to the deaths of children.

If it weren't for the Constitution and the Rule of law, there would still be witch hunts and executions based solely on suspicion, prejudice, and hysteria.

While it is true that Anthony and Zimmerman were acquitted, they will never be truly free as long as people feel butt-hurt over the verdicts.