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
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.
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. OccamIt's Florida. What can you expect?
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.
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.
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. OccamAs 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 furtherI 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.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.
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. :down:
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”. 
Occam
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.
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.
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.
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.From what I've been able to glean from the scant evidence given to us on the networks, had I been on the jury I would have leaned towards manslaughter or your idea Ciceronious, reckless endangerment. The kid had his fists and Zimmerman had a gun. Even if Martin had struck first Zimmerman used lethal force to subdue him, and he wasn't a cop. Cap't Jack
Any type of jury - professional or not, is a bad idea, IMO. But it's in the constitution, so there is very little chance of doing away with it.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 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. OccamThis says a lot about the jury concept. Few people really care.
This says a lot about the jury concept. Few people really care.I agree. have you ever heard of anyone "volunteering" for jury duty? Here the jury is randomly picked from a list of registered voters; you revive a summons in the mail and you must appear at the given date. It's not an invitation so most people view it as an inconvenience. Also most jury members have little or no knowledge of legal procedure and have to be schooled before serving. that's one of the reasons they' easily swayed by whichever lawyer spins the best story, e.g. "if the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit". Cap't Jack