George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Thank you. That's about what I thought would be the case.

I didn't think you made the assertion of the trial lasting 8 hours a day. I saw that you were being questioned on an assumption of that, and something you did not state as being the case. Since it was being treated as obviously being the case (which was not obvious to me) I just wanted to clear that up in case I was wrong.


(I tried to find the information for myself online, in case it was established somewhere exactly how long the trial was in terms of courtroom time, in the event that 8 hours was actually an accurate figure, but I couldn't find it. Thanks again.)

I know you didn't say that. I wasn't directing any of my sarcasm at you. Just the people who claim to know about this case but saw none of the trial, reviewed none of the evidence, but still feel the need to question the people that did.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would not care to stand trial in Florida with a prevetted Jury of six people, under the American system of legal histrionics.
Facts should be presented with out embelishment or theatricals.
Juries should be randomly chosen from a broad spectrum of backgrounds.
In most cases I would prefer the French system of investigative magistrates, to the confrontational american and British system.

Am I saying I doubt the fairness and results of American Law as it exists today ?
My answer is yes.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I would not care to stand trial in Florida with a prevetted Jury of six people, under the American system of legal histrionics.
Facts should be presented with out embelishment or theatricals.
Juries should be randomly chosen from a broad spectrum of backgrounds.
In most cases I would prefer the French system of investigative magistrates, to the confrontational american and British system.

Am I saying I doubt the fairness and results of American Law as it exists today ?
My answer is yes.

My only answer to that would be... Don't move to America. I think the adversarial system is the best way to decide a verdict, personally. Education of people who are required to be jurors could definitely use some work, as most people don't seem to know anything about our laws. But as far as the system in and of itself, I don't see a problem.

EDIT: PS, jurors can't be chosen completely at random. In order for our system to work, the jurors must have no prior knowledge of the case that would give them a bias, so must be screened to determine that they don't. Our jury selection is very meticulous, and designed to have the most objective jurors possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

My only answer to that would be... Don't move to America. I think the adversarial system is the best way to decide a verdict, personally. Education of people who are required to be jurors could definitely use some work, as most people don't seem to know anything about our laws. But as far as the system in and of itself, I don't see a problem.

EDIT: PS, jurors can't be chosen completely at random. In order for our system to work, the jurors must have no prior knowledge of the case that would give them a bias, so must be screened to determine that they don't. Our jury selection is very meticulous, and designed to have the most objective jurors possible.

In our system, they're not selected for objectivity, but rather for neutrality.
I'd say your aproach is superior, since I've seen jurors who are very poor at objective reasoning.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would not care to stand trial in Florida with a prevetted Jury of six people, under the American system of legal histrionics.
Facts should be presented with out embelishment or theatricals.
Juries should be randomly chosen from a broad spectrum of backgrounds.
In most cases I would prefer the French system of investigative magistrates, to the confrontational american and British system.
Am I saying I doubt the fairness and results of American Law as it exists today ?
My answer is yes.

I don't like how prosecutors are allowed to make blatant emotional appeals to manipulate a guilty verdict out of hatred for the accused & vengeance for the victim. I give the defense more slack, since to convict an innocent person is worse than letting a guilty one go. But the big advantage to having jurors that I see is that a government is less able to ensure a conviction for political reasons.
Also toward this end, we have a constitutional protection (double jeopardy) against being tried over & over again for the same crime. But gov is making an end run against this right by trying the accused for the same act, but under different laws (fed & state).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't like how prosecutors are allowed to make blatant emotional appeals to manipulate a guilty verdict out of hatred for the accused & vengeance for the victim. I give the defense more slack, since to convict an innocent person is worse than letting a guilty one go. But the big advantage to having jurors that I see is that a government is less able to ensure a conviction for political reasons.
Also toward this end, we have a constitutional protection (double jeopardy) against being tried over & over again for the same crime. But gov is making an end run against this right by trying the accused for the same act, but under different laws (fed & state).

The law was changed recently in the UK to allow a retrial, when new evidence comes to light, Both for or against. Or for what is a blatant mis-verdict.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Also toward this end, we have a constitutional protection (double jeopardy) against being tried over & over again for the same crime. But gov is making an end run against this right by trying the accused for the same act, but under different laws (fed & state).

They're just paying lip service to the NAACP by saying they're going to conduct an investigation. I think the odds of charges actually being brought are about a billion to 1

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

They're just paying lip service to the NAACP by saying they're going to conduct an investigation. I think the odds of charges actually being brought are about a billion to 1

That FBI report that found no reason to consider Zimmerman racist will be the nail in the coffin if a federal civil rights case is actually tried.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

That FBI report that found no reason to consider Zimmerman racist will be the nail in the coffin if a federal civil rights case is actually tried.

I just don't understand why legally, even if he used a racial slur 100 times a day and was the biggest racist known to man, it would make on bit of difference as to whether or not he had committed a civil right violation. Last I checked, people are allowed to use racial slurs without being prosecuated. The guy is allowed to be suspicious of someone even if that reason is the person's ethnicity.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I just don't understand why legally, even if he used a racial slur 100 times a day and was the biggest racist known to man, it would make on bit of difference as to whether or not he had committed a civil right violation. Last I checked, people are allowed to use racial slurs without being prosecuated. The guy is allowed to be suspicious of someone even if that reason is the person's ethnicity.

Public outrage ever was a slave to logic... There are just a bunch of bitter sheep that paid no attention to the evidence, but want to see Zimmerman punished for a crime he has already been exonerated of because a few demagogues told them they should feel that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Public outrage ever was a slave to logic... There are just a bunch of bitter sheep that paid no attention to the evidence, but want to see Zimmerman punished for a crime he has already been exonerated of because a few demagogues told them they should feel that way.

Well, they're angry over real & imagined social injustices. Someone must pay.
It might as well be Zimmerman. He has it all going for him to be made into the
perfect devil:
- He's a gun owner who shot in self defense.
- He's white.
- He's unattractive & pudgy (hardly sympathetic).
- He's Hispanic, the minority that no one cares about (until Democrats need their votes every 4th year).
- His assailant was perfect fodder for the Al Sharpton/MSNBC publicity machine.

 

[4consideration]

Oh Im sorry you work 40+ hours a week then spend another 40 watching court t.v.. in your spare time and sleep 5 or 6 hours in between.That does add up.

His statement of watching the entire trial makes sense to me. You're assumptions of what that would mean do not.

If the trial lasted for 14 courtroom days, with an average courtroom time of 6.5 hours -- knowing that lunch and other breaks are not courtroom time -- that comes to a total of about 91 hours of courtroom time.

The trial began on June 24. There are 19 days from the beginning of that trial and the
beginning of this thread.

91 hours of courtroom time, divided by 19 days = 4.7889 average hours of TV viewing during that time period.

That seemed really close to the statistical average TV viewing time for Americans, so I checked Nielson statistics. With 4 hours being the average American's viewing time, it doesn't even strike me as questionable that a person might spend that much time (less than 5 hours average per day) viewing something they were keenly interested in getting first-hand information about, in order to form an opinion for themselves.

I've done similar things myself on certain issues.

"Television Statistics
According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours/week, or 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year). In a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube." Television

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

His statement of watching the entire trial makes sense to me. You're assumptions of what that would mean do not.

If the trial lasted for 14 courtroom days, with an average courtroom time of 6.5 hours -- knowing that lunch and other breaks are not courtroom time -- that comes to a total of about 91 hours of courtroom time.

The trial began on June 24. There are 19 days from the beginning of that trial and the
beginning of this thread.

91 hours of courtroom time, divided by 19 days = 4.7889 average hours of TV viewing during that time period.

That seemed really close to the statistical average TV viewing time for Americans, so I checked Nielson statistics. With 4 hours being the average American's viewing time, it doesn't even strike me as questionable that a person might spend that much time (less than 5 hours average per day) viewing something they were keenly interested in getting first-hand information about, in order to form an opinion for themselves.

I've done similar things myself on certain issues.

"Television Statistics
According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours/week, or 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year). In a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube." Television

Thank you... They're trying to make me out to be some sort of shut-in lol. As if there isn't enough time in a day to go to work, watch the trial, and still have a little free time. I told you it was possible. I TOLD YOU!!!!

....Ok, I'm done now

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you... They're trying to make me out to be some sort of shut-in lol. As if there isn't enough time in a day to go to work, watch the trial, and still have a little free time. I told you it was possible. I TOLD YOU!!!!

....Ok, I'm done now

Even if you had spent a ridiculous amount of time watching the trial, it was something worth watching....although I couldn't take that much. It was a real window into our court system, something that many people never see. It's like watching sausage being made....very boring baloney most of the time, but very spicy chorizo at times. (Was that analogy overload?)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Well, they're angry over real & imagined social injustices. Someone must pay.
It might as well be Zimmerman. He has it all going for him to be made into the
perfect devil:
- He's a gun owner who shot in self defense.
- He's white.
- He's unattractive & pudgy (hardly sympathetic).
- He's Hispanic, the minority that no one cares about (until Democrats need their votes every 4th year).
- His assailant was perfect fodder for the Al Sharpton/MSNBC publicity machine.

Makes perfect sense. I still don't agree with the "he's white" part, but they are mad because they think he is.

I especially like the part about Hispanics. It's so true... There are no candlelight vigils and media circuses when a Hispanic kid gets shot. Bill O'Reilly's like "well, he's not one of us", and Al Sharpton's like "well, he's not one of us", so America just never hears about it. But when it comes to election time, everyone LOVES a Hispanic voter...

 

[Revoltingest]

Makes perfect sense. I still don't agree with the "he's white" part, but they are mad because they think he is.

I especially like the part about Hispanics. It's so true... There are no candlelight vigils and media circuses when a Hispanic kid gets shot. Bill O'Reilly's like "well, he's not one of us", and Al Sharpton's like "well, he's not one of us", so America just never hears about it. But when it comes to election time, everyone LOVES a Hispanic voter...

I'm a knuckle walking boorish bigot. But Hispanics be OK with me....the food,
music & penchant for groundskeeping warm my cold bitter little heart.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Even if you had spent a ridiculous amount of time watching the trial, it was something worth watching....although I couldn't take that much. It was a real window into our court system, something that many people never see. It's like watching sausage being made....very boring baloney most of the time, but very spicy chorizo at times. (Was that analogy overload?)

That was an... interesting analogy . I loved every minute of the trial though; couldn't take my eyes off it. I hope to be a lawyer some time in the next 5-10 years, so that **** is like the World Series to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

That was an... interesting analogy . I loved every minute of the trial though; couldn't take my eyes off it. I hope to be a lawyer some time in the next 5-10 years, so that **** is like the World Series to me.

Your dream it may be, but I hope that fate never befalls you.
Oh, OK....I do know some lawyers who enjoy the profession.

 

[Wirey]

Even if you had spent a ridiculous amount of time watching the trial, it was something worth watching....although I couldn't take that much. It was a real window into our court system, something that many people never see. It's like watching sausage being made....very boring baloney most of the time, but very spicy chorizo at times. (Was that analogy overload?)

Hee-hee. Wieners.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Your dream it may be, but I hope that fate never befalls you.
Oh, OK....I do know some lawyers who enjoy the profession.

What could be better than arguing for money?