Trayvon Martin

[iamshack]

I hadn't thought of it like that, but I think you're on to something with the psychology of candy=young, innocent. But he literally was just a kid eating candy on his way home, minding his own business and doing nothing wrong. It could have been a McDonald's cheeseburger or a million other innocent things instead.

 

If the case hinges entirely on the jury's belief of who initiated the physical confrontation, then yes, I can see how some of the bravado stuff is relevant. But the pot-smoking? Flipping the bird? It really shouldn't be, at all. Martin isn't more or less deserving of the protection of the law because he smoked pot.

I agree...none of those things mean he should be allowed to be murdered walking down the street. But if I am on the jury, and you're asking me to decide whether I think Zimmerman acted in self-defense or killed this kid intentionally, and not many of the facts are known, I'd be making a lot of assumptions based on what I could piece together about the character of the two participants.

 

Let's face it, everyone makes these sort of judgments every day. You're not going to suddenly stop when called upon to actually determine whether someone is guilty of murder or not.

[StrangeSox]

I agree...none of those things mean he should be allowed to be murdered walking down the street. But if I am on the jury, and you're asking me to decide whether I think Zimmerman acted in self-defense or killed this kid intentionally, and not many of the facts are known, I'd be making a lot of assumptions based on what I could piece together about the character of the two participants.

 

Let's face it, everyone makes these sort of judgments every day. You're not going to suddenly stop when called upon to actually determine whether someone is guilty of murder or not.

I think this is true, but I think we should strive to recognize these sorts of judgements and biases in ourselves in order to overcome them. Zimmerman made a quick judgement based on (poor) assumptions that a young black male in his neighborhood was likely a criminal.

[farmteam]

I agree...none of those things mean he should be allowed to be murdered walking down the street. But if I am on the jury, and you're asking me to decide whether I think Zimmerman acted in self-defense or killed this kid intentionally, and not many of the facts are known, I'd be making a lot of assumptions based on what I could piece together about the character of the two participants.

 

Let's face it, everyone makes these sort of judgments every day. You're not going to suddenly stop when called upon to actually determine whether someone is guilty of murder or not.

Personally, if I have to make that many assumptions, there's no way I could vote to convict. I may even think that my assumptions are right and that he should be convicted...but if the prosecution hasn't presented the case in a way that doesn't me to require to make that many assumptions, then I could not convict.

 

I do think there's a difference between making one or two assumptions in reaching a decision, and making 6 assumptions to reach the same decision. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line with that, though.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, if the legal theory the state is presenting really does rely on who initiated the confrontation and there's no other information than what's been publicly reported, I would find it hard to convict Zimmerman of murder. I don't think what he did should be legal, however, and that maybe a manslaughter charge would have been more appropriate.

[iamshack]

I think this is true, but I think we should strive to recognize these sorts of judgements and biases in ourselves in order to overcome them. Zimmerman made a quick judgement based on (poor) assumptions that a young black male in his neighborhood was likely a criminal.

Do we really need to overcome them though? A lot of these judgments are biologically evolved and necessary judgments.

 

I see nothing wrong in seeing someone as potentially violent because the way they might be walking, or the way they may be dressing, or the things they may be saying. Now that doesn't mean I should be convicting that person of a crime, or make a moral judgment about them, but I don't see that as doing anything wrong.

 

And to farmteam's point, the question is not what assumptions am I making in order to convict, the question is what assumptions am I making to NOT convict. And in the absence of much other evidence, these assumptions or judgments make it more likely that I vote NOT to convict a guy, because these assumptions or judgments, coupled with the lack of evidence make it even more difficult to convict.

 

 

[farmteam]

And to farmteam's point, the question is not what assumptions am I making in order to convict, the question is what assumptions am I making to NOT convict. And in the absence of much other evidence, these assumptions or judgments make it more likely that I vote NOT to convict a guy, because these assumptions or judgments, coupled with the lack of evidence make it even more difficult to convict.

Ah. Well, I guess my point then (which I think is what you're saying here; correct me if I'm wrong) is that if the prosecution presents the case in a way that assumptions are required for me to reach either conclusion (conviction or non-conviction), then I will make those assumptions for a non-conviction, but not for a conviction.

 

As a juror, I would feel that that would be the best way for me to live up to "innocent until proven guilty" and all that jazz. Admittedly, I've never actually served on a real jury.

[iamshack]

Ah. Well, I guess my point then (which I think is what you're saying here; correct me if I'm wrong) is that if the prosecution presents the case in a way that assumptions are required for me to reach either conclusion (conviction or non-conviction), then I will make those assumptions for a non-conviction, but not for a conviction.

 

As a juror, I would feel that that would be the best way for me to live up to "innocent until proven guilty" and all that jazz. Admittedly, I've never actually served on a real jury.

Yeah, I think that's correct. So what the defense is trying to do in this case is trying to call question (or even cause the jury to make some assumptions) into Martin's character enough to just add one more doubt as to whether Zimmerman actually could have murdered him. I agree with you; I think it is fair to make those assumptions if you're voting not guilty, because if those assumptions are there to be made, then that is usually a pretty good indicator that the prosecution has not proven their case.

[Jenksismyhero]

6 person jury, all women, one minority.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA71L7N02

 

[Balta1701]

6 person jury, all women, one minority.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA71L7N02

WTH, a 6 person Jury? Is that a florida thing? Never ever heard of that?

[pettie4sox]

6 person jury, all women, one minority.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA71L7N02

 

That might spell the end for Zimmerman.

[iamshack]

WTH, a 6 person Jury? Is that a florida thing? Never ever heard of that?

Prosecutors and defense attorneys chose the panel of six jurors after almost two weeks of jury selection. In Florida, 12 jurors are required only for criminal trials involving capital cases, when the death penalty is being considered.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/20/meet-...atest+-+Text%29

 

 

Some background on some of the jurors.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Florida has a goofy system. Even for the death penalty, a jury vote of 7-5 for sentencing is sufficient. For every three inmates Florida executes, it exonerates another. To solve this problem, Florida legislators are proposing a bill that would speed-up the execution process to one state appeal, one federal appeal and a rubber-stamp from the governor. Won't have that horrible exoneration record if you kill 'em before they can prove their innocence!

 

/rant

[StrangeSox]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/20/meet-...atest+-+Text%29

 

 

Some background on some of the jurors.

why do two of them specifically mention something about their pets? weird.

[Jenksismyhero]

why do two of them specifically mention something about their pets? weird.

 

Because people with pets are awesome? I have no idea.

 

[Balta1701]

Because people with pets are awesome? I have no idea.

Perhaps one of the lawyers included a question about that in the jury-pool questions. I'm sure it tells something about the psychology of the person whether they own a pet.

[pettie4sox]

So the minority is hispanic. They should have just found all middle eastern people to fill the jury.

[Soxbadger]

I want to know more about B-72, that guy sounds like a reality tv show waiting to happen.

 

And Id guess there is some evidence that shows people with pets are more empathetic? I dont know, that would be my guess.

[StrangeSox]

why on earth would the defense counsel think this was a good idea?

 

[iamshack]

why on earth would the defense counsel think this was a good idea?

 

Don't have access to the sound right now, but is this the "knock knock" joke I've heard about?

[Jenksismyhero]

why on earth would the defense counsel think this was a good idea?

 

 

Yeah. That is odd. Unless he was trying to make a point that they should be wary of bringing in outside information into their deliberations. But that was a weird way of getting to that point.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Don't have access to the sound right now, but is this the "knock knock" joke I've heard about?

yes

 

Yeah. That is odd. Unless he was trying to make a point that they should be wary of bringing in outside information into their deliberations. But that was a weird way of getting to that point.

if you have to plead with the jury for 45 seconds not to take your joke the wrong way and to hold it against your client...well, maybe you should rethink your strategy...

 

it wasn't like it was some egregious or offensive joke, it was just really bizarre.

Edited June 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

yes

 

 

if you have to plead with the jury for 45 seconds not to take your joke the wrong way and to hold it against your client...well, maybe you should rethink your strategy...

Yeah, this kind of cute s*** usually backfires...not sure why lawyers still try to pull it off...too risky.

[Jenksismyhero]

Also, the star witness was pretty entertaining. I have to imagine her credibility was shot with all of the changes in her statements and the fact that she couldn't read something she claimed to have written herself.

[Jake]

Also, the star witness was pretty entertaining. I have to imagine her credibility was shot with all of the changes in her statements and the fact that she couldn't read something she claimed to have written herself.

 

That's some of the most painful, tedious cross examination I've ever seen. I would have punched that defense lawyer in the f***ing face and you could tell she wants to. He's just doing his job, of course, but damn was that whole ordeal annoying. This is why I'm not going into law.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jake