(07-01-2013, 11:46 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2013, 11:38 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]If GZ is acquitted it will be because he had an effective defense? Ya ever thought of that?
If he's completely acquitted, it's because the jury couldn't even convict him of a lesser charge... and honestly I think it has less to do with an effective defense as it has to do with a shit case for the prosecution.
Am I the only one who remembers they weren't even going to charge Zimmerman until the race hustlers whipped up the political frenzy?
There is a reason they weren't going to charge him, and that is because they knew it was crap and the odds of conviction were low.
They couldn't charge him for lack of eye witnesses. The same is true today. No one can say what happened in those few moments when the confrontation started.
(07-02-2013, 12:05 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]They couldn't charge him for lack of eye witnesses. The same is true today. No one can say what happened in those few moments when the confrontation started.
THIS is exactly right on so many levels.
Yet here we are at trial.
*ETA at trial, with a crap case, that still has no eye witness or additional knowledge about what happened in those critical few moments.
(07-02-2013, 12:03 AM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Believe what you want... I'm not hedging on anything.
*snipped or relevance and space*
...you can't assume that one person can't sway the rest.
We'll see soon!
It's not the Zimmerman jury's reality. It's your claimed assumption based on a sentencing phase from a past case, and your convenient unfounded projection on to others for the case at hand; a rationalization should the jury, after having considered all of the evidence, disagree with your "open minded" position.
And, yes, one juror can sway the rest, but not using fear of public backlash to do so without it equating to juror misconduct.
I can accept acquittal, Manslaughter, or Murder 2 - wherever the evidence leads. I might not end up agreeing with the verdict, but I don't think there's a conspiracy in play, nor do I think that there will be riots if Zimmerman is acquitted. I'm not accusing the jury (or even one of them) of being cowardly liars before they even begin deliberations just in case they end up viewing the evidence in a different light than do I. No hedging here.
Yes, we'll see. We'll just continue to see people and the process differently no matter how it turns out. That's okay.
(07-01-2013, 11:04 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]There's no chance these jurors had been or are currently completely unaware of the enormous racial pressure that surrounds this case. The coverage this case generated long before jury selection certainly will have an effect. An argument to the contrary completely discounts the bias or influence we experience as human beings.
So now psychologically they are in a position now that they feel they can let both sides win... they can find a guy not guilty of 2nd degree murder, and convict him of a lesser charge.
There is no vacuum. They are fully aware of all the emotional and racial tension here.
IMO, it will absolutely affect the decision they make.
You've morphed into MS, you now have the amazing ability to know things you couldn't possibly know. Whatta gift!
How come I'm not seeing the same "enormous racial pressure" that you're seeing? Is it because I don't share your gift? Woe is me :(
Yeah I bet the prosecution and defence would love to have someone who has the incredible gift of being able to read jurors minds working for them on this case.
(07-02-2013, 05:35 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
How come I'm not seeing the same "enormous racial pressure" that you're seeing?
Maybe you're turning a blind eye.
I remember threats by Sharpton, Jackson and the (New) Black Panthers if Zim wasn't arrested. I'm sure these jurors do, too.
The speeches from those race baiters burns like a 30 foot cross . . . in my mind.
Men of God preaching hate -or- black men crying victim: You be the judge.
I also remember how LA burned after the whities walked. Hell . . . the nigs burned the Koreans' and Mexicans' businesses, too. They didn't care.
I can't recall an instance (in my lifetime) where whitey rioted due to a jury verdict.
Oh wait! Maybe it's because more whities have jobs and thus less free time?
Or maybe they choose to spend their free time Coon hunting instead of rioting?
I think those blacks are shit stirrers and I don't see them as men of God. God doesn't have anything to do with hate.
I do recall the bs they were preaching *snort* in the very beginning. I've come to expect that behavior from them any time it's a black/white situation. They are a joke.
(07-02-2013, 08:25 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
They are a joke.
With a sympathetic and loyal following.
FFS! Paula Deen kowtowed to Jesse for "redemption"!
They continue to want whitey to be afraid of the black man.
It's their brand of "equality" through fear and intimidation that causes tubbies like Zim to be fearful.
Don't diss the gift.
Remember, it revealed that Lance Armstrong was wrongly accused too. He never cheated, he was the victim of a massive decade-long lie-filled conspiracy and witch hunt levied by members of the racing community and the head of the USADA.
Oh wait...
Anyway, the gift now reveals that if Zimmerman is convicted, it will be because the jury members are fearful of rendering a truthful verdict against the wrongly accused. If Zimmerman is acquitted, it will be because the same jury members are brave enough to render a truthful verdict against the wrongly accused. Evidence, schmevidence - who needs it?! He is wrongly accused; another damn conspiracy!
And, here those 6 naive jurors probably figured that they were simply going to listen objectively to evidence presented at trial and decide whether or not it proves beyond reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman committed a crime(s). If so, conviction. If not, acquittal. Little did they know that the definition of "human nature" rests squarely on their shoulders.
I love you.
(07-02-2013, 08:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]. . . jury members are brave enough to render a truthful verdict against the wrongly accused. Evidence, schmevidence - who needs it?!
How'd that workout for OJ?
Wait . . . not fair . . . Left Coast trial.
How'd that work out for Anthony?
The
"truthful verdict" and
"wrongly accused" thing?
(07-02-2013, 08:49 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013, 08:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]. . . jury members are brave enough to render a truthful verdict against the wrongly accused. Evidence, schmevidence - who needs it?!
How'd that workout for OJ?
Wait . . . not fair . . . Left Coast trial.
How'd that work out for Anthony?
The "truthful verdict" and "wrongly accused" thing?
It worked out with the juries rendering verdicts with which I disagreed. Verdicts that reflected their "true" decisions and consensus.
I think the defendants in those cases should have have been charged. There was no conspiring against them. They weren't deemed "wrongly accused". They were deemed "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt" of the charges against them.
I think the juries in those cases considered the evidence and rendered what they knew would be controversial verdicts, given the pre-trial publicity in those cases as well. There was no collaborating to deliver tainted untruthful verdicts based on fear.
Juries don't always get it right as far as I'm concerned. But, when they disagree with my position, I don't assume that's because the process isn't a good one, or that they're liars, or that they're afraid to do what they swore to do.
Some cases are simply stronger than others, and some juries are simply brighter than others.
(07-02-2013, 08:19 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013, 05:35 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
How come I'm not seeing the same "enormous racial pressure" that you're seeing?
Maybe you're turning a blind eye.
I remember threats by Sharpton, Jackson and the (New) Black Panthers if Zim wasn't arrested. I'm sure these jurors do, too.
The speeches from those race baiters burns like a 30 foot cross . . . in my mind.
Men of God preaching hate -or- black men crying victim: You be the judge.
I also remember how LA burned after the whities walked. Hell . . . the nigs burned the Koreans' and Mexicans' businesses, too. They didn't care.
I can't recall an instance (in my lifetime) where whitey rioted due to a jury verdict.
Oh wait! Maybe it's because more whities have jobs and thus less free time?
Or maybe they choose to spend their free time Coon hunting instead of rioting?
So where are those ass-clowns now? I don't see them making speeches, conducting walks, news conferences...
I think they have seen the writing on the wall, the prosecution has a shit case and a decent defense. I think that they have figured out that T was not an innocent 8 yr old like the photos the family released in the beginning. I think they are distancing themselves from the trial because they think Z will walk.
Sanford is not L.A. they don't have enough blacks there with enough dedication to put on a decent riot. That part of Florida does however have enough rednecks to put a stop to it if it does start up.
Don't get me wrong, I think Z is an idiot that should never have gotten a CCW permit and I wouldn't want him watching my neighborhood.
However, stupid is not illegal, should be, but isn't.
I think Z and T were both at fault because of their attitudes and that was going to end badly no matter what.
(07-02-2013, 09:04 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Verdicts that reflected their "true" decisions and consensus.
Some cases are simply stronger than others, and some juries are simply brighter than others.
Reflected
their "true" decisions and consensus? JB . . . is that
you?
(05-06-2013, 10:01 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Judge Belvin Perry did an interview about his experience on the Casey Anthony case this morning.
Snip:
Perry described his "surprise," "shock" and "disbelief" at reading the verdict.
"There was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of murder in the first degree in this case," he said.
Hoping that the Jodi Arias jury doesn't consider "which lawyer do I like best?" a valid deliberation question.
Just thought I'd post a lil' sumpin' from a jurist's perspective.
And an observation that evidence ain't the only thing on a juror's mind.
(07-02-2013, 05:35 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2013, 11:04 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]There's no chance these jurors had been or are currently completely unaware of the enormous racial pressure that surrounds this case. The coverage this case generated long before jury selection certainly will have an effect. An argument to the contrary completely discounts the bias or influence we experience as human beings.
So now psychologically they are in a position now that they feel they can let both sides win... they can find a guy not guilty of 2nd degree murder, and convict him of a lesser charge.
There is no vacuum. They are fully aware of all the emotional and racial tension here.
IMO, it will absolutely affect the decision they make.
You've morphed into MS, you now have the amazing ability to know things you couldn't possibly know. Whatta gift!
It's called insight.
Run down to your local
7⁄
11 and get you some.
(07-02-2013, 09:31 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]It's called insight.
Oh puleeze. Your level of insight is tard level at best.
"Their" true verdict is correct, Tiki.
It's a verdict reached by those six people deliberating the evidence. If "they" ignore their oaths and deliver a verdict that they don't believe in, due to fear of public reaction, it's "untruthful". If they deliver what they've decided upon based on the evidence presented at trial and by following the process, it's their true verdict.
"Truthful" and "correct" are not the same. But, you know that. People can honestly reach wrong conclusions in good faith.
And, I agree with Judge Perry. The Casey Anthony verdict was surprising. If he's correct in assuming that the demeanor of the lawyers presenting the evidence at trial was a factor in their verdict, it proves that they weren't the brightest jury, imo. Juries sometimes consider the defendant's appearance as well. No argument that such things can influence how a jury views the evidence and have an impact on the verdict.
That's entirely different than delivering a verdict that they believe is false based on what they perceive will happen outside of the courtroom (after having already assured the court that they would not consider or be in fear of public reaction when deliberating a verdict).
I get your points, I just see it differently.
(07-02-2013, 09:37 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (07-02-2013, 09:31 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]It's called insight.
Oh puleeze. Your level of insight is tard level at best.
I understand what JimBone is saying to an extent.
This only became a 'case' after the public realized there weren't going to be any charges filed.
Sanford Police Chief was forced to resign, and to pacify the race baiters they threw murder 2 at George.
So, it would stand to reason that there may be pressure on the entire community to get some sort of conviction...
anything at this point. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.
I'm more open minded at this moment than I was 6 months ago as to what really happened that night.
However, without direct eyewitness testimony or some forensic smoking gun it will be very hard to disprove GZ's version of events.
(07-02-2013, 09:47 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]This only became a 'case' after the public realized there weren't going to be any charges filed.
Charges were filed because it was the right thing to do. I went back and read a little of the beginning of this thread. People were outraged that charges weren't filed. When the hell did it become illegal to walk in the rain, to take a shortcut? In your opinion what did T do wrong, what did he do that he deserved to be shot dead?
(07-02-2013, 09:46 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]"Their" true verdict is correct, Tiki.
It's a verdict reached by those six people deliberating the evidence.
I have no idea what influences a juror to decide an issue.
I have no idea if they upheld their oath and deliberated ONLY on what was admissible and allowed in court.
Therefore, I can only state that a jury reached a conclusion (rendered or did not render a verdict).
However . . . many a man claims dey wuz convicted and sentenced unjustly cuz of da color of dey skin.
How dat be different . . . unless skin color be evidence?