Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what you're saying is that justice is color blind right? There's no way prosecutors or state,county or city officials could be swayed by fear of what could happen if something wasn't done about this heinous,willful slaughter of an innocent skittle eating young man, gunned down in the prime of his life who was only on his way home to visit his ailing grandmother who was on her deathbed and needed him to pray with her before he went to his alter boy service?
Really?
Do you not see that this, while an exaggeration is along the lines of how this case was billed from just prior to the arrest?
NONE of that ^^^ means the jury can be controlled. Need I remind you of the Casey Anthony trial? Doesn't matter what the public thinks. What matters is the evidence presented at the trial and the jury's verdict. At this point, you nor I really know what kind of case the State has because we haven't heard their theory of the case nor have we heard the evidence they will present.
I'm saying that juries are much smarter and far more honest than people give them credit for being, and there are laws and rules which require that once they are selected to be a juror that they not read nor listen to anything in the public related to the case. The honesty part comes in during voir dire when they are asked if they have formed an opinion one way or the other about the case. Have you never heard about how unpredictable juries are regarding verdicts?
Actually watching and reporting is exactly what a good citizen does and as a citizen can affect an arrest.
Why? Since when is it the police's job to protect anything or anyone?
And acted as such when he lashed out at G.Z. bringing him to the ground and pummeling him.
Maybe that night but unless you're working as a certified dial a psychic that's purely speculation. You don't know he wouldn't have come to the truck and did something, you don't know that he wouldn't have run into someone else further on or gone out again only to be killed elsewhere.
Too much histrionics in this.
NONE of that ^^^ means the jury can be controlled. Need I remind you of the Casey Anthony trial? Doesn't matter what the public thinks. What matters is the evidence presented at the trial and the jury's verdict. At this point, you nor I really know what kind of case the State has because we haven't heard their theory of the case nor have we heard the evidence they will present.
I'm saying that juries are much smarter and far more honest than people give them credit for being, and there are laws and rules which require that once they are selected to be a juror that they not read nor listen to anything in the public related to the case. The honesty part comes in during voir dire when they are asked if they have formed an opinion one way or the other about the case. Have you never heard about how unpredictable juries are regarding verdicts?
Yeah, ok. I'll just mention O.J.. As for jurors, you've got to know jurors run the gamete and don't always do what they're instructed to do hence the several that were tossed off the Jodi Arias trial.
I'm not so naive to think jurors are always the straight up follow the law and common sense type people you describe. I also am not so naive to believe that all jurors are honest in voir dire or that they won't say what they think is needed to get in the jury box for whatever reason.
You also know voir dire is also for attorneys to "pick" the jurors they want to load up on right?
Voir Dire definition snippet: Actually one of the unspoken purposes of the voir dire is for the attorneys to get a feel for the personalities and likely views of the people on the jury panel. In some courts the judge asks most of the questions, while in others the lawyers are given substantial latitude and time to ask questions. Some jurors may be dismissed for cause by the judge, and the attorneys may excuse others in "peremptory" challenges without stating any reason.
1. On the night of the shooting zimmerman claimed to be heading to K-Mart, so why did he need a loaded gun?
2. He was not on patrol and even if he was, it is against the rules to be armed while on patrol anyway?
3. Why is it important to show Trayvon's past but yet ignore zimmerman's criminal history?
4. How can a 17 year old be a "mixed martial arts expert" at 17, high on weed and Nyquil but yet only do little physical damage to zimmerman?
5. How can zimmerman have not followed Trayvon when his body was found between a row of houses yards away from the truck that he was told to stay in?
6. Since zimmerman was a resident of the community and often patrolled the area frequently, how come he could not give his location to the police?
7. If he was so in fear of his life why did he follow him in the first place, since he was not on duty?
8. For those of you who believe that zimmerman is innocent, would it have been any different if Trayvon was a church going black male or a white male with the same issues that Trayvon supposely had?
9. Does the fact that zimmerman lied to a judge and his own lawyer have any bearing what he will say in court?
10. Why has the conversation does not include the Sanford police department, since if they had done their job properly in the first place this media circus would not have happened in the first place? Who is the person that stepped in and persuaded the arresting officer let him go and why was'nt a drug/alcohol screening done on zimmerman in the first place?
1. On the night of the shooting zimmerman claimed to be heading to K-Mart, so why did he need a loaded gun?
That's completely irrelevant to the case and irrelevant in general. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about "need". Zimmerman was legally carrying a gun and that's all there is to it. This trial will determine whether he was justified in shooting Trayvon, not whether he should have been carrying a gun at all.
That's completely irrelevant to the case and irrelevant in general. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about "need". Zimmerman was legally carrying a gun and that's all there is to it. This trial will determine whether he was justified in shooting Trayvon, not whether he should have been carrying a gun at all.
I mention that because zimmerman was questioned about that in the begining and that was the reply that he gave. I guess to counter that he was not out looking for criminals with a loaded gun.
Look at the maps. No matter which is closest to the truth - no way Zimmerman's story can be true - that he got out of his truck just to get an address and was then attacked while heading back to his truck. Bull hockey.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please.....
I too stayed at the Holiday Inn Express!
