Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post Reply
User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by mistermack » Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:00 pm

Seth wrote:
mistermack wrote:What bollocks from across the water.
Firstly, the jury has almost certainly ALREADY seen that footage. How fucking gullible can you get?
They will be asked if they have seen news coverage of the event as a part of voir dire, and if they have, they will likely not be seated on the jury because either the prosecutor or the defense will strike them with a preemptory challenge. The difficulty for both sides will be finding and seating a jury that has not been contaminated by the news coverage, but that's the case in every notable crime covered by the media. It's done all the time, it just takes more time while questioning jurors to be sure they haven't seen the coverage and haven't drawn any conclusions.

You really ought not make claims about a process that it's clear you know absolutely nothing about.
You really ought to visit the real world now and again. I can't believe you're dumb enough to believe what you wrote there.
That's the theory. In practice, if someone fancies sitting on that jury, they will answer "no" when asked if they have seen the coverage.
Everybody knows that, but you, apparently.
I really don't believe you are THAT dumb, so you must be just bullshitting as usual.

As for the rest of your post, I KNOW all that shit. Everybody knows it. I just made the point that ignoring the defendant's refusal to talk, PRETENDING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, is misleading the jury.
In this country, it gets pointed out to the jury. That's all. The jury can draw an inference, or ignore it, or regard it as understandable.
It's part of the EVIDENCE because it happened. It's a relevant fact.

In your country, they like to keep all sorts of things from a jury. That's why people like O.J. Simpson get away with murder.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:59 pm

mistermack wrote: As for the rest of your post, I KNOW all that shit. Everybody knows it. I just made the point that ignoring the defendant's refusal to talk, PRETENDING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, is misleading the jury.
Actually, where a defendant refuses to testify, the jury is fully aware of that refusal, because they sit there looking at him for the entire length of the trial. Most jurors are fully capable of puzzling out whether or not one of the persons seated at the defendant's table had made their way up to the witness box. Further, the judge is required to instruct the jury that they are not to hold the defendant's silence against him. So, the judge points it out to them special-like.
mistermack wrote:
In this country, it gets pointed out to the jury. That's all. The jury can draw an inference, or ignore it, or regard it as understandable.
It's part of the EVIDENCE because it happened. It's a relevant fact.

In your country, they like to keep all sorts of things from a jury. That's why people like O.J. Simpson get away with murder.
How in the world does the fact that the defendant sat at his table all trial, and didn't testify, going to get past the jury? Who is hiding it?

As for the allegation, "in your country, they like to keep all sorts of things from a jury..." -- yes, things like: evidence which is not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, hearsay evidence, evidence of a rape victim's sexual history, and prejudicial evidence like "evidence that the defendant is a bad person" -- that kind of thing. That's generally what "in our country" gets kept out of the courtroom. Perhaps you have some other examples of things that would be excluded here, but not in your country? Let's talk about them, and we'll see exactly where the differences are.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by mistermack » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:27 pm

Well done, you've totally missed the point.
Nobody mentioned a defendant refusing to testify.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:49 pm

mistermack wrote:Well done, you've totally missed the point.
Nobody mentioned a defendant refusing to testify.

Gotcha -- so, a Defendant has the right to remain silent, and is well advised to do so, and you call the fact that the court doesn't make an issue of it, "ignoring the defendant's refusal to talk, PRETENDING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, is misleading the jury."

That's even worse. Imagine you get arrested for something you didn't do, but there are all sorts of statements coming from the cops that they know you did it. You may as well come clean, and they are shooting questions at you, telling you they want to search your car and house. It's all happening so fast, you don't know what is going on. You know they must be mistaken, but now they put you in a room with a lightbulb and a harsh questioner, interrogating you to come clean.

You're scared shitless and through the whole ordeal you ask them for your lawyer, and say that you'll consider dealing with them after you get counsel.

You want the prosecutor to be able to point out to the jury that you were uncooperative.

Awesome. You'd fit right in with the law and order conservatives that we see a lot of. All the "if you're innocent, what do you have to worry about from the police" idiots, who don't get that innocent people do get arrested, and that the cops often think they're guilty and often don't care if they are really guilty. Once you're in the system, you're in.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51685
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 8-34-20
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Tero » Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:35 am

Lady forgets hand bag in toilet. Thinks its stolen. Looks out the door and sees our car leave bowling alley, calls cops after us.

They stop us, ready to book once they find our evidence.

Meanwhile, different cop calls on radio they found the bag in the toilet.

Nobody apologized.

But, no shootin' here in suburbs. In the city, guns would have been found.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74295
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by JimC » Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:56 am

Eventually, there will be a trial and a verdict, and this thread can die...


Wait, there will be the appeal... :doh:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23746
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Clinton Huxley » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:07 am

JimC wrote:Eventually, there will be a trial and a verdict, and this thread can die...


Wait, there will be the appeal... :doh:
there should be a prize for killing this thread
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74295
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by JimC » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:23 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:
JimC wrote:Eventually, there will be a trial and a verdict, and this thread can die...


Wait, there will be the appeal... :doh:
there should be a prize for killing this thread
"I was scared the thread would assault me, so I shot it..."
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23746
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Clinton Huxley » Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:26 am

JimC wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:
JimC wrote:Eventually, there will be a trial and a verdict, and this thread can die...


Wait, there will be the appeal... :doh:
there should be a prize for killing this thread
"I was scared the thread would assault me, so I shot it..."
:lol:
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by maiforpeace » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:20 pm

Investigator: Zimmerman missed opportunities to defuse situation

Looks like George may now be headed for a murder conviction.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by mistermack » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:24 am

maiforpeace wrote:Investigator: Zimmerman missed opportunities to defuse situation

Looks like George may now be headed for a murder conviction.
Of course he is.
People think he will get off on reasonable doubt, but a good prosecutor will rip that doubt to shreds.
Is it reasonable to conclude that he was genuinely in fear of his life? He's an ex-bouncer with plenty of experience of fights. He had a gun as a last resort, and he was fighting someone considerably lighter than himself.

His story of Martin telling him he was going to die reeks of invention. Martin had no record of that kind of violence.
I've been in a few fights, and seen many more. If I saw that someone who I was fighting had a gun, the LAST thing I would say is that they were going to die. It's not reasonable, it's laughable.

But it is EXACTLY the kind of pre-meditated story that a gun-happy idiot would have up his sleeve, should he ever shoot someone.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51685
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 8-34-20
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Tero » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:45 am

Reminds me of a guy who ran into our car. He had a story for all possible claims. He'd done this before, many times.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by mistermack » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:25 am

maiforpeace wrote:Investigator: Zimmerman missed opportunities to defuse situation

Looks like George may now be headed for a murder conviction.
What I found stunning in that linked article was the reference to a voice-stress analysis machine.
Do american police STILL go in for that kind of mumbo-jumbo?

After all this time, they can't get a lie-detecting machine to give better results than chance.
And the quality of the operator can't be measured anyway, so all results are completely worthless, and probably dangerous.

what a bunch of cretins.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Seth » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:37 pm

maiforpeace wrote:Investigator: Zimmerman missed opportunities to defuse situation

Looks like George may now be headed for a murder conviction.
Nah. As the article indicates, the investigator was demoted to patrolman. His "conclusions" were nothing more than personal opinion. Zimmerman was under no duty to "identify" himself or "defuse" the situation. He was the lawful resident who had every right to be there and he was properly keeping an eye on a potential burglar and was calling police as required. And as for Zimmermans actions BEFORE Martin attacked him not being "consistent" with someone who was "in fear," that's so much bilge because the fear that gave rise to the right to use deadly force didn't occur until Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was threatening to crack his skull open and kill him. What Zimmerman felt BEFORE that moment is utterly irrelevant in the extreme.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

Post by Seth » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:43 pm

mistermack wrote:
maiforpeace wrote:Investigator: Zimmerman missed opportunities to defuse situation

Looks like George may now be headed for a murder conviction.
Of course he is.
People think he will get off on reasonable doubt, but a good prosecutor will rip that doubt to shreds.
Nah.
Is it reasonable to conclude that he was genuinely in fear of his life? He's an ex-bouncer with plenty of experience of fights. He had a gun as a last resort, and he was fighting someone considerably lighter than himself.
Who was on top of him bashing his head on the concrete. I'd have done exactly the same thing Zimmerman did and been fully justified in doing so. Doesn't matter if he's an "ex-bouncer," if the assailant gets the upper hand, for whatever reason, and is engaged in actions that lead a reasonable person (like me) to believe that his life is in imminent danger of death OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM, then lethal force is justified. Banging someone's head on a concrete sidewalk is absolutely, and without question, action that could lead to death or serious bodily harm. Therefore, lethal force was justified, and Zimmerman will in all likelihood be acquitted.
His story of Martin telling him he was going to die reeks of invention. Martin had no record of that kind of violence.
I've been in a few fights, and seen many more. If I saw that someone who I was fighting had a gun, the LAST thing I would say is that they were going to die. It's not reasonable, it's laughable.

But it is EXACTLY the kind of pre-meditated story that a gun-happy idiot would have up his sleeve, should he ever shoot someone.
Fortunately for Zimmerman, the physical evidence seems to corroborate his story. Now, could Zimmerman have bashed his head on the concrete AFTER shooting Martin? Possibly, but that's pretty conspiratorial and far-fetched...which by the way is a nice way of saying "reasonable doubt." I'm sure the prosecutor will suggest this as an alternative, but it's highly implausible and doesn't jibe with other eyewitness testimony saying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman just before the shot.

You're far to certain of the outcome, but since you're pretty ignorant of US law to begin with, that's not surprising.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests