100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Barkley Agrees With Zimmerman Verdict | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
And, they hate Hispanics and whites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 08/08/13 12:13 AM
|
|
no matter what the verdict, someone was gonna be unhappy. Our justice system works but when it gives a verdict that people don't like, it's suddenly corrupt. I don't know all the details but whatever happened to: Innocent until proven guilty? Has that been thrown out the window? once again,, innocent until proven guilty is the justice MODEL but people who are guilty are guilty, whether or not anyone ever finds out they are guilty let alone whether or not there is enough 'proof' they are guilty there were two charges offered at the trials end there wasn't enough for him to be guilty of one but there was enough (depending upon jury interpretation) for him to be guilty of the other,,, and that is the imperfection that cant really be escaped,,, just as innocent people are sometimes convicted,, guilty people are sometimes set free |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 08/08/13 12:14 AM
|
|
no matter what the verdict, someone was gonna be unhappy. Our justice system works but when it gives a verdict that people don't like, it's suddenly corrupt. I don't know all the details but whatever happened to: Innocent until proven guilty? Has that been thrown out the window? Plenty of people decided that Zimmerman was guilty of a felony before his trial even started, and now those same people are claiming that the jury got its decision wrong. im sure some people have changed their minds across the board some who thought he was innocent may have watched the trial and decided otherwise,,, similarly some who thought he was guilty may have been swayed by something or another as well to change their mind,, case in point three jurors who voted him guilty at the initial vote at trials end, who by the time to deliver a vote had conceded to not guilty instead,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no matter what the verdict, someone was gonna be unhappy. Our justice system works but when it gives a verdict that people don't like, it's suddenly corrupt. I don't know all the details but whatever happened to: Innocent until proven guilty? Has that been thrown out the window? once again,, innocent until proven guilty is the justice MODEL but people who are guilty are guilty, whether or not anyone ever finds out they are guilty let alone whether or not there is enough 'proof' they are guilty there were two charges offered at the trials end there wasn't enough for him to be guilty of one but there was enough (depending upon jury interpretation) for him to be guilty of the other,,, and that is the imperfection that cant really be escaped,,, just as innocent people are sometimes convicted,, guilty people are sometimes set free First, It is not "innocent until proven guilty." It is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Of course a guilty person is guilty, but in a court of law he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. There was not enough proof to convict him of either charge. If their was, then he would have been convicted. They can presume he is guilty if they pretend to know what is in his heart and mind, but they cannot know beyond reasonable doubt. I found the racist accusations in this whole case to be trumped up and false. I found this today, thought it was funny.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more ad hominem smokescreens
NEWSFLASH: when people speak about institutional racism or justice not being served for a black defendant it is NOT a statement about it being 'all the white mans fault' there WAS enough to convict him depending upon the jurors involved, the six in question (and only three of them initially) didn't feel it fit the description of the charge as they understood (or misunderstood) it,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that is why you are not in a law enforcement oe justice related career. You let your emotions not facts lead your judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 of 6 jurors believed 100 percent he was innocent. One jurist who admittedly let her emotions take over wasn't for it. Actually your also not counting the alternates who believed he was not guilty so that's I believe 7 to 1. Usually jurys are more divided then that, they normally either are hung or vote to convict. This shows the evidence against Zimmerman was not credible and Zimmerman was telling the truth.
Also Zimmerman showed NO sign of deception in ANY of the intervies and that's impossible to do unless he is a pure sociopath. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that is why you are not in a law enforcement oe justice related career. You let your emotions not facts lead your judgement. no, people who rejoice about 'thugs' being killed seem to be the emotional ones to me and THEIR presence in such careers is the reason I wouldn't pursue it,,, I promise you, yours isn't the only valid legal opinion on the case, and there are other people who ARE in justice related careers that happen to share my opinion just as much as there are those in the careers who share yours,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 of 6 jurors believed 100 percent he was innocent. One jurist who admittedly let her emotions take over wasn't for it. Actually your also not counting the alternates who believed he was not guilty so that's I believe 7 to 1. Usually jurys are more divided then that, they normally either are hung or vote to convict. This shows the evidence against Zimmerman was not credible and Zimmerman was telling the truth. Also Zimmerman showed NO sign of deception in ANY of the intervies and that's impossible to do unless he is a pure sociopath. there were 6 people whose votes counted toward the verdict, period and the initial poll had one believing him guity of murder and two beliving he was guilty of manslaughter,,, EVENTUALLY, somehow, the three not guiltys persuaded them,,,it was not so clear cut as the sides who continue to discuss it pretend it was I can concede to understand why some believed he was innocent, can you concede to understand why many believe he wasn't? that's a TRUE reflection of the jurors who HEARD the case,,, what 'signs' of deception do you take note of , besides changing versions of ones story,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 08/10/13 02:59 PM
|
|
5 of 6 jurors believed 100 percent he was innocent. One jurist who admittedly let her emotions take over wasn't for it. Actually your also not counting the alternates who believed he was not guilty so that's I believe 7 to 1. Usually jurys are more divided then that, they normally either are hung or vote to convict. This shows the evidence against Zimmerman was not credible and Zimmerman was telling the truth. Also Zimmerman showed NO sign of deception in ANY of the intervies and that's impossible to do unless he is a pure sociopath. there were 6 people whose votes counted toward the verdict, period and the initial poll had one believing him guity of murder and two beliving he was guilty of manslaughter,,, EVENTUALLY, somehow, the three not guiltys persuaded them,,,it was not so clear cut as the sides who continue to discuss it pretend it was I can concede to understand why some believed he was innocent, can you concede to understand why many believe he wasn't? that's a TRUE reflection of the jurors who HEARD the case,,, what 'signs' of deception do you take note of , besides changing versions of ones story,,,lol You have no idea what went on in the jury room. Anyway, it is the final decision that counts, none of that other stuff counts. (if it even happened that way) Moot point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 of 6 jurors believed 100 percent he was innocent. One jurist who admittedly let her emotions take over wasn't for it. Actually your also not counting the alternates who believed he was not guilty so that's I believe 7 to 1. Usually jurys are more divided then that, they normally either are hung or vote to convict. This shows the evidence against Zimmerman was not credible and Zimmerman was telling the truth. Also Zimmerman showed NO sign of deception in ANY of the intervies and that's impossible to do unless he is a pure sociopath. there were 6 people whose votes counted toward the verdict, period and the initial poll had one believing him guity of murder and two beliving he was guilty of manslaughter,,, EVENTUALLY, somehow, the three not guiltys persuaded them,,,it was not so clear cut as the sides who continue to discuss it pretend it was I can concede to understand why some believed he was innocent, can you concede to understand why many believe he wasn't? that's a TRUE reflection of the jurors who HEARD the case,,, what 'signs' of deception do you take note of , besides changing versions of ones story,,,lol You have no idea what went on in the jury room. Anyway, it is the final decision that counts, none of that other stuff counts. (if it even happened that way) Moot point. its actually all over the news what the votes were yep, it wsa the final decision of 6 individuals with their own individual reasons for coming back with a verdict,,,, but who didn't have anything close to an across the board and simple answer about what it SHOULD BE ,,just like the American people don't,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 of 6 jurors believed 100 percent he was innocent. One jurist who admittedly let her emotions take over wasn't for it. Actually your also not counting the alternates who believed he was not guilty so that's I believe 7 to 1. Usually jurys are more divided then that, they normally either are hung or vote to convict. This shows the evidence against Zimmerman was not credible and Zimmerman was telling the truth. Also Zimmerman showed NO sign of deception in ANY of the intervies and that's impossible to do unless he is a pure sociopath. there were 6 people whose votes counted toward the verdict, period and the initial poll had one believing him guity of murder and two beliving he was guilty of manslaughter,,, EVENTUALLY, somehow, the three not guiltys persuaded them,,,it was not so clear cut as the sides who continue to discuss it pretend it was I can concede to understand why some believed he was innocent, can you concede to understand why many believe he wasn't? that's a TRUE reflection of the jurors who HEARD the case,,, what 'signs' of deception do you take note of , besides changing versions of ones story,,,lol You have no idea what went on in the jury room. Anyway, it is the final decision that counts, none of that other stuff counts. (if it even happened that way) Moot point. its actually all over the news what the votes were yep, it wsa the final decision of 6 individuals with their own individual reasons for coming back with a verdict,,,, but who didn't have anything close to an across the board and simple answer about what it SHOULD BE ,,just like the American people don't,,,,, I stopped listening to the B.S. slanted and spun "news" about the details weeks ago.....BECAUSE I DON'T CARE. It is what it is. It ain't gonna change. I don't care how they came to their conclusions, I don't care who doesn't like it, and I don't care what everyone things about it. ..and I don't care if it 'has been all over the news..." you still do not KNOW what went on in that Jury box. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I guess maybe the two jurors who have said so could be lying,,,
anycase,,justice system at work, some get it right, some don't,, we live and we learn,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I guess maybe the two jurors who have said so could be lying,,, anycase,,justice system at work, some get it right, some don't,, we live and we learn,,, Have you ever served on a jury? The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what they "might have thought" in the beginning, or how they were 'persuaded' or who persuaded them. That is precisely how juries work.... all the time. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to make a decision. They made the decision. I trust they had a good reason. I'm not going to second guess it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I guess maybe the two jurors who have said so could be lying,,, anycase,,justice system at work, some get it right, some don't,, we live and we learn,,, Have you ever served on a jury? The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what they "might have thought" in the beginning, or how they were 'persuaded' or who persuaded them. That is precisely how juries work.... all the time. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to make a decision. They made the decision. I trust they had a good reason. I'm not going to second guess it. IM not second guessing,, IM disagreeing the decision is not/was not up to me,,, or any of us,, IM clear on that as is probably everyone else sharing an opinion here,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 08/12/13 12:01 PM
|
|
yeah, I guess maybe the two jurors who have said so could be lying,,, anycase,,justice system at work, some get it right, some don't,, we live and we learn,,, Have you ever served on a jury? The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what they "might have thought" in the beginning, or how they were 'persuaded' or who persuaded them. That is precisely how juries work.... all the time. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to make a decision. They made the decision. I trust they had a good reason. I'm not going to second guess it. IM not second guessing,, IM disagreeing the decision is not/was not up to me,,, or any of us,, IM clear on that as is probably everyone else sharing an opinion here,,, What good does it do to disagree with a valid court decision made by a jury? It is pointless. You were not on the jury so your vote doesn't count. I have faith in the jury. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I guess maybe the two jurors who have said so could be lying,,, anycase,,justice system at work, some get it right, some don't,, we live and we learn,,, Have you ever served on a jury? The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what they "might have thought" in the beginning, or how they were 'persuaded' or who persuaded them. That is precisely how juries work.... all the time. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to make a decision. They made the decision. I trust they had a good reason. I'm not going to second guess it. IM not second guessing,, IM disagreeing the decision is not/was not up to me,,, or any of us,, IM clear on that as is probably everyone else sharing an opinion here,,, What good does it do to disagree with a valid court decision made by a jury? It is pointless. You were not on the jury so your vote doesn't count. I have faith in the jury. apparently the appellate court system doesn't agree,,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I guess maybe the two jurors who have said so could be lying,,, anycase,,justice system at work, some get it right, some don't,, we live and we learn,,, Have you ever served on a jury? The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what they "might have thought" in the beginning, or how they were 'persuaded' or who persuaded them. That is precisely how juries work.... all the time. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to make a decision. They made the decision. I trust they had a good reason. I'm not going to second guess it. IM not second guessing,, IM disagreeing the decision is not/was not up to me,,, or any of us,, IM clear on that as is probably everyone else sharing an opinion here,,, What good does it do to disagree with a valid court decision made by a jury? It is pointless. You were not on the jury so your vote doesn't count. I have faith in the jury. apparently the appellate court system doesn't agree,,,,lol The appellate court system doesn't agree with what? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I guess maybe the two jurors who have said so could be lying,,, anycase,,justice system at work, some get it right, some don't,, we live and we learn,,, Have you ever served on a jury? The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what they "might have thought" in the beginning, or how they were 'persuaded' or who persuaded them. That is precisely how juries work.... all the time. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head to make a decision. They made the decision. I trust they had a good reason. I'm not going to second guess it. IM not second guessing,, IM disagreeing the decision is not/was not up to me,,, or any of us,, IM clear on that as is probably everyone else sharing an opinion here,,, What good does it do to disagree with a valid court decision made by a jury? It is pointless. You were not on the jury so your vote doesn't count. I have faith in the jury. apparently the appellate court system doesn't agree,,,,lol The appellate court system doesn't agree with what? that disagreeing with a court decision is pointless |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean it is rather pointless to you or to anyone else sitting on the sidelines who happens to take pride in voicing their opinions.
If you are going to be the person who appeals to the court, that is the only time it is not pointless. If you can't do a thing about it, then your opinion or disagreement is rather pointless. |
|
|
|
|
