Zimmerman trial poll

[therealUT]

sorry, but equating the slave trade to the Zimmerman/Martin case is a level of hyperbole that not even LG has yet to descend to

It is not equating the slave trade; it is drawing parallels between the Fugitive Slave Act (1840s) and the "Stand Your Ground" laws. The transatlantic slave traded ended prior to 1820, right?

The parallel that is being drawn is that the one who commits the offense (either the one tracking down a fugitive slave or one who kills another in "self-defense") must simply be taken on his word, if there is a dearth of evidence to rebut. So, one who is killed no longer has the ability to rebut the testimony of the one who claims self-defense; sans any other evidence, then one can get away with a clean crime simply by declaring the he killed in self-defense; a slaveowner could simply claim that blacks were his slaves, the particularly black person in question was not given any credence if he stated otherwise (external evidence was required to rebut the claim of the slaveowner).

 

[dreVol]

I think the problem is systemic. I think probable cause should simply link individuals to events; the criminality of said events should be decided in court (a much bigger issue than the Zimmerman case and one that would require reinstating jury nullification).

There was enough evidence the night of the shooting to state with certainty that Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Martin died as a result of the shooting. Let a jury of peers decide whether the act was criminal or not.

the difficulty I have with your suggestion is that it puts the financial and effectively the burden of proof on the defendant.

particularly in the context of self defense, the system would require the victim to expend significant amounts of money to prove their innocence, rather than the system proving the victim's guilt.

I will say, the benefit of your proposal is that it takes prosecutorial abuse out of the equation.

 

[therealUT]

the difficulty I have with your suggestion is that it puts the financial and effectively the burden of proof on the defendant.

particularly in the context of self defense, the system would require the victim to expend significant amounts of money to prove their innocence, rather than the system proving the victim's guilt.

I will say, the benefit of your proposal is that it takes prosecutorial abuse out of the equation.

The burden of proof is still on the prosecution; however, to charge an individual, I do not think it requires more than: this act happened and the facts point to this person as the actor.

The charge does not necessarily entail detainment. Set bail or release one on their own recognizance, if they are not a continued threat, and monitor until trial.

 

[T-TownVol]

The burden of proof is still on the prosecution; however, to charge an individual, I do not think it requires more than: this act happened and the facts point to this person as the actor.The charge does not necessarily entail detainment. Set bail or release one on their own recognizance, if they are not a continued threat, and monitor until trial.

yes it does or the DA would have charged GZ that night, or in the next couple of days, if all the evidence that they gained from the scene, eye witnesses and GZ that night had pointed to a criminal act......GZ never claimed SYG, the media has played that card as a possible defense, GZ has said "self-defense" from the start......the police can not charge any crime unless the has evidence that a crime was committed.......and from all the assumptions in the affadavit, that got the charges brought, there may not be enoogh evidence to even go to trial.......we will have to see what the prosecution has uncovered that no one else has.....if it is meerly the girlfriend on the phone as many speculate, then they have nothing that would convict GZ......people say "why did GZ follow TM", the defense can say "why did TM not just tell GZ why he was in the neighborhood when he asked"......the investigator has said that they have no evidence to combat the story GZ has told........that is why no arrest was made by the Sanford PD

 

[therealUT]

yes it does or the DA would have charged GZ that night, or in the next couple of days, if all the evidence that they gained from the scene, eye witnesses and GZ that night had pointed to a criminal act......GZ never claimed SYG, the media has played that card as a possible defense, GZ has said "self-defense" from the start......the police can not charge any crime unless the has evidence that a crime was committed.......and from all the assumptions in the affadavit, that got the charges brought, there may not be enoogh evidence to even go to trial.......we will have to see what the prosecution has uncovered that no one else has.....if it is meerly the girlfriend on the phone as many speculate, then they have nothing that would convict GZ......people say "why did GZ follow TM", the defense can say "why did TM not just tell GZ why he was in the neighborhood when he asked"......the investigator has said that they have no evidence to combat the story GZ has told........that is why no arrest was made by the Sanford PD

You are correct; this is how the broken judiciary in the US works. My statement was intended to be a normative statement as to how things should work.

 

[T-TownVol]

You are correct; this is how the broken judiciary in the US works. My statement was intended to be a normative statement as to how things should work.

so I guess we disagree on the " well it happened so charge em and we will sort it our later" theory, sorry

 

[Danl]

T-Town, who are those guys in your avatar?

 

[T-TownVol]

T-Town, who are those guys in your avatar?

our President and our AD, both with Alabama ties........"Conspiracy?"

 

[therealUT]

so I guess we disagree on the " well it happened so charge em and we will sort it our later" theory, sorry

Someone is killed; the facts identifying the killer are undisputed; yes, the killer should be charged and the juries, not four guys in a police station, should decide whether it was or was not self-defense.

 

[Danl]

our President and our AD, both with Alabama ties........"Conspiracy?"

Thanks for the answer.

I know you meant to say Chancellor rather than President, now that I googled them. Some Eyetalian is UT's president. DiPietro or some such.

 

[T-TownVol]

Thanks for the answer.

I know you meant to say Chancellor rather than President, now that I googled them. Some Eyetalian is UT's president. DiPietro or some such.

yes, sorry.....I am making fun of all the people on VN that said we sould not have hired either one of them because they at one time worked at UA and that they would work to DESTROY UT.

 

[T-TownVol]

Someone is killed; the facts identifying the killer are undisputed; yes, the killer should be charged and the juries, not four guys in a police station, should decide whether it was or was not self-defense.

the DA made the decision, not "four guys in a police station".......There has to be evidence of a crime to charge someone, just because someone was killed does not mean there is a CRIME (and I am not saying that GZ is innocent, just that the DA did not have enough evidence to charge him until the special prosector stepped in), many legal experts STILL say that GZ should not have been charged......your line of thinking would bring untold numbers of charges that should never gone to trial.....in your theory, the cost of "just send it to a trial" would be unsustainable

 

[therealUT]

the DA made the decision, not "four guys in a police station".......

Oh, so one person made the decision. That actually makes it worse, in my eyes.

There has to be evidence of a crime to charge someone, just because someone was killed does not mean there is a CRIME (and I am not saying that GZ is innocent, just that the DA did not have enough evidence to charge him until the special prosector stepped in), many legal experts STILL say that GZ should not have been charged......your line of thinking would bring untold numbers of charges that should never gone to trial.....in your theory, the cost of "just send it to a trial" would be unsustainable

My line of thinking would bring every case of which one person fired a gun and killed another person to trial, yes. The costs are only unsustainable because there exist so many bad laws on the books (crimes in which no one is directly injured).

Persons who kill others should be investigated and tried each and every time.

 

[T-TownVol]

Oh, so one person made the decision. That actually makes it worse, in my eyes.



My line of thinking would bring every case of which one person fired a gun and killed another person to trial, yes. The costs are only unsustainable because there exist so many bad laws on the books (crimes in which no one is directly injured).

Persons who kill others should be investigated and tried each and every time.

investigated - yes
tried - no

 

[therealUT]

investigated - yes
tried - no

Juries should decide both the facts and the criminality; this is the point to which English Common Law had evolved at the conception of the United States and it is the reason that jury nullification existed in the US for over a century.

Imagine the following scenario:

Your brother (or son), is walking through a park at night and ends up being shot and killed. There are no witnesses and the shooter, who has no prior criminal record, claims self-defense. You have never known your brother (or son) to be prone to anger and violence. Would you demand a trial? If there was one other witness, who happened to be more closely related (in terms of socio-economic conditions and ethnicity) to the shooter, who claims that it was self-defense, would you still demand a trial?

Or, would you be satisfied with the decision of one man, simply because that man, by profession, is a supposed legal expert?

 

[T-TownVol]

Juries should decide both the facts and the criminality; this is the point to which English Common Law had evolved at the conception of the United States and it is the reason that jury nullification existed in the US for over a century.

Imagine the following scenario:

Your brother (or son), is walking through a park at night and ends up being shot and killed. There are no witnesses and the shooter, who has no prior criminal record, claims self-defense. You have never known your brother (or son) to be prone to anger and violence. Would you demand a trial? If there was one other witness, who happened to be more closely related (in terms of socio-economic conditions and ethnicity) to the shooter, who claims that it was self-defense, would you still demand a trial?

Or, would you be satisfied with the decision of one man, simply because that man, by profession, is a supposed legal expert?

I trust the legal expert more than I trust the random people that are our juries in this country, so yes I would accept the decision of the DA with my own attorney looking at what the investigation has found......a good attorney can have WAY to much influence on a jury in my opinion

 

[therealUT]

I trust the legal expert more than I trust the random people that are our juries in this country, so yes I would accept the decision of the DA with my own attorney looking at what the investigation has found......a good attorney can have WAY to much influence on a jury in my opinion

Are you in favor of a democratically representative republic? To be consistent, it seems as though you would rather live under either an aristocracy or a monarchy; after all, Kings have historically been educated by highly intelligent personal tutors and have very much been experts in a vast variety of fields of knowledge.

 

[T-TownVol]

Are you in favor of a democratically representative republic? To be consistent, it seems as though you would rather live under either an aristocracy or a monarchy; after all, Kings have historically been educated by highly intelligent personal tutors and have very much been experts in a vast variety of fields of knowledge.

no, a King or monarch are not accountable for their actions/decisions where a DA or any other elected official, or an official appointed by an elected official, is

 

[therealUT]

no, a King or monarch are not accountable for their actions/decisions where a DA or any other elected official, or an official appointed by an elected official, is

So, is a DA an expert or is he simply someone who has been elected, probably on money and charisma, by an uneducated, and legally ignorant, populus? The latter would leave wide open the question of actual expertise; hence, I would rather have a jury decide than have one man decide.

 

[T-TownVol]

So, is a DA an expert or is he simply someone who has been elected, probably on money and charisma, by an uneducated, and legally ignorant, populus? The latter would leave wide open the question of actual expertise; hence, I would rather have a jury decide than have one man decide.

a DA is to be a legal expert and have experience in crimnal law (now, are there unqualified DAs put into office, sure but it is rare)........you have no faith in the judicial system as it stands today, I get that......but your way is no better imo......once again, a DA or any other elected/appointed official is accountable and can be replaced if not qualified or competent