Trayvon Martin case: All female jury picked---Verdict Not Guilty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Hordini**

Palindrome wrote:
If the just was comprised of 10 men would a similar thread exist?

Oh, hell yes it would. And the sex of the jurors would be mentioned in the title as well. That thread might not exist on this website (then again, it might), but it would most definitely exist.

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
NOtice all the pictures so far has been "good pics" and I'm sure there are bad pics of Martin posted already online as porping a "Gangbanger" life style.

I believe those were all ruled as inadmissible, yes?

**Jihadin**

In court yes but they already been exposed. I've only seen one positive pic of Zim and rest were bad on him. Unlike Trayvon flooding the internet market (news team). I wonder if Obama saying is inadmissible in court to about this case. Case was fudged from the Get go

**WarOne**

Jihadin wrote:
In court yes but they already been exposed. I've only seen one positive pic of Zim and rest were bad on him. Unlike Trayvon flooding the internet market (news team). I wonder if Obama saying is inadmissible in court to about this case. Case was fudged from the Get go

Unfortunately, a life of emulating gangsters and pretending to be a criminal (and at that young age, perhaps dabble in minor offenses) should not allow us to judge him for what happened that night. Only two people knew what happened; one is dead and now the rest of society has to decide if the living one is telling the truth.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'd expect to hear screams about how no one on the jury is black.

I figured there'd be more hispanics... I thought that jurisdiction was where "little cuba" is at in Florida. o.O

Nope.

Remember the defense wouldn't want a jury of African Americans. A good jury is this one, law and order types, people who feel the government is all a conspiracy (ok that one is most of the US now), preppers, old people, and vatos.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
JWhex wrote:
Well the defense and the prosecution can only pick from whatever the jury pool is and even that is limited by who actually shows up when called for jury duty.

Sure, but statistically they should have had at least a few men available after burning some peremptories, right? It seems to me they must have decided that an entirely female jury was OK...or perhaps they blew all of their challenges early\poorly in bouncing other jurors they considered even more undesirable, I guess.

Note several of these wimminz were actuall;y challenged by the prosecution, but it was kicked out.

An all female jury can be just fine if played correctly. Women make up a lot of CHLers, play on that reason and OPA free at lasat free at last.

Absent surprise evidence or a total

up Z be free.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:
If the just was comprised of 10 men would a similar thread exist?

You betcha. I would have posted anything with "Z jury picked," as this case is very interesting to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
NOtice all the pictures so far has been "good pics" and I'm sure there are bad pics of Martin posted already online as porping a "Gangbanger" life style.

I believe those were all ruled as inadmissible, yes?

Only for the moment.

Prosecution puts sweet baby T pics guess what comes next...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
In court yes but they already been exposed. I've only seen one positive pic of Zim and rest were bad on him. Unlike Trayvon flooding the internet market (news team). I wonder if Obama saying is inadmissible in court to about this case. Case was fudged from the Get go

Unfortunately, a life of emulating gangsters and pretending to be a criminal (and at that young age, perhaps dabble in minor offenses) should not allow us to judge him for what happened that night. Only two people knew what happened; one is dead and now the rest of society has to decide if the living one is telling the truth.

1. Horse gak. Judge away. You are measured by the hive of villainy you hang with.
2. There were actual witnesses so thats incorrect.

**Super Ready**

What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!

It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Super Ready wrote:
What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!

It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.

You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!

But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means

**Alfndrate**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Super Ready wrote:
What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!

It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.

You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!

But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means

Juries in America aren't supposed to be in contact with ANYONE during the trial, because it could lead to bias, jury tampering, or fething up the case. But IANAL so perhaps someone can either give you better confirmation than I can.

**Frazzled**

Super Ready wrote:
What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!

It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.

Quite the opposite. I want juror trading cards!

**Rented Tritium**

whembly wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I'd expect to hear screams about how no one on the jury is black.

I figured there'd be more hispanics... I thought that jurisdiction was where "little cuba" is at in Florida. o.O

No, it's almost 250 miles away.

**Frazzled**

Alfndrate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Super Ready wrote:
What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!

It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.

You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!

But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means

Juries in America aren't supposed to be in contact with ANYONE during the trial, because it could lead to bias, jury tampering, or fething up the case. But IANAL so perhaps someone can either give you better confirmation than I can.

You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.

**Ouze**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means

Not really. The kinds of crimes that are likely to be worth the effort of committing the felonies needed to bribe or threaten a jury are also the crimes that are likely to have jurors sequestered. It happens, but it's pretty damn rare.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Alfndrate wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Super Ready wrote:
What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!

It's supposed to be a secretive selection so that they can't be approached and compromised by parties with an interest in the verdict. They're also supposed to keep schtum about all details of the case - I realise this may seem moot in a publicised trial (which is all kinds of horribly wrong to begin with), but putting out details of where the jurors are from and what they do for a living only makes them even more targetable.

You're confusing 'merica with the United Kingdom. Easy mistake to make!

But I agree. Maybe somebody from America can answer this: is it easy to nobble an American jury? Nobble = influence a jury by criminal means

Juries in America aren't supposed to be in contact with ANYONE during the trial, because it could lead to bias, jury tampering, or fething up the case. But IANAL so perhaps someone can either give you better confirmation than I can.

I remember jurors of the OJ Simpson trial walking straight out of the courthouse and into a chat show. That struck me as odd. Then again, if it were the UK, you'd walk straight into the nearest pub!

**Alfndrate**

Frazzled wrote:

You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that they were holed up in some lightless hotel, they are allowed to go home, but I had always been under the impression that Juries are not allowed to talk about the case they're a juror for.

**Frazzled**

Alfndrate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that they were holed up in some lightless hotel, they are allowed to go home, but I had always been under the impression that Juries are not allowed to talk about the case they're a juror for.

Ah in turn then I must apologize. You are absolutely correct.
I'm sure thats never ever violated...

**Alfndrate**

Frazzled wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You're thinking Hollywood. In Florida its my understanding jurors can go home at night and weekends - much more civilized.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that they were holed up in some lightless hotel, they are allowed to go home, but I had always been under the impression that Juries are not allowed to talk about the case they're a juror for.

Ah in turn then I must apologize. You are absolutely correct.
I'm sure thats never ever violated...

no need to apologize prophet of the Great Wienie, I was the one that was unclear, and you're right it probably NEVER happens

**Frazzled**

I do know there was a case once where a juror was thrown off for looking up a phrase a lawyer had used in the court on the internetz to see what he meant.

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:
Only for the moment.
Prosecution puts sweet baby T pics guess what comes next...

Yup, put the deceased's character forward and it's open season

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
I do know there was a case once where a juror was thrown off for looking up a phrase a lawyer had used in the court on the internetz to see what he meant.

I remember hearing of a case being thrown out because the jury used a ouji board to decide if the accused was guilty or not

**kronk**

Super Ready wrote:
What I want to know is - why the *hell* are we being given biographies of all the jurors?!

There isn't enough information here to figure out a juror's actual name, address, whatever. All that's there is simple answers to questions the prosecution and defense posed to them.

That's far short of a biography. None of those descriptions would allow anyone to track down a juror and try to intimidate, bribe, or otherwise tamper with the juror or jury.

**Super Ready**

kronk wrote:
There isn't enough information here to figure out a juror's actual name, address, whatever. All that's there is simple answers to questions the prosecution and defense posed to them.
That's far short of a biography. None of those descriptions would allow anyone to track down a juror and try to intimidate, bribe, or otherwise tamper with the juror or jury.

For us? No, of course not. But considering they've taken people from the area in question... there's always someone that knows someone that knows someone. And of course there's a chance that someone was the defendant or the victim.
Not to mention - if it's televised, if even locals can't figure out who they are yet, they soon will...!!

**KalashnikovMarine**

Be interesting to see how this goes, honestly I think the Prosecutor could nail Zimmerman to the wall for manslaughter but because they were pretty much forced to overcharge with murder two Z's got a solid chance of walking for this... right into some form of witness protection program, hell some poor lady almost got killed in Oklahoma for looking vaguely like (i.e. a caucasian brunette female) Casey Anthony while Anthony was still in prison in Florida. The mob mentality in this country fed by the 24 hour news cycle and evil *********************** like Nancy Freaking Grace is just disgusting.

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Be interesting to see how this goes, honestly I think the Prosecutor could nail Zimmerman to the wall for manslaughter but because they were pretty much forced to overcharge with murder two Z's got a solid chance of walking for this... right into some form of witness protection program, hell some poor lady almost got killed in Oklahoma for looking vaguely like (i.e. a caucasian brunette female) Casey Anthony while Anthony was still in prison in Florida. The mob mentality in this country fed by the 24 hour news cycle and evil *********************** like Nancy Freaking Grace is just disgusting.

Nancy Grace is hilarious..... until you realise that she is deadly serious and that she has a significant following

She really does sum up "trial by media"

**Jihadin**

More interesting now since Judge Whatshername ruled out "No Audio Expert" for even they are not consistent

I can see by the writing that quite a bit of posters already convicted Z. Zimmermann most likely going to walk with the "Castle Law" on his side.

**Frazzled**

er....clarify that? What?

**Jihadin**

Zimmermann claim Castle Law. Florida has a law literally or probably name "Stand your Ground" where if you feel your life is threaten you can
'legally" kill someone to remove the threat. Hence he's more likely walking.

The Judge is not allowing Audio Experts into the trial for Prosecutions since they are half and half on who's voice is screaming or talking on the 911 call.

**Dreadclaw69**

I would have thought that having a definitive answer over who said what on the 911 call was sort of important given that it's otherwise Zimmerman's word on what happened.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Zimmermann claim Castle Law. Florida has a law literally or probably name "Stand your Ground" where if you feel your life is threaten you can
'legally" kill someone to remove the threat. Hence he's more likely walking.

The Judge is not allowing Audio Experts into the trial for Prosecutions since they are half and half on who's voice is screaming or talking on the 911 call.

Castle doctrine applies to your castle, ybut you're right on the "stand your ground" law. However he waived his hearing on that. I do not know if he can re-invoke at this point. Its not that relevant IIRC in this instance, unless the prosecutor is a dumb

who starts impugning he should have done so. Of course Z has stated he was in fact leaving at the time of the incident.

**Jihadin**

Its mostly the screaming the Audio Experts are confused on the 911 call. Since I'm not an expert on audio...only thing I know positive is when a AK47 or AK74 is fired on us...RPG...screaming obscenity at the enemy...actually been a couple times we pause in the firing when an individual so excited they scream
1. Something really really dumb and funny
2. Screaming uses a new set of vocal cords or something and someone with a manly voice sounds like a "Shirley"
3. Location of the Shooters.
4. Drawing attention to Number 2

**Frazzled**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I would have thought that having a definitive answer over who said what on the 911 call was sort of important given that it's otherwise Zimmerman's word on what happened.

I think they are stuill admitting the call, or will when the witness proves the chain of it.

Its a simple situation, however with a lack of evidence.

1. Did Z physically attack or threaten to attack T?
-if yes, then I do not believe he can claim self defense at that point, without a further mitigating factor.
Evidence:
minimal. Z says no. This would be supported by intent if the location supports Z's argument he was leaving the scene as it supports a lack of mental state for such.
witness say T on top of Z, but could be he was winning an attack by Z. Thats more difficult though as I don't think there were injuries on T.

2. Did T physically attack are threaten to attack Z?
-if yes, absent #1 being affirmative then that sets up the right of self defense.
Evidence:
trauma to Z. Witness to event shows T on top attacking Z and there were no apparent injuries to T.

3. If #2 above, then was the attack or threat sufficient to meet the Florida statutes for reasonable belief or other standards?
Evidence: easier on this one. Injuries to Z. The screaming could be used to support but thats touch and go.

**Ahtman**

One simple fact seems really hard for people to understand, Trayvon Martin committed no crime. To be even more clear, he did no wrong. He was where he was supposed to be and wasn’t bothering anyone. So any attempt to try to create some history of a troubled youth, like so many in the conservative media have tried to do is really meaningless. It actually doesn’t matter, because on the day he was murdered, Trayvon was simply walking home.

Despite that fact, the demonization of Trayvon has been non stop since he was shot down by George Zimmerman. From being called a [see forum posting rules] on a highway sign, to being called a “a dangerous thug who needed to be put down like a rabid dog“, to the incredible irony of George Zimmerman’s own brother comparing Trayvon to a young man that senselessly killed a 13 month old child. George Zimmerman’s defense team predictably piled on by releasing cell phone pics and text that according to them show Trayvon was “hostile” and then a video they said was Trayvon beating a homeless man, which was a outright lie.

Do you know the name of the person in the above picture? When I ask this question, most do not. A few kinda remember his face and mention the Newtown Massacare. The above photo is a picture of Adam Lanza, the 20 year old who shot and killed 20 children and 6 adults 6 months ago, and most of us can barley remember his name. What does this have to do with Trayvon? I would argue that Trayvon, who broke no laws and killed no one, had been demonized far more than mass murderer Adam Lanza. Just check out this Exclusive story in the New York Daily News.

That fact that far too many Americans can’t even stand with the family of a unarmed teenager who was murdered while walking from the store with a iced tea and a bag of skittles shows we have a long way to go when it comes to race relations in the good old US of A.

The Heartless Demonization of A Murdered Child Named Trayvon