Value of the Verdict and Race
 

Okay, I have not read this entire thread.

Not sure if it was mentioned but what about the value of jury's verdict.

The jury made a decision based on what was given to them. We weren't there. Well, I was not. Now, it seems like people don't like it and they want to appeal. What does it say about the jury's hard work, time and effort? What does it say about respect for them? Sure, there is the right to appeal. But, to me, it seems to be almost disrespectful in that by appealing, a message is being sent that their opinion, hard work and energy is not valued. It comes across as answer shopping that if you don't like verdict, appeal.

What message does this send to future juries? In other cases?
Hey, your decision is not valued. Why bother serving on a jury? It is just going to be appealed? Is that self-defeating to our system? As much as it is apart of it?

At some point, we need to respect a jury's decision for the good of the system.

As for the race issue, I would like to think that we are past that. I really never thought of this as a race case, until it was made out to be one and brought up in the media. Who really cares if the kid is black? I don't. I don't care if the guy is white. Why should it be a big deal. Oh, wait, because someone brought it up and wants to make it. Stop using race as an excuse to have chip your shoulder. People do things not because of race but because they feel compelled to. Both sides made mistakes that night. I really don't think race had to with it. By making it a race issue, we have put ourselves back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UVA17 (Post 2227290) No more or less than the post in which you talked about the Occupy movement.

Then you were making an analogy. Did you attempt the analogy because you believe the prosecution was reaching in the Zimmerman trial and it should not have been permitted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl (Post 2227311) What does it say about the jury's hard work, time and effort? What does it say about respect for them? Sure, there is the right to appeal. But, to me, it seems to be almost disrespectful in that by appealing, a message is being sent that their opinion, hard work and energy is not valued. It comes across as answer shopping that if you don't like verdict, appeal.

Besides having basic respect for the U.S.A. legal system (and jury system) and acknowledgement of the verdict, we are not obligated to care about a particular jury's hard work, time, and effort. We are not obligated to respect a particular jury. The history and present day dynamics of our legal system is not conducive to what you are saying. Do you really want a society in which people care more about some jurors' feelings than about the larger point being made and the right to an appeal (when applicable) or civil suit? Seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl (Post 2227311) As for the race issue, I would like to think that we are past that.

The media cannot be blamed for everything. Race and ethnicity exist. How societies respond to race and ethnicity is the problem. Not the existence of race and ethnicity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl (Post 2227311) Who really cares if the kid is black? I don't. I don't care if the guy is white. Why should it be a big deal. Oh, wait, because someone brought it up and wants to make it. Stop using race as an excuse to have chip your shoulder. People do things not because of race but because they feel compelled to. Both sides made mistakes that night. I really don't think race had to with it. By making it a race issue, we have put ourselves back.

Of course, you are free to feel however you feel about race. You don't care, you don't think it is an issue, but the world does not revolve around what we as individuals consider a reality. Race and ethnicity exist and disparities exist regardless of how individuals perceive race and ethnicity. You think we have "put ourselves back" but we were not as far ahead as you assumed. Instead, people have unveiled the issues that were disguised through "diversity rainbows" and "colorblindness claims".

:) Zimmerman wants to highlight his Hispanic identity now so we should respect that he is not white. I'm being partly sarcastic. Zimmerman may have not been even partly motivated by Martin's race and vice versa. That can't be proven so it's neither here nor there at this point. What many people are highlighting is how the response to that evening and the resulting trial would probably have been handled differently if the racial and ethnic dynamics were different. Of course, you are free to disagree because none of us have a crystal ball. But your disagreement is rooted in the facts of this specific case as opposed to generations of cases that have gotten us where we are in 2013.

ETA: Thanks for clarifying the lack of an appeal, MysticCat. I think I keep typing "file an appeal or civil suit" when instead it is just a potential civil suit.

No, there is no right of appeal here. The state cannot appeal an acquittal. Once there is an acquittal, the rule against double jeopardy means that the case is over.

A defendant, on the other hand, always has a right to an appeal. But it's important to understand what an appellate court does and doesn't do. It does not (and cannot) substitute its own views of the evidence for those of the jury; the jury, not the judges, are the finders of fact. The appellate court basically reviews to make sure the rules were followed.

What the appellate considers are questions such as whether any pre-trial or trial procedures violated the constitutional rights of the defendant or whether evidence unduly prejudicial to the defendant was admitted in error. The court can decide that the jury heard evidence it shouldn't have heard. But the result in such a case is not entry of a different verdict by the appellate court. Rather, it's to order a new trial so that a new jury can reach a decision on proper evidence.

My bad. You are correct, Mystic. I used the wrong terminology.

So, now there is a civil suit? Whatever. This case is so overblown. Granted that a life was taken. That can never be overblown. I still think that a civil suit is overblown.

It shows disrespect for the jury's decision.

I don't think it does at all. The jury wasn't presented with the questions of civil liability toward the Martins. They were presented with the questions of whether or not Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. A new jury in a civil suit would be answering different questions, with different elements and applying different standards.

Where is this jury loyalty coming from? LOL. We are not talking about throwing defendants and jurors out of windows or over bridges. We are talking about formal legal procedures. A potential civil suit. Civil suits existed before the Zimmerman trial. They do not cease to exist just because some people agree with a verdict or are tired of hearing about an incident and resulting trial.

You would probably feel different about this if you disagreed with the verdict or if there was less coverage of the response to the verdict.

Zimmerman, a more fit one at that, was 27, 28 at the time of confrontation? Martin was 16, and by most photos I've seen, tall and thin.

In general, men are stronger than boys. Zimmerman's appearance now, doughy and out of shape, fit with the defense's "fear for his life" strategy. :rolleyes:

I never said all the jurors were biased. But when I hear the CNN interview of juror B-37... "George's heart was in the right place....." that suggests to me her mind was made up before opening statements.

I agree that Zimmerman's weight gain was intentional.

I thought Martin was 17. I will not assume Zimmerman was stronger than Martin just because he was an (shorter and) older man. I do not doubt Martin was a physically stronger high school athlete and kicked Zimmerman's ass. That was never the issue as far as I am concerned. The altercation happened but Zimmerman just so happened to have a gun. Lucky ducky. That's the issue as far as I am concerned. The prosecutors still did not have what they needed to get a conviction but the issue remains the issue.

I don't assume that juror's mind was made up before the case. She didn't say that is how she felt immediately. She may not have felt that way about Zimmerman until she heard most or all of the evidence. At the same time, everyone in that courtroom may have had their minds made up before the trial. Until we have robots in the court room, we will always have human attorneys, judges, jurors, and so forth. None of these people are fully capable of removing emotion, assumptions, and subjectivity. The legal system is designed to buffer much of this but arguably not all of this.

Perhaps, but in general doesn't mean in this case or always. My son is 15, tall and thin, and very strong.


Agree with all of this.

I slam dunked on MysticCat's son, then put him in a headlock.

I wasn't impressed with this week's CNN Anderson Cooper town hall talk on race. I'm tired of these CNN's talks. I get the point but BLAH. The panelists were good but BLAH. Some of the comments were interesting but BLAH. Nothing new. Nas was on there. BLAH.

And I know many 16-year-olds who are stronger than some 27-year-olds. If you want to argue strength, that's one thing. To argue that one is stronger than the other because he's 10 years older, though.. that doesn't always add up.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but this statement - at the end of your arguments about how the jury didn't consider all the facts - made me believe that you were referring to the entire jury:

And regarding juror B-37...

Maybe. Maybe even a few others' were, too. But again, you didn't initially point out one jury member.. you spoke of the jury as a whole.

Even if one person had decided what their vote would be beforehand, everyone in that deliberation room has to agree in order to read a 'guilty' or 'not guilty' verdict.

And even if all of them had their minds made up ahead of time, well.. that's a possibility.. just like it's a possibility that none of them did. None of us will ever know unless they all come out and admit to it. In the meantime, I think that speaking in the definitive about such things only creates more outrage (for lack of a better word).

One of the jurors who spoke out (maybe the only one?) said that the jury was originally split 3-3 when they started deliberations, which would suggest that if even a few jurors did have their minds made up that they would acquit Zimmerman, not all of them did.

I agree, it isn't groundbreaking evidence, but the prosecutor wasn't on their A-game like they should have been.

Martin wasn't "Standing his ground"? Zimmerman was the aggressor, not Martin.
Would it be illegal if it was an act? If all the evidence is pointing to the defense, aren't, most murder cases based on an act to convince the jury to give their clients a lesser sentence or to get them off the hook? Based on my observation, it happened in the Casey Anthony case, it happened with OJ, it happened with Jodi Arias, and it happened in this case too.

But, that has little to nothing to do with the 911 Dispatcher.


That is the debate. Zimmerman's defense used self-defense rather than Stand Your Ground. I think Zimmerman's scars looked like a perhaps much deserved ass kicking. However, in a court of law evidence outweighs theory and personal opinions. Prosecution had more theory and opinions and the defense had more solid evidence (including stronger expert opinions).

All trials are an act, regardless of the verdict and whether we individually agree with the verdict. And regardless of the gender, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic, and other dynamics that serve as extralegal factors (that are technically supposed to be ignored or outweighed by legal factors).

However, I think people who are using this truth to protest the Zimmerman verdict need to find a stronger argument. They need to find something that specifically pertains to the Zimmerman trial lest we are protesting every trial--Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson, Jodi Arias, etc.

This.

Or maybe there needs to be a refined message as to what exactly is outrageous about the verdict. There's still a lot of uncertainty as to exactly what happened, and when that happens, we're not supposed to lock people up (although we do it all the time).