Bubble Screen Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Like your initials, this is BS. If there hadn't been anyone else in the car or if he killed them all, he walks. As for the murder one charge muddying the waters, that's BS too. If you can't figure out that the prosecution not proving murder one means you don't automatically skip murder 2 and manslaughter then you're either too stupid to be on a jury or most likely you weren't going to vote to convict no matter what. Most likely the only reason this juror or two were all but forced to vote for a conviction on the attempted murder charge. I'm telling everyone I know in FL that the tables need to be turned. Any Black person who kills a White person deserves the same jury nullification defense whether they're guilty or not. Yeah it sucks but lets see how having the shoe on the other foot feels for a change. If the so-called justice system is a joke, then lets make it as funny as possible for everyone.Maybe then things start to change. Dude, it isn't the jury pool. It's the idiot DA overcharging that leads to the confusion plus the prosecution not proving their case, along with confusing jury instructions. And you can't have the jury pool made up of 80% blacks if the jurisdiction is made up of only 30% blacks. The jury did a really good job with the verdict. They were very thorough. And they eventually got it right. The biggest problem with these trials is that the very people that are up and arms over Zimmerman and Dunn not getting convicted of Murder 1, are the same fools that didn't watch one second of either trial. Anyone that watched these trials (objectively) will tell you that both cases were overcharged. Most of these people had made up their minds these guys were guilty of Murder 1 from day one. It's idiocy. Edit: and as for the jurors skipping murder 2 and manslaughter, as to count one. That's not how it works. What likely happened is that one or two jurors dug in early on in deliberations and weren't going to change their minds. In other words, the two black women on the jury could have wanted murder one on the killing of Davis, but the other jurors didn't. That's called being "hung" on that particular count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoreese Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Great article my buddy wrote about these new gun laws and race. Following Florida's passage of "stand your ground" in 2005, "justifiable" homicides tripled from an average of 12 a year from 2000-2004 to an average of 35 a year from 2005-10. Moreover, in a nationwide study of "justified" homicides from 2005-10, John Roman of the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center found that where the victim and shooter are strangers and not law enforcement, fewer than 3 percent of black-on-white homicides were deemed justified. When the shooter is white, however, and the victim is black, the rate leaps to 36 percent in "stand your ground" states. Â Â http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-08-13/news/os-ed-stand-ground-10-20-life-081313-20130812_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-gun-laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 that goes beyond what I have seen....the juror could easily believe neither side proved their case Really? Prosecution didn't prove that he killed Davis? He admitted it. (He has to, in order to claim self defense.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think it's pretty obvious that there were probably 2 females that were hell bent on guilty across the board, but the sane jurors weren't having it. So they were hung on count one. It doesn't matter. He got a life sentence. To say justice wasn't served, is incorrect. He should have never been charged with Murder 1 in the first place. They need to find a new DA. Obvious how? Where are you getting your information from? It's just as likely that one or two jurors actually bought the self-defense nonsense. No, justice was not served for Davis. That jury had the option to convict him of Murder 2, despite Murder 1 being on there and they didn't. Hopefully the next jury will get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Really? Prosecution didn't prove that he killed Davis? He admitted it. (He has to, in order to claim self defense.) suppose you have a juror adamantly opposed to charging murder 1, moving down the charges a different one refuses to accept only manslaughter and would prefer a retrial rather than accepting it.  proving he killed him is only part of the prosecutors burden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I just can't believe that the state of Florida can't properly charge and convict a person who leaves their vehicle to start a confrontation that ends in them killing someone. Twice in a year. Damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-28/opinion/ct-oped-1029-guns-20131029_1_ground-laws-blacks-ground-defense  Who benefits from the law? Actually, since poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas are the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from stand your ground laws. The laws make it easier for would-be victims to protect themselves when the police can't arrive fast enough. Therefore, rules that make self-defense more difficult disproportionately impact blacks. Blacks make up 16.6 percent of Florida's population but account for 31 percent of the defendants invoking the stand your ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute are actually acquitted 8 percentage points more frequently than whites who use this very same defense. Those who conclude the law is racially biased point to data compiled by the Tampa Bay Tribune, which collected 112 cases where people charged with murder relied on Florida's stand your ground law, from the first cases in 2006 to July 24 of this year. The Tribune's "shocking" claim: 72 percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white. But this doesn't tell the whole story as blacks are overwhelmingly killed by other blacks. Thus, it is also true that blacks claiming self-defense under the stand your ground law are convicted at a lower rate than are whites. About 69 percent of blacks raising the stand your Ground defense were not convicted compared to 62 percent of whites.  you can tell your people to put their fate in a jury's hands...I'll tell mine to think before they shoot.  So 72% that kills a black person faced no penalty to 59% that kills a white person. And most of those are black on black killings. I wonder what is the percentage is on black on white killings.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 So 72% that kills a black person faced no penalty to 59% that kills a white person. And most of those are black on black killings. I wonder what is the percentage is on black on white killings.   why is the black on black higher than the white on white....and no protest marches  if you want to remove the blacks right to arm and legally defend themselves you will have to look somewhere else for support,you won't get it from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 why is the black on black higher than the white on white....and no protest marches  if you want to remove the blacks right to arm and legally defend themselves you will have to look somewhere else for support,you won't get it from me.  Who said anything about removing peoples rights to "legally" arm themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I just can't believe that the state of Florida can't properly charge and convict a person who leaves their vehicle to start a confrontation that ends in them killing someone. Twice in a year. Damn. I think this is the proper outrage. It's not racism. It's incompetence. And it's not a coincidence that its the same da Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I just can't believe that the state of Florida can't properly charge and convict a person who leaves their vehicle to start a confrontation that ends in them killing someone. Twice in a year. Damn. Remember the book everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten. Apparently, they need to print a retraction because I was told that the guy who threw the first blow started the fight. These stand your ground laws do not seem to be about defense. They seem ways to rationalize murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I think this is the proper outrage. It's not racism. It's incompetence. And it's not a coincidence that its the same da Fail to see how you can blame the DA, when at least one juror refuses to convict a man of ANYTHING, in a killing which the man admits doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Remember the book everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten. Apparently, they need to print a retraction because I was told that the guy who threw the first blow started the fight. These stand your ground laws do not seem to be about defense. They seem ways to rationalize murder.  You were supposed to advance after kindergarten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 You were supposed to advance after kindergarten Advance or decline. A matter of evolutionary perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Advance or decline. A matter of evolutionary perspective.  both occur in evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Fail to see how you can blame the DA, when at least one juror refuses to convict a man of ANYTHING, in a killing which the man admits doing. Â Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Have we found out for sure that one juror wouldn't convict anything? A hung jury could also mean one juror wouldn't consider anything less than murder 1 Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths. It's also possible that at least one juror wants to use the case to make up for years of perceived oppression and bias in the system. Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths. It's also possible that at least one juror wants to use the case to make up for years of perceived oppression and bias in the system. Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths. It's also possible that at least one juror wants to use the case to make up for years of perceived oppression and bias in the system. Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths. It's also possible that at least one juror wants to use the case to make up for years of perceived oppression and bias in the system. Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths. It's also possible that at least one juror wants to use the case to make up for years of perceived oppression and bias in the system. Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths. It's also possible that at least one juror wants to use the case to make up for years of perceived oppression and bias in the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 And do you think THIS case was one of those instances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 And do you think THIS case was one of those instances? Honestly have no idea. I haven't seen anything about or from the jury. Is that info out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths.   Oh, everybody comes in with opinions.  OTOH, I suspect that the number of people who believe that they will always allow any white guy to kill any black guy? Will, I assume that there probably is at least one such person, out there. But I also assume they are outrageously rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Fail to see how you can blame the DA, when at least one juror refuses to convict a man of ANYTHING, in a killing which the man admits doing. easy, they either allowed a juror that would refuse to convict despite the evidence, or did not present enough evidence to convict.  luckily they get a do over and the idiot goes to jail either way. hopefully they won't overcharge this time  I'd love to see a jury poll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Have we found out for sure that one juror wouldn't convict anything? A hung jury could also mean one juror wouldn't consider anything less than murder 1 Yes, I suppose it's possible that one juror voted guilty for Murder 1, but not guilty for manslaughter. And a different juror did the opposite. But even if that's the case, what you've got is a juror who's voting not guilty, for a crime which the defendant has admitted doing, because he's focused on something besides "did he do it?" ---------- And Holy Multi-post, Batman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Obvious how? Where are you getting your information from? It's just as likely that one or two jurors actually bought the self-defense nonsense. No, justice was not served for Davis. That jury had the option to convict him of Murder 2, despite Murder 1 being on there and they didn't. Hopefully the next jury will get it right. Either way, if two jurors were hell bent on their stance, they aren't going to default to the next charge. Again, if a juror felt strongly on Murder 1 or not, they don't HAVE to cave in. That's called being HUNG on that count. I just can't believe that the state of Florida can't properly charge and convict a person who leaves their vehicle to start a confrontation that ends in them killing someone. Twice in a year. Damn. It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to leave his vehicle.The DA overcharged in both cases. Even the legal analysts on tv have admitted that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Are they really all that rare? All you need is 1 out of 12. We've had two high profile cases where young, unarmed black kids were murdered by an armed white man and in both cases neither one was found guilty of murder.  Yesterday on CNN the one lawyer panelist told the recent story of a black man who killed a white youth who was invading his home, along with others, to get to his son. He was convicted of murder but was later pardoned.  Flip the roles on both cases (Dunn/Zimmerman), do you honestly believe that these guys would not have been convicted of murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Fail to see how you can blame the DA, when at least one juror refuses to convict a man of ANYTHING, in a killing which the man admits doing.You have to be unanimous on each count, that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.