Martin and Zimmerman - A reasoned logical discussion

[Tiberius]

I disagree with the stand your ground law.

So do I. I don't see how that changes my point at all. Even without a stand your ground law, you have a right to defend yourself. All the stand your ground law did in this case was delay him being arrested.

not for those people confronting the suspicious person, that's for the police.

He was a member of the neighbourhood watch, that's what they do.

I disagree with said law.

Then you disagree with a right to self-defense? If someone attacks you and you have a gun, you'd just take the beating? Even if it was life threatening or you were scared?

You don't understand how jury system works.

Trial by a fair jury is the last resort of an incompetent lawyer. Any lawyer worth half his pay would never have allowed the issue to come to a trial, or failing that, would have nullified the trial by stacking the jury with people either by temperment known to be, or have been conditioned by purposed pre-trail publicity to be, likely to vote in his favor. Lawyers are not made renowned by uncovering the truth of guilt or innocence. They are made renowed by whether they convicted or gained acquital.

Clearly I don't understand, because I was under the impression that lawyers have nothing to do with jury selection...I thought that was the job of the presiding judge? I could be wrong, but that is what happens over here in the UK. What is the point of a jury system if lawyers for either side can affect their presumed impartiality?

---

Note, I'm not saying he's not guilty. I'm saying that (a) none of us were there, so none of us know exactly what went down that night, and (b) none of us have access to the actual evidence that is being compiled for the trial. Given these two truths, the only logical conclusion we must reach is that we cannot know. We can guess, we can judge based on the little facts out there, but we cannot conclusively state "he's guilty".

[Anomalocaris]

Clearly I don't understand, because I was under the impression that lawyers have nothing to do with jury selection...I thought that was the job of the presiding judge? I could be wrong, but that is what happens over here in the UK. What is the point of a jury system if lawyers for either side can affect their presumed impartiality?

Here the juror candidates are selected randomly from the total available pool. The candidates are then assigned, presumably randomly, to specific upcoming cases requiring juries. At case level the prosecution and defendant or their lawyers can each challenge and dismiss a specified number of jurors either for cause, or for whim. It is an acknowledged ly vital part of trial lawyer's skill set to be able to assess how prospecive jurors are likely to vote and maneuver to manipulate the jury composition to favor his own side. There are even consultancies that offer expertise in this area.

The excuse offered for the prevelencce of this practice is since the prosecution and defense have opposing objectives, their jury selection maneuvers would nullify eachother's schemes, leaving a fair jury.

The seating of an evidently biased jury is called "Jury nullification". Using jury nullification to acquit mofia dons, high level drug cartell members, prepetrator of racist murders has been such a tradition in parts of this country that it has almost gain legitamcy through length of practice.

[Minimalist]

I thought that was the job of the presiding judge?

Varies by state but in general there is a voir dire process in which the lawyers get to object to the seating of jurors who fail to answer questions to the satisfaction of the prosecuting or defense attorney.

[Cato]

Neil Degrasse Tyson on jury selection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zzF5XgqfWQ

[Jaysyn]

He was a member of the neighbourhood watch, that's what they do.

Not in Florida. They are only supposed to look out for & report suspicious activity.

[festive1]

I disagree with said law.

Then you disagree with a right to self-defense? If someone attacks you and you have a gun, you'd just take the beating? Even if it was life threatening or you were scared?

Yup... Actually happened once on the Metro. I was in an elevator with my 6 month old son. Rowdy teenager got on, was being so loud my son started crying. I asked her to keep her voice down, and she punched me in the face. I couldn't get out of the elevator without leaving my baby who was in a stroller in the back of elevator car. I took the beating. She got arrested.

I don't like guns. My dad threatened to kill me and my family with a shotgun when I was 3. I kind of go to jelly around them.

[Violet]

I too find it ridiculous that some people have voted "guilty" without knowing all the evidence. I hope none of you ever sit on a jury.

I've always heard this story told as 'some guy shot a kid wearing a hoodie holding onto a bag of skittles because he believed the kid was committing some heinous act.' Lilly's a trusting person... what else would I think but that he was guilty of what I've been told he was guilty of?

If I were on the jury, then yes: I would absolutely do my best to find out what happened/what we have evidence of happening. I'm not interested enough in the story to investigate when it is not relevant to me.

[Puddleglum]

Once again. I;m not emotionally concenred. I'm not hoping for one outcome or another.

But poor little chucky just because you are an emotional little ball of rage doesn't mean you need project your childish little attitudes on others.

We are talking about legal matters here not anyone's personal dislike of guns.

And still no one has brought enough real evidence to convict.