• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jury deliberations.[W:113]

Re: Jury deliberations.

MaggieD said:
Oh, I would were it not for your further comment that the jury would be loaded. ;)
Click to expand...

I never said the jury would be loaded. I said the jury would be given their instructions to find Zimmerman guilty.

When Zimmerman goes down, how are you going to explain the jury's verdict? They were pressured into finding him guilty? Or, they're all just stupid?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

apdst said:
Yes, I guess it would be two donations. 20 bucks?
Click to expand...
As I understand this agreement.
I Excon, am betting that Zimmerman will found not guilty of Muder².
You apdst, are betting he will be found guilty of Muder².

The above member who is wrong loses, and gives a ten dollar ($10) donation to www.debatepolitics.com to have their named changed to what ever the winner says.
That membership name to which it has been changed, can only be changed again after thirty one days.
The member who had their name changed is responsible for changing it back.


If a name change is more than the stated ten dollars ($10), this agreement is null and void.​
 
Last edited:
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
As I understand this agreement.
I Excon, am betting that Zimmerman if found not guilty of Muder².
You apdst, are betting he will be found guilty of Muder².

The above member who is wrong loses, and gives a ten dollar ($10) donation to www.debatepolitics.com to have their named changed to what ever the winner says.
That membership name to which it has been changed, can only be changed again after thirty one days.
The member who had their name changed is responsible for changing it back.


If a name change is more than the stated ten dollars ($10), this agreement is null and void.​
Click to expand...

That's reasonable
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

ric27 said:
That's reasonable
Click to expand...
I don't know. I found a thread that says name changes can only be made every ninety (90) days.
He hasn't yet responded to the previous. So we may not have an agreement.
Seems to me that if one does not have the ability to change it back after thirty days, per the agreement, there would not be a meeting of the minds, and therefore any agreement would be null and void.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
I don't know. I found a thread that says name changes can only be made every ninety (90) days.
He hasn't yet responded to the previous. So we may not have an agreement.
Seems to me that if one does not have the ability to change it back after thirty days, per the agreement, there would not be a meeting of the minds, and therefore any agreement would be null and void.
Click to expand...

90 days is too much

Agreed on null and void
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
Not pissing on you today but postponing it until the morning is some kind of moral gift?
Click to expand...

In some people's minds it is. I recall the outrage when the OJ Simpson jury came back with a verdict in about 4 hours when people thought they'd be out for days and that case had mounds more evidence to review - they crucified the jury members for not doing their job. Even though I agreed that in the OJ case, the prosecution was so bad, so scattered, and relied on several damaged witnesses, and they didn't prove their case, the jury made a mockery of deliberations by not really deliberating.

In this case, it's a matter of trying to credit the fears of Zimmerman in the moment against the memory of Martin who can't be heard. The prosecution hasn't come close to proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean that the jury won't want to fully deliberate and review the evidence because a young man is dead and they know who killed him and they have to determine if his reasons validate his actions. That's far harder than deciding a "who done it".

Lot's of occasions in life cause you to take a second or third look at something because you respect the people you're dealing with - I think this is one of them, and in a way, that is moral, if not necessarily a gift.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

People get justifiable disgusted when they see a travesty take place in court where they expect justice to take place. How many of these trials can we witness where the perpetrator goes free before massive numbers of Americans just toss in the towel and reject our system?

Just in the last two decades we have the abomination that was the Simpson murder case in California...... the cops getting off with the Rodney King beating despite video of the crime ....... Casey Anthony raising her middle finger to the world ...... and now this where we know Zimmerman killed that kid after following him and being told not to do it.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
People get justifiable disgusted when they see a travesty take place in court where they expect justice to take place. How many of these trials can we witness where the perpetrator goes free before massive numbers of Americans just toss in the towel and reject our system?

Just in the last two decades we have the abomination that was the Simpson murder case in California...... the cops getting off with the Rodney King beating despite video of the crime ....... Casey Anthony raising her middle finger to the world ...... and now this where we know Zimmerman killed that kid after following him and being told not to do it.
Click to expand...
OMG!
Do you have any idea what the conviction to non-conviction rates are?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
OMG!
Do you have any idea what the conviction to non-conviction rates are?
Click to expand...

And how does that negate the reality of the high profile cases I listed?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
And how does that negate the reality of the high profile cases I listed?
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
People get justifiable disgusted when they see a travesty take place in court where they expect justice to take place. How many of these trials can we witness where the perpetrator goes free before massive numbers of Americans just toss in the towel and reject our system?
Click to expand...
Because what the people see are not travesties.
Nor is it typical of a person to be found not guilty.
The Government needs to a better job at informing/educating the public that the verdicts are just, and not letting the prosecutors get before the camera and saying they still believe the person who was found not guilty, is still guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. They should be required to acquiesce to the Juries verdict.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
OMG!
Do you have any idea what the conviction to non-conviction rates are?
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what the plea deal (bargain?) to verdict by actual jury trial ratio is?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Excon said:
​
Because what the people see are not travesties.
Click to expand...

The Simpson verdict was not a travesty?

The Rodney King cops getting off was not a travesty?

Casey Anthony was not a travesty?

It appears that a significant sector of the American public would differ.

I suspect that over the last several years, the "hate the government" ideology of the far right rather enjoys it when a high profile case goes wrong and the obvious perpetrator goes free since it chips away at the faith people have in the system of government we have. Its part of a political and ideological agenda to weaken and destroy government.

One cannot help but note that years ago, the travesties were normally when the innocent were found guilty. The Haymarket defendants in the late 1880's come to mind as do the Scotsboro Boys, Sacco & Vanzetti (at least one of them), Leo Frank and others where people were railroaded in unfair trials and found guilty. Today, it seems to be the opposite.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
People get justifiable disgusted when they see a travesty take place in court where they expect justice to take place. How many of these trials can we witness where the perpetrator goes free before massive numbers of Americans just toss in the towel and reject our system?

Just in the last two decades we have the abomination that was the Simpson murder case in California...... the cops getting off with the Rodney King beating despite video of the crime ....... Casey Anthony raising her middle finger to the world ...... and now this where we know Zimmerman killed that kid after following him and being told not to do it.
Click to expand...

The state has the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. The flaw, in the cases that you cited, is primarily based upon what the jury saw as being reasonable. Some jurors, especially as evidenced by the cases that you cited, see any doubt as being reasonable.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

I wanted to know.........does the jury have in their instructions, what kind of prison time is for M2 and manslaughter?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

raindrop said:
I wanted to know.........does the jury have in their instructions, what kind of prison time is for M2 and manslaughter?
Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. They have no idea what ranges of punishment are. Manslaughter, in this case, can carry as much as thirty years if he's found guilty.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

ttwtt78640 said:
Do you have any idea what the plea deal (bargain?) to verdict by actual jury trial ratio is?
Click to expand...

I posted it before.
I will try to find it and re-post it.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

haymarket said:
The Simpson verdict was not a travesty?

The Rodney King cops getting off was not a travesty?

Casey Anthony was not a travesty?
Click to expand...
No they were not.

haymarket said:
It appears that a significant sector of the American public would differ.
Click to expand...
Which is why I stated the following.

The Government needs to a better job at informing/educating the public that the verdicts are just, and not letting the prosecutors get before the camera and saying they still believe the person who was found not guilty, is still guilty, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict. They should be required to acquiesce to the Juries verdict.​
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

Wow. Are they going to state they have reached their verdict??

ETA: Phew.

Nope...back to deliberate.
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

I just heard someone quit in AC's office. Is this correct? Talk of someone being a 'whistleblower in her office. Talk of AC facing charges? Anyone heard anything?
 
Re: Jury deliberations.

niff said:
I just heard someone quit in AC's office. Is this correct? Talk of someone being a 'whistleblower in her office. Talk of AC facing charges? Anyone heard anything?
Click to expand...

Who is AC??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom