• 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.

Regrettable aspect of trial

ThePlayDrive said:
This is inaccurate. Even Mark O'Mara and Don West admitted that the judicial system consistently fails black Americans. The inequity of the judicial system is only disputed by those who are uninformed.
Click to expand...
Blacks don't seem to want to be in America anyway.
 
Honestly, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson contributed to there not being black jurors in this case. There are a limited number of sub-populations in towns like that. If you spend lots of resources informing/biasing that sub-population in teh area concerning the facts of the case, it is to be expected they won't be on the jury. The judge/lawyers look for individuals that haven't made up their mind or have preconcieved notions of the case. If most of the black community in Sanford already know about the case extensively or have misconceptions about it, they will most likely be thrown out of the jury pool. Thinking in these terms, it is unsurprising that there were no black jurors. Don't complain about something as a problem when you helped cause it.
 
joko104 said:
It is regrettable that there were no African-Americans involved in the trial process. 1 Latino on the jury, the rest white. All white lawyers on both sides. White judge. The race-baiters predictably seized on this. Seminole county is 88% white, so the jury makeup not a surprise. But it is regrettable.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then everything truly is about race, so what's the point.

Those six women, if the facts said Zimmerman broke the law, would have had ZERO problem convicting him. None whatsoever. I wouldn't, and neither would just about everyone I know. The truth is the truth, period.

It's a lazy angle for them to take. Just look at the facts of the case. Open and shut not guilty.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Sorry, unlike the average liberal, I don't look at every task before me as an opportunity at social engineering.
Click to expand...
The average liberal doesn't think like that in my experience.

Personally, I'm quite capable both intellectually and emotionally of reviewing evidence before me in the context of the situation and the law as written and deciding if the prosecution has met its burden of proof.
Click to expand...
And your judgments will be affected by your life experience.

I don't need to be black to review evidence about a black man or woman, I don't need to be 17 to review evidence about a 17 year old, and I don't need to be a man to review evidence about how a man acted in a particular situation. Having your guilt or innocence determined by a jury of your peers doesn't mean a jury of your clones.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That's why there should be diverse juries - not juries solely filled with one demographic.

One of the problems with the jury system these days is that too many people like you get empanelled and feel it's necessary to use your "life experience" to psychoanalyze the people involved in a case instead of clinically analyzing the evidence presented.
Click to expand...
No, it's not that I feel it's necessary to use my life experience. It's again, that I acknowledge that our life experience is irrevocably tied to every decision we make. We evaluate witnesses, defendants, other evidence and jury instructions based on the knowledge we've acquired throughout our lives. The problem is that people like you want to put your head in the sand and pretend that that's not true. It's unfortunate.
 
The regrettable thing about this was that it turned into a story at all. It was a open and shut case of self defense until the politicians got involved. No need for a trial.
 
Gawain said:
The regrettable thing about this was that it turned into a story at all. It was a open and shut case of self defense until the politicians got involved. No need for a trial.
Click to expand...
I'm glad it became a big story. It opened up a more public conversation about problems with racism, racial profiling and issues in the justice system.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm glad it became a big story. It opened up a more public conversation about problems with racism, racial profiling and issues in the justice system.
Click to expand...

There was none of this in this trial however. It shows me that blacks are still very racist and have a group mindset. Do you think if the roles had been reversed that Trayvon would have been found guilty? I dont. It was self defense pure and simple. Race played no part in it until Obama, Holder and Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters got into the act. Thats what all investigations have said.
 
Gawain said:
There was none of this in this trial however. It shows me that blacks are still very racist and have a group mindset. Do you think if the roles had been reversed that Trayvon would have been found guilty? I dont. It was self defense pure and simple. Race played no part in it until Obama, Holder and Sharpton and the rest of the race baiters got into the act. Thats what all investigations have said.
Click to expand...
"Blacks are still very racist." LOL, I especially liked the "still" as if racism among black people is historically known when it's really racism against them that is.

And yes, if the roles were reversed. Trayvon would have been found guilty without a doubt.

And race played a part in this case from the moment Zimmerman saw Martin.

"Race baiting" doesn't exist except among conservatives.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
"Blacks are still very racist." LOL, I especially liked the "still" as if racism among black people is historically known when it's really racism against them that is.

And yes, if the roles were reversed. Trayvon would have been found guilty without a doubt.

And race played a part in this case from the moment Zimmerman saw Martin.

"Race baiting" doesn't exist except among conservatives.
Click to expand...

Yes they are. This and the way they vote proves it. Not all are but it is much more prevalent as their leaders or so called leaders are always telling them how racist we whites are.

No he would not. Most likely wouldnt even have been arrested and Zimmerman wouldnt have even been described as a white man. Going by the same evidence there is no way he would be convicted.


Zimmerman would have followed him not matter what color he was. The guy took a black girl to his prom for petes sake. He was no racist.
 
Gawain said:
Yes they are. This and the way they vote proves it. Not all are but it is much more prevalent as their leaders or so called leaders are always telling them how racist we whites are.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't.

No he would not. Most likely wouldnt even have been arrested and Zimmerman wouldnt have even been described as a white man. Going by the same evidence there is no way he would be convicted.
Click to expand...
Martin would have been arrested immediately and then convicted. No question.

Zimmerman would have followed him not matter what color he was. The guy took a black girl to his prom for petes sake. He was no racist.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman racially profiled him whether or not he is a racist.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, they aren't.


Martin would have been arrested immediately and then convicted. No question.


Zimmerman racially profiled him whether or not he is a racist.
Click to expand...

These are not the responses of a reasonable person. I suggest you stop trying to reason with the unreasonable (AKA: don't feed the troll).
 
ThePlayDrive said:
"Numbers"? LOL. How vague. And you are correct, I made an argument so the burden is on me; I never contested that. However, you asked for the proof so the burden is on you to define proof. You have failed which makes it exceptionally clear to me that you have absolutely zero intention of accepting anything that I offer as "proof". You intend to reject everything no matter what is provided. However, since it's early and I'm benevolent, I'll still provide you with some of the research I've acquired over the years on the off chance that you are genuine and want to educate yourself.

1. Review of literature on racial disparities in sentencing: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_sentencing_review.pdf

2. Racial disparities in charging and sentencing: Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences by M. Marit Rehavi, Sonja B. Starr :: SSRN

3. Racial bias against blacks in marijuana arrests: The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Report | American Civil Liberties Union

4. Racial bias and the death penalty: Death Penalty and Race | Amnesty International USA

5. NYC stop-and-frisk program and racial profiling: De Blasio Stop Frisk Reform

6. Since you like numbers apparently, here's a link with quite a few of them as they relate to inequity in the justice system: The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States | Center for American Progress

Let me anticipate your response: None of this proves anything! Maybe black people are just worse than white people! LOL.
Click to expand...

Now, that's what I'm talking about.

I scanned through the information, albeit not in detail.

It looks as if the premise of the disparity falls on 2 fronts from what I can tell:
1) Minority arrests are higher, which is by the police
2) Sentencing is harsher for minorities, which is done by judges

The data that I was really looking for, probably driven by sentencing, was a summary by race for a specific crime, and being broken down by those crimes, then race.

It is probably not available, as every drug case could not just be grouped - there are always circumstances that can cause different sentencing for the same crime.

I do agree that judicial disparity in sentencing exists across all races - I have seen local DUI cases where there was very harsh sentencing for a white defendant, but I have also seen whites with multiple (in some cases more than 10 DUIs) who are only incarcerated for a relatively short time.

I also know that in OH, there is a push to plead out felony sentences without jail time, and available jail space is minimal
and costly.
I do not know how that has been administered across racial groups.

The NYC stop and frisk is a complete violation of the 4A - the program should never have started.

Not bad information at all.

Obviously, your anticipation was incorrect.

If we continue this discourse, you need to stop speaking down to me. I find it unwarranted and offensive.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm glad it became a big story. It opened up a more public conversation about problems with racism, racial profiling and issues in the justice system.
Click to expand...

You honestly feel America has had a paucity of conversation about racism, racial profiling, and issues in the justice system? If you ask me, America has been inundated with liberals bleating about these things and never doing anything about them - that's probably why the majority of Americans just tune this out. Instead of just talking, why not do something - or is it better to have a strawman to toss up at election time to gin up voter turnout? Isn't that what Holder, Sharpton, and others are doing right now - using this trial to gin up outrage about guns and "stand your ground"?
 
SMTA said:
Now, that's what I'm talking about.

I scanned through the information, albeit not in detail.

It looks as if the premise of the disparity falls on 2 fronts from what I can tell:
1) Minority arrests are higher, which is by the police
2) Sentencing is harsher for minorities, which is done by judges

The data that I was really looking for, probably driven by sentencing, was a summary by race for a specific crime, and being broken down by those crimes, then race.

It is probably not available, as every drug case could not just be grouped - there are always circumstances that can cause different sentencing for the same crime.

I do agree that judicial disparity in sentencing exists across all races - I have seen local DUI cases where there was very harsh sentencing for a white defendant, but I have also seen whites with multiple (in some cases more than 10 DUIs) who are only incarcerated for a relatively short time.

I also know that in OH, there is a push to plead out felony sentences without jail time, and available jail space is minimal
and costly.
I do not know how that has been administered across racial groups.

The NYC stop and frisk is a complete violation of the 4A - the program should never have started.

Not bad information at all.

Obviously, your anticipation was incorrect.

If we continue this discourse, you need to stop speaking down to me. I find it unwarranted and offensive.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that you took a critical look at the research. However, I'm going to ask everyone for standards of proof if they ask me to "prove it." And, if you refuse to provide those standards, I'm going to assume that you're being dishonest. So if you consider that "talking down to you" and that's a problem for you, then you should probably just not interact with me. Telling me how to post is not something I ever pay attention to.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
It is regrettable that there were no African-Americans involved in the trial process. 1 Latino on the jury, the rest white. All white lawyers on both sides. White judge. The race-baiters predictably seized on this. Seminole county is 88% white, so the jury makeup not a surprise. But it is regrettable.
Click to expand...

Um, why should the fact that there were no blacks be a concern?

Travon Martin wasn't on trial, George Zimmerman was, he isn't black, and the law calls for a jury of the defendant's peers

Myself I don't really associate race with who is and who is not someone's peer. If I had my way, the defendant would never see the jurors. (And the jurors would be sworn to lifelong secrecy -- no book deals.)
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
You honestly feel America has had a paucity of conversation about racism, racial profiling, and issues in the justice system? If you ask me, America has been inundated with liberals bleating about these things and never doing anything about them - that's probably why the majority of Americans just tune this out. Instead of just talking, why not do something - or is it better to have a strawman to toss up at election time to gin up voter turnout? Isn't that what Holder, Sharpton, and others are doing right now - using this trial to gin up outrage about guns and "stand your ground"?
Click to expand...
Those topics are pervasive in public discourse only in the sense that they are mentioned superficially without any substantive discussion. This case has increased substantive discussion online, on television and among regular people in their daily lives - particular when it comes to racial profiling and racial issues in the justice system. That's what I'm talking about.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Those topics are pervasive in public discourse only in the sense that they are mentioned superficially without any substantive discussion. This case has increased substantive discussion online, on television and among regular people in their daily lives - particular when it comes to racial profiling and racial issues in the justice system. That's what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzz:yawn:
 
Oftencold said:
Um, why should the fact that there were no blacks be a concern?

Travon Martin wasn't on trial, George Zimmerman was, he isn't black, and the law calls for a jury of the defendant's peers

Myself I don't really associate race with who is and who is not someone's peer. If I had my way, the defendant would never see the jurors. (And the jurors would be sworn to lifelong secrecy -- no book deals.)
Click to expand...

Because there's an imbalance of perspective from the jury on all the possible interceding factors involved. For the verdict to be considered completely fair there should've been an equal opportunity for more black jurors to be selected to give a credible view point. This was one of the glaring missteps of the trial.

I don't think based on the law it would've necessarily changed the outcome.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Nobody ever claimed that the truth would be entertaining. /shrug
Click to expand...

The Hundred Years War moved faster than the liberal discussion on racial profiling. Maybe if liberals in power, let's say like President Obama, did more about helping young black Americans find and keep meaningful employment, there'd be less need for racial profiling and fewer young black men dying in the streets every day.

Can you name one initiative by President Obama addressing black youth unemployment or where he's even spoken about it? I can name at least two prominent times in which he's ignorantly spoken out of his ass about a black/white criminal matter without having a clue what he was talking about.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The Hundred Years War moved faster than the liberal discussion on racial profiling. Maybe if liberals in power, let's say like President Obama, did more about helping young black Americans find and keep meaningful employment, there'd be less need for racial profiling and fewer young black men dying in the streets every day.

Can you name one initiative by President Obama addressing black youth unemployment or where he's even spoken about it? I can name at least two prominent times in which he's ignorantly spoken out of his ass about a black/white criminal matter without having a clue what he was talking about.
Click to expand...
I don't consider Barack Obama to be an effective leader when it comes to issues in the black population here. As far as liberals discussion racial profiling - while I do not consider liberal politicians to be moving fast on it, I consider conservative politicians to be even worse because they want to pretend that it either doesn't exist or isn't a problem. At least liberals acknowledge both.
 
grip said:
Because there's an imbalance of perspective from the jury on all the possible interceding factors involved. For the verdict to be considered completely fair there should've been an equal opportunity for more black jurors to be selected to give a credible view point. This was one of the glaring missteps of the trial.

I don't think based on the law it would've necessarily changed the outcome.
Click to expand...

You certainly attribute a lot of things to race.

First of all, no court system ever devised in a modern country that is not a despotism or theocracy would have the temerity to proclaim that they produce results that are "completely fair." They couldn't be. That an innocent person would ever have to go through such an ordeal is inherently unfair. That a guilty person should ever be acquitted, likewise.

Second, the criminal justice system's focus is to provide what fairness it can, centered almost exclusively upon the defendant. Not the witnesses, not the victim, not the jurors and most especially, not the spectators. There was no "misstep," because there was no requirement to provide fairness to a dead youth in the courtroom.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't consider Barack Obama to be an effective leader when it comes to issues in the black population here. As far as liberals discussion racial profiling - while I do not consider liberal politicians to be moving fast on it, I consider conservative politicians to be even worse because they want to pretend that it either doesn't exist or isn't a problem. At least liberals acknowledge both.
Click to expand...

Conservatives, unlike liberals, aren't afraid to acknowledge that crime is a problem among young black men - does that mean all young black men are criminals or violent? - NO - but to quote you, "it's putting your head in the sand" to ignore that a large percentage of violent crime in America is committed by young black men and much of it against other young black men. The word profiling exists because statistics show that when looking for something, you're more likely to find it in a particular place.

Good for you acknowledging that racial profiling exists and it's a problem. Now, if we could get you to acknowledge that crime among young black men disproportionately exists and is a problem, we might get somewhere. Let everyone admit there's a problem with crime - admit that maybe it's not being handled appropriately causing more problems - and admit that something needs to be done about the crime, not just the profiling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom