ZIMMERMAN CHARGED!? Tune in @ 6:00pm EST News

[jpcedotal]

Or Martin attacked Zimmerman because he got mad at being followed so he was going to teach this dude a lesson and got shot for it when it got out of hand.

 

[Sadalmelik]

presumption of innocence

n. a fundamental protection for a person accused of a crime, which requires the prosecution to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is opposite from the criminal law in many countries, where the accused is considered guilty until he/ she proves his/her innocence or the government completely fails to prove its case.
See also: beyond a reasonable doubt presumption



heres the legal definition, now you tell me whos on the right side here, your pov or mine. possible you guys live in another country, where your presumed guilty, i havent looked at your profiles, so idk. i live in usa, and your presumed innocent, continue to read the legal definition over untill it becomes clear.

 

[Sadalmelik]

Or Martin attacked Zimmerman because he got mad at being followed so he was going to teach this dude a lesson and got shot for it when it got out of hand.

this is, i believe, what zimmermans defense is, will be, if it is, and there is no solid evidence presented otherwise, ill give zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, the presumption of innocence, and say he should be acquitted. and so far, there hasnt been any evidence presented that would prove otherwise.

 

[Lovely Lane]

neither do you, spite the fact that you have this all figured out and have thrown zimmerman under the bus with all the rest of the bias media, the ignorant public, and the black panthers and other racist groups. you werent there either, there is no video showing otherwise, so ill take zimmermans word on what happened. ITS CALLED PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. LOOK IT UP. cause apparently you dont know what it means.

there is nothing to show otherwise, he has not been proven to be a compulsive liar, he has not been proven to be a racist, etc in fact, if you look at him and his history, it has shown the complete opposite.

In another post you said you were not a legal expert, so I'll wait until the verdict comes in, being that I am one of the ignorant public you speak of.

Convictions were around prior to video footage, wonder how prosecutor's and jurist managed to do that?

 

[Lovely Lane]

ya zimmerman goes to jail, and we all move on.....got that already.
and oj walked free for cutting off the heads of 2 people, and casey anthony walked free for murdering and duct taping her babys mouth shut and so on. so whats your point. it bothers me when i see injustice. apparently your ok with it.

I live my life each day doing the best I can. You were not a jurist on any of those trials so how would you know what was discussed in jury room?
Citizens with closed minds shouldn't be jurist. Matter of fact, for me, I would like to see professional jurist on duty, not the everyday citizen. Professional jurist would be trained in matters of evidence, law, human behavior, group debate, etc. But that won't happen any time soon.

 

[jpcedotal]

I live my life each day doing the best I can. You were not a jurist on any of those trials so how would you know what was discussed in jury room?
Citizens with closed minds shouldn't be jurist. Matter of fact, for me, I would like to see professional jurist on duty, not the everyday citizen. Professional jurist would be trained in matters of evidence, law, human behavior, group debate, etc. But that won't happen any time soon.

I hope not...they call those professional jurist...lobbyist and special interest groups and unions.

 

[Lovely Lane]

presumption of innocence

n. a fundamental protection for a person accused of a crime, which requires the prosecution to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is opposite from the criminal law in many countries, where the accused is considered guilty until he/ she proves his/her innocence or the government completely fails to prove its case.
See also: beyond a reasonable doubt presumption



heres the legal definition, now you tell me whos on the right side here, your pov or mine. possible you guys live in another country, where your presumed guilty, i havent looked at your profiles, so idk. i live in usa, and your presumed innocent, continue to read the legal definition over untill it becomes clear.

mine

 

[Lovely Lane]

I hope not...they call those professional jurist...lobbyist and special interest groups and unions.

I have no idea where you get your information, off the wall?

 

[jpcedotal]

I have no idea where you get your information, off the wall?

So we are going to have folks who study how to not have per-existing opinions? That's a little naive don't ya think?

 

[IisJustMe]

I would like to see professional jurist on duty, not the everyday citizen. Professional jurist would be trained in matters of evidence, law, human behavior, group debate, etc. But that won't happen any time soon.

Great. Put the entire judicial system in the hands of professionals. Fantastic idea. Forget the fact that the founders never envisioned the legal profession as being so "professional" and money-hungry as it has become the last 100 years.

 

[Lovely Lane]

So we are going to have folks who study how to not have per-existing opinions? That's a little naive don't ya think?

How did you come up with that one? Plus, it was an idea of mine, most likely it won't happen because of 'jury of your peers' clause. Which is not necessary written in the Constitution, but pulled (created) from the 14th Amendment.

If you don't like the idea, come up with another that insures a fair, reasonable, unbiased jurist.

Preexisting opinion. Have you ever preformed jury duty? For instance, sitting on a grand jury a jurist arrives in the morning to court and as a group they are briefed that they will hear several cases and of what is expected of them. These jurist have no idea of which cases are being presented to them. They sit, listen, ask questions and vote.

Basically the same is true as being a jurist on the Zimmerman trial. A citizen is notified, they go to court, some are chosen to be jurist, some chosen to be alternates, some go home. None know what the case is they may be hearing. And since several million live in/around Sanford, I imagine that jury selection is bi-weekly, (many cases going to trial).

Jury by ones Peers is the best we have, and yet, it isn't really a jury composed of ones peers. Women defendants do not get a jury full of women, a medical doctor does not have a jury full of medical doctors, a White defendant doesn't get a all white jury, etc.

A Jury Of One's Peers
Introduction to Trial by Jury
Voir Dire: Creating the Jury

 

[florida2]

Would any of these threads exist if the policeman was black and the victim white?

 

[WilliamB]

Would any of these threads exist if the policeman was black and the victim white?

What policeman?

 

[IisJustMe]

Would any of these threads exist if the policeman was black and the victim white?

Zimmerman is just a citizen who happens to be head of his neighborhood watch, not a cop. But, given a slight change in your question to make it accurate, no, they would not.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Great. Put the entire judicial system in the hands of professionals. Fantastic idea. Forget the fact that the founders never envisioned the legal profession as being so "professional" and money-hungry as it has become the last 100 years.

Oh, I think they did. They instituted the Marshall Court, and I believe it was in the Federalist Papers where Hamilton spoke of Law & Courts and in having a Supreme Court. To me, this is how the aristocrats, industrialist, bankers of the day wield power by use of law and government enforcement of the law. (nothing has changed really)

Wonder why the Northeast had the first Law colleges? For upon Hamilton's writings, Federal laws needed courts, Federal courts needed judges and lawyers. Qualifications in becoming a lawyer were recommended and approved. Not your everyday common citizen could attend school let alone Law school.

 

[jpcedotal]

How did you come up with that one? Plus, it was an idea of mine, most likely it won't happen because of 'jury of your peers' clause. Which is not necessary written in the Constitution, but pulled (created) from the 14th Amendment.

If you don't like the idea, come up with another that insures a fair, reasonable, unbiased jurist.

Preexisting opinion. Have you ever preformed jury duty? For instance, sitting on a grand jury a jurist arrives in the morning to court and as a group they are briefed that they will hear several cases and of what is expected of them. These jurist have no idea of which cases are being presented to them. They sit, listen, ask questions and vote.

Basically the same is true as being a jurist on the Zimmerman trial. A citizen is notified, they go to court, some are chosen to be jurist, some chosen to be alternates, some go home. None know what the case is they may be hearing. And since several million live in/around Sanford, I imagine that jury selection is bi-weekly, (many cases going to trial).

Jury by ones Peers is the best we have, and yet, it isn't really a jury composed of ones peers. Women defendants do not get a jury full of women, a medical doctor does not have a jury full of medical doctors, a White defendant doesn't get a all white jury, etc.

A Jury Of One's Peers
Introduction to Trial by Jury
Voir Dire: Creating the Jury

What you are proposing divides this country even more. And yes I know exactly how a jury works and every experience that I have had in my life that relates to the case being tried has some input in the direction I am leaning...that is what I am talking about. Everyone has a past and this past is what forms our ideas of "fairness" of present decisions.

What I am saying is there is no such person who will pass your litmus test of an unbiased jury member.

 

[Lovely Lane]

What you are proposing divides this country even more. And yes I know exactly how a jury works and every experience that I have had in my life that relates to the case being tried has some input in the direction I am leaning...that is what I am talking about. Everyone has a past and this past is what forms our ideas of "fairness" of present decisions.

What I am saying is there is no such person who will pass your litmus test of an unbiased jury member.

No test, everyone has some form of baggage of personal prejudice.

Let's say Zimmerman does not want a jury trial, just have the judge make a ruling after hearing all the evidence and argument, (Bench Trial). The Judge would be acting as an professional jurist in this scenario, wouldn't you agree?

Maybe that is Zimmerman's best bet, to have a 'bench trial'. Any thoughts?

 

[WilliamB]

No test, everyone has some form of baggage of personal prejudice.

Let's say Zimmerman does not want a jury trial, just have the judge make a ruling after hearing all the evidence and argument, (Bench Trial). The Judge would be acting as an professional jurist in this scenario, wouldn't you agree?

Maybe that is Zimmerman's best bet, to have a 'bench trial'. Any thoughts?

I think he'd be foolish to take this to trial. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. If this case is not thrown out, he needs to just take a plea deal.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I think he'd be foolish to take this to trial. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose. If this case is not thrown out, he needs to just take a plea deal.

That may be in his best interest, I agree for several reasons; jurist have emotions (which makes us human), a bench trial would place all responsibility on a judge who is elected, (politician). In a bench trial the judge is privy to information that a jury will never hear, only a strong solid belief in justice in the eyes of law is needed and not many Judges in high profile cases can handle that responsibility i.e as in Judge Ito;(OJ murder case)


But to those who are adamant that Zimmerman broke no law, such as the SYG, a bench trial may be a good option to consider. At least it may be a good discussion to have; pro's and con's.

This is why it is very important to have good legal counsel, one who is well educated in criminal law, and has much experience. Much legal strategy and tactics involved behind the scenes in planning out a defense.

Food for thought; Bench Trial
Bench Trial - Criminal Law Lawyer Source
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a bench trial (instead of jury)? - Yahoo! Answers
The Advantages of a Bench Trial | eHow.com

 

[WilliamB]

That may be in his best interest, I agree for several reasons; jurist have emotions (which makes us human), a bench trial would place all responsibility on a judge who is elected, (politician). In a bench trial the judge is privy to information that a jury will never hear, only a strong solid belief in justice in the eyes of law is needed and not many Judges in high profile cases can handle that responsibility i.e as in Judge Ito;(OJ murder case)


But to those who are adamant that Zimmerman broke no law, such as the SYG, a bench trial may be a good option to consider. At least it may be a good discussion to have; pro's and con's.

This is why it is very important to have good legal counsel, one who is well educated in criminal law, and has much experience. Much legal strategy and tactics involved behind the scenes in planning out a defense.

Food for thought; Bench Trial
Bench Trial - Criminal Law Lawyer Source
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a bench trial (instead of jury)? - Yahoo! Answers
The Advantages of a Bench Trial | eHow.com

Thanks for the links. I never really considered a bench trial. I'll look through this stuff today.