So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Malice_Mizer]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

bigoted? what about my comment was bigoted? trayvon was a known thief. he was caught with a back pack full of women's jewelry. you're just some kind of reverse racist -- omg he's black someone is trying to hold him down.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Samoht]

black people don't deserve any kind of automatic credit just because they're black. that makes you racists, not me.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

is it me, or are your posts getting dumber

I'm a mixed bag. Talk to Hailto for further info.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

black people don't deserve any kind of automatic credit just because they're black.

Nobody ever said that.

But even if we did:

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that makes you racists, not me.

No it wouldn't.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You have a serious misunderstanding of the way this whole thing works.

I didn't say that he wasn't guilty of murder 2. I didn't say that he shouldn't be found not guilty. That's the whole point. He may very well be. The problem is that the prosecution has the burden of proof, so if they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had malicious intent which seems to be their most difficult hurdle at the moment, then the jury MAY NOT find him guilty of murder 2. You see, there's a jury of peers that consider the merits of the case and where to allocate their consideration. They could find him guilty of murder 2 regardless. They could defer to a lesser charge of manslaughter, which is looking more and more likely.

i actually understand exactly how this works -- it's you that seems confused. malicious intent is a hurdle the prosecution isn't even going to reach because they're never getting past self defense. that is the same reason manslaughter won't and can't stick. you can't just fly past self defense and split the difference with manslaughter. either you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was not acting in self defense or you have no case

you've said you personally don't believe there is sufficient evidence for murder 2. there isn't. the same applies to manslaughter and for the same reason. so you can basically hope for a miscarriage of justice in order to put this guy in jail without evidentiary basis

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it wouldn't.

yes, yes it would

giving preference to once race over another is definition of racism

[Hasbinbad]

jury can do whatever the fuck they want. instructions are actually suggestions. a jury does not have to convict if they feel a person has broken an unjust law, and can convict if they are convinced outside the letter of the law.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yes, yes it would

giving preference to once race over another is a racist definition of racism

ftfy

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

jury can do whatever the fuck they want. instructions are actually suggestions. a jury does not have to convict if they feel a person has broken an unjust law, and can convict if they are convinced outside the letter of the law.

ofc any ruling is subject to appeal, but juries can do a lot more than they are told they can do.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

jury can do whatever the fuck they want. instructions are actually suggestions. a jury does not have to convict if they feel a person has broken an unjust law, and can convict if they are convinced outside the letter of the law.

They can do whatever they want, but they cannot force certain results no matter how badly they want them.

It's far from certain, but if the defense scores a few more big plays, be they procedural or evidentiary, it's very possible the judge could toss the case despite a guilty jury verdict.