Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[mistermack]

TOLD YOU SO !! (again)

Police chief Bill Lee has been sacked. Like I said he should have been right at the start.
And so should the prosecutor that he got together with that night, and decided, without a proper homicide investigation, and against the wishes of the investigating officer, that no charges should be brought.

It was stunning arrogance, and it's right that Lee shouldn't be in charge of any policing.
Maybe he might decide to tell the truth now.

I've also noticed that videos of Zimmerman giving his account have been on Fox news, what the fuck?
So they can make as sure as they can that jurors will have heard his account, even if he refuses to testify.
What sort of moronic system is that? He can get his side of the story over, and then refuse to be cross-examined on it. How the fuck does that get allowed? It's like some sort of banana republic legal system.

[Seth]

TOLD YOU SO !! (again)

Police chief Bill Lee has been sacked. Like I said he should have been right at the start.
And so should the prosecutor that he got together with that night, and decided, without a proper homicide investigation, and against the wishes of the investigating officer, that no charges should be brought.

It was stunning arrogance, and it's right that Lee shouldn't be in charge of any policing.
Maybe he might decide to tell the truth now.

I've also noticed that videos of Zimmerman giving his account have been on Fox news, what the fuck?
So they can make as sure as they can that jurors will have heard his account, even if he refuses to testify.
What sort of moronic system is that? He can get his side of the story over, and then refuse to be cross-examined on it. How the fuck does that get allowed? It's like some sort of banana republic legal system.

No, it's an advanced and just legal system that evolved from the barbaric banana republic legal system of Great Britain, which historically tortured (and still coerces) people into testifying against themselves.

In the UK, the fact that you refuse to speak to police about an accusation CAN be used against you at trial, which leads to an unfair and unjust inference of guilt not based on any actual evidence of guilt merely because one chooses not to respond to police inquiry, whereas in the US, not only can you not be compelled to testify against yourself, anything you say that has been coerced is inadmissible.

Oh, and the jury will never see the Fox News account, so "his side of the story" has no effect on the court case.

[mistermack]

What bollocks from across the water.
Firstly, the jury has almost certainly ALREADY seen that footage. How fucking gullible can you get?

And then, of course, a refusal to answer a serious charge is a clear sign of innocence.
What innocent person would want to give their version of events? In my experience, innocent people ALWAYS just sit their and say "no comment" to everything. Of course they do.

I think ALL information should be kept from the juries. Information can only ever prejudice the case.

The trial should just consist of the charge being read out. I don't think it's right that a defendant should have to say guilty or not guilty. That's too much information.

[FBM]

Didn't Bill Lee try to resign and his resignation was rejected? My memory may be faulty. It's going on 2 a.m. here, and I'm not willing to look it up.

[mistermack]

Didn't Bill Lee try to resign and his resignation was rejected? My memory may be faulty. It's going on 2 a.m. here, and I'm not willing to look it up.

No, he voluntarily temporarily stepped down, as I understand it. As a temporary measure to remove any distraction to the investigation. So he said.
Probably to head off pressure for his resignation. It obviously didn't work.

[Tero]

NRA would say: Now if all those concert goes had been armed, they
would have at least killed the shooter
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/25/po ... k-concert/

[Seth]

What bollocks from across the water.
Firstly, the jury has almost certainly ALREADY seen that footage. How fucking gullible can you get?

They will be asked if they have seen news coverage of the event as a part of voir dire, and if they have, they will likely not be seated on the jury because either the prosecutor or the defense will strike them with a preemptory challenge. The difficulty for both sides will be finding and seating a jury that has not been contaminated by the news coverage, but that's the case in every notable crime covered by the media. It's done all the time, it just takes more time while questioning jurors to be sure they haven't seen the coverage and haven't drawn any conclusions.

You really ought not make claims about a process that it's clear you know absolutely nothing about.

And then, of course, a refusal to answer a serious charge is a clear sign of innocence.
What innocent person would want to give their version of events? In my experience, innocent people ALWAYS just sit their and say "no comment" to everything. Of course they do.

They should. They are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, so it is ALWAYS in one's best interests to invoke one's right to remain silent because anything you say can, and will be used against you in court. Therefore, say nothing and let the prosecutor and defense do their jobs.

I think ALL information should be kept from the juries. Information can only ever prejudice the case.

Evidence is not "prejudice," but information not presented at trial can indeed be prejudicial to a fair trial.

The trial should just consist of the charge being read out. I don't think it's right that a defendant should have to say guilty or not guilty. That's too much information.

The defendant doesn't have to say anything at all, even to enter a plea. If he remains silent, then the court enters a plea of not guilty automatically and sets the case for trial at the arraignment, which is where you enter such pleas of guilty or not guilty, NOT at the trial. The arraignment has no jury, just a judge, and the defendant has the right to have the prosecutor present a prima facia case to the judge and ask for dismissal if the prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence to support going to trial.

At trial, it's already presumed the defendant is pleading not guilty, and he need never say a single word in his defense. The burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. At the end of the prosecution's presentation (they go first always) the defense can ask for a directed verdict of not guilty, and the judge must rule if there is sufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed. If so, then the defense gives its side, and the prosecution gets the last word in rebuttal. Then the jury considers the case.

[Tyrannical]

The trial should just consist of the charge being read out. I don't think it's right that a defendant should have to say guilty or not guilty. That's too much information.

You don't even have a trial when they plead guilty
I used to think you were in your early twenties and just hopelessly naive, now you get a double every time

Please tell me you think the Earth is only about 6,000 years old too

[Tero]

There used to be a belief that if you plead guilty, you do not get the death penalty, as the judge alone can't do that.

[Tyrannical]

There used to be a belief that if you plead guilty, you do not get the death penalty, as the judge alone can't do that.

Thank God Atheism ended that repentance to God nonsense.

[Coito ergo sum]

Boy that Zimmerman is an idiot. Having such a small penis, he'll have to carry that gun.

Yes, people with smaller than average appendages are to be scorned. Women with small tits can be such morons, ay? Don't get me started on women with over-large clitorises. They deserve some real ridicule.

But the next evildoer will be a 30 year old and will shoot Z with his own gun.

Only if that evil doer has a small penis. People with average and large penises would never do something like that.

[FBM]

Boy that Zimmerman is an idiot. Having such a small penis, he'll have to carry that gun.

Yes, people with smaller than average appendages are to be scorned. Women with small tits can be such morons, ay? Don't get me started on women with over-large clitorises. They deserve some real ridicule.

But the next evildoer will be a 30 year old and will shoot Z with his own gun.

Only if that evil doer has a small penis. People with average and large penises would never do something like that.

There you have it. I have an above-average penis and have yet to shoot anyone. With a gun, I mean. QED.

Pop psychology is one of the few things that are more useless than regular psychology.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pop psychology is one of the few things that are more useless than regular psychology.

Only people with really wide butt-cracks think that.

[FBM]

Pop psychology is one of the few things that are more useless than regular psychology.

Only people with really wide butt-cracks think that.

You haven't seen my butt-canyon, I guess. I have a camera, if you're interested...

[Coito ergo sum]

Pop psychology is one of the few things that are more useless than regular psychology.

Only people with really wide butt-cracks think that.

You haven't seen my butt-canyon, I guess. I have a camera, if you're interested...

Only people with skinny thumbs would take pictures of their own butt cracks....