quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

That has become your default position... do you realize that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
When you sit on a jury you take an oath to come to an unbiased fair verdict. If you reach that verdict on the basis of things having nothing to do with the facts of the case you have violated your oath.
Don't you think, for example that a not guilty verdict would have been in the best interest of the jury in the Mississippi Burning case. But would you or anyone else say it would have been ok to do so.
With self interest being acceptable grounds for reaching a verdict why not just do a poll for A the most popular verdict and B the verdict most likely to have repercussions then we don't even need a jury.

quote:

When you sit on a jury you take an oath to come to an unbiased fair verdict. If you reach that verdict on the basis of things having nothing to do with the facts of the case you have violated your oath.
Don't you think, for example that a not guilty verdict would have been in the best interest of the jury in the Mississippi Burning case. But would you or anyone else say it would have been ok to do so.
With self interest being acceptable grounds for reaching a verdict why not just do a poll for A the most popular verdict and B the verdict most likely to have repercussions then we don't even need a jury.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

That has become your default position... do you realize that?

And it is yours as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Shall we have a vote? All those who have a 17 year old, or have done so, please note down here just how mature and balanced said kid is/was, and how much he/she absolutely deserved to be treated like a worldly-wise adult. Please specifically point out how said 17 year old was always rational, smooth and sophisticated in the face of any odd or unusual action or reaction by any full adult around him/her -self.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

When you sit on a jury you take an oath to come to an unbiased fair verdict. If you reach that verdict on the basis of things having nothing to do with the facts of the case you have violated your oath.
Don't you think, for example that a not guilty verdict would have been in the best interest of the jury in the Mississippi Burning case. But would you or anyone else say it would have been ok to do so.
With self interest being acceptable grounds for reaching a verdict why not just do a poll for A the most popular verdict and B the verdict most likely to have repercussions then we don't even need a jury.

Where did anyone say self interest was grounds for a verdict?

Now, we have charged 6 women, some with small children, the task of finding Z innocent or guilty. Its amazing how no one has thought about how this is affecting, or going to affect, their lives. Find him guilty, or innocent, and these women will surely feel the fall out for their decision. A hung jury will make both sides of the issue angry.

As much as we all want to be arm chair lawyers and juries... we arent... those 6 women are. Its now in their hands.. and I cant help but feel sorry for them no matter how they rule.

If Z gets convicted now, it just may be overturned on appeal. Who knows. But as much anger as this case has generated... and widely evidenced on these many, multiple threads... would any of you not think about yourselves as you are trying to decide this man's future?

Just to remind you of what I did say.

I expect them to do the job there were told they had to do.

Be that as it may, there isnt a single person on that jury who isnt putting themselves in the same place as at least one of the members of the families affected by all this.

quote:

The degree to which is acceptable is the extent to which the verdict is unjust.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Did you shoot him? Or is there a fuckin point to this, because, if Trayvon were in the shower lookin to get a little jiggy with Zimmerman, I wouldn't have a damn thing to say about this.

Other than that, I am unsure of the point of your non-sequitur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Peon, you know better than this. They will all rush in claiming how they were in the military at 17 and making wordly decisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

That has become your default position... do you realize that?

And it is yours as well.

lol... if you say so

But if you continue to misstate my position, as well as my posts, we will be quickly done here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Shall we have a vote? All those who have a 17 year old, or have done so, please note down here just how mature and balanced said kid is/was, and how much he/she absolutely deserved to be treated like a worldly-wise adult. Please specifically point out how said 17 year old was always rational, smooth and sophisticated in the face of any odd or unusual action or reaction by any full adult around him/her -self.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I will wait till you clean that up. Thank you.

Now....

quote:

The degree to which is acceptable is the extent to which the verdict is unjust.

Who determines if a verdict is unjust?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

See now you have to be a little pisser because things arent going your way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I will wait till you clean that up. Thank you.

Now....

quote:

The degree to which is acceptable is the extent to which the verdict is unjust.

Who determines if a verdict is unjust?

One that lets a klansman go free if he blew up a church or one that says self defense doesn't count if the attacker was a 17 year old black guy.

quote:

Your the one making blank threats

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Your the one making blank threats
Never going to talk to me again how scary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Peon, you know better than this. They will all rush in claiming how they were in the military at 17 and making wordly decisions.

Really? Is no one willing to admit that he or she was a right little tit at 17? Because I'm damned sure that I was.

And PS: the 'belonged-to-the-military' test means nothing to the average Brit. Not after thousands of our teens got slaughtered in WW1. The military signs up teen boys precisely *because* they're young and foolish, not despite it.