Regrettable aspect of trial

[grip]

You certainly attribute a lot of things to race.

First of all, no courts 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 to provide what fairness it can is centered and 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.

Race is a part of reality, accept it.

The purpose of all courts is to dispense justice, which is based on the concept of fairness, not to eliminate the suffering from all incidents. That the court doesn't focus on having honest witnesses and jurors, consideration for the victim(s) and citizens is absurd. And that there was no requirement to provide fairness for the dead youth is absolute nonsense. It was the whole point of the trial. What are you talking about?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

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.

I've never met a liberal who didn't acknowledge the statistical reality of crime among black men. You seem to be speaking of a mythical liberal not any that actually exist, LOL.

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.

See above, LOL. It's not something I have to "admit" because it's a reality that I'm not reluctant to acknowledge. As I've said before, I'm about the truth. It's you and others who keep resisting it. /shrug

 

[SMTA]

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.

That figures, of course.

 

[mike2810]

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.

I disagree with your stance.

Would you have been more satisfied if the jury was made up of 3 male teenager who were of TM ethnic background (or at least the youngest legal age to serve on a jury) and 3 males of GZ ethnic background and age? Would that satisfy the definition of a jury of peers?

Not baiting, but it seems that when things don't go the way a minority group would like, the minority group looks for excuses and race is generally one of them.

Bottom line, the State did not have the evidence to convince the jury.

 

[Oftencold]

Race is a part of reality, accept it.

The purpose of all courts is to dispense justice, which is based on the concept of fairness, not to eliminate the suffering from all incidents. That the court doesn't focus on having honest witnesses and jurors, consideration for the victim(s) and citizens is absurd. And that there was no requirement to provide fairness for the dead youth is absolute nonsense. It was the whole point of the trial. What are you talking about?

Again, your misapprehend the nature of the American Court System.

The point of the trial had nothing at all to do with providing fairness to the dead. That's poetic silliness. The purpose of the trial, if we are to further torture the meaning of the horribly misunderstood term "fairness," was about delivering fairness upon Mr. Zimmerman alone, no one else. Had he been guilty, that would have involved punishment.

Whether fairness was or is ever visited upon others is a concern form legislators addressing the future, pundits, philosophers, and the despotic elements that so easily manipulate the hordes of narly thoughtless votes who confuse government with society with culture with philosophy with religion.

 

[grip]

Again, your misapprehend the nature of the American Court System.

The point of the trial had nothing at all to do with providing fairness to the dead. That's poetic silliness. The purpose of the trial, if we are to further torture the meaning of the horribly misunderstood term "fairness," was about delivering fairness upon Mr. Zimmerman alone, no one else. Had he been guilty, that would have involved punishment.

Whether fairness was or is ever visited upon others is a concern form legislators addressing the future, pundits, philosophers, and the despotic elements that so easily manipulate the hordes of narly thoughtless votes who confuse government with society with culture with philosophy with religion.

They arrested and charged Zimmerman with murder for the purpose of providing justice to the dead. If he was not found guilty of the crime, then he would be found innocent providing justice for him.

Definition of Justice
1. Just behavior or treatment.
2. The quality of being fair and reasonable.

You're making it too complicated. The law is written by the legislature and interpreted and applied by the judicial system.
The purpose of the law is to create rules of fairness to ensure that peoples rights aren't violated by one another. It is the foundation of a civilized society.

 

[justabubba]

a trial in seminole county and not one native American on the jury
the injustice is obvious [/sarcasm]

 

[Oftencold]

They arrested and charged Zimmerman with murder for the purpose of providing justice to the dead. If he was not found guilty of the crime, then he would be found innocent providing justice for him.

Definition of Justice
1. Just behavior or treatment.
2. The quality of being fair and reasonable.

You're making it too complicated. The law is written by the legislature and interpreted and applied by the judicial system.
The purpose of the law is to create rules of fairness to ensure that peoples rights aren't violated by one another. It is the foundation of a civilized society.

Again, you don't seem to understand what a criminal court is under our system. First and foremost, I'd point out that the Justice Department is part of the Executive branch, whilst the Florida court System is not. Even were this a Federal Court, the Federal Court System, contrary to popular misconception is created and ultimately overseen by the Congress.

Federal Courts in American Government

 

[grip]

Again, you don't seem to understand what a criminal court is under our system. First and foremost, I'd point out that the Justice Department is part of the Executive branch, whilst the Florida court System is not. Even were this a Federal Court, the Federal Court System, contrary to popular misconception is created and ultimately overseen by the Congress.

Federal Courts in American Government

I wrote The Definition of Justice, not The Department of Justice. :roll:

And what does the Florida court system have to do with the Executive Branch of the government? Is this what you're talking about?

The Judicial Branch has two court systems: federal and state. While each hears certain types of cases, neither is completely independent of the other. The two systems often interact and share the goal of fairly handling legal issues.

The U.S. Constitution created a governmental structure known as federalism that calls for the sharing of powers between the national and state governments. The Constitution gives certain powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states.

The federal court system deals with legal issues expressly or implicitly granted to it by the U.S. Constitution. The state court systems deal with their respective state constitutions and the legal issues that the U.S. Constitution did not give to the federal government or explicitly deny to the states.
Why Two Court Systems?

I think I understand the criminal court system FAR better than you do....lol

 

[ABC10]

"I have represented young black males for 30 years. I know better than most people, better than most of the people who are complaining how young black males are treated in the criminal justice system. And we need to fix it. We need to address those problems." - Mark O'Mara

CNN.com - Transcripts

Well, it would help if blacks stopped committing so much crime and would not be in the Justice System. You know the DOJ stats as well as we do. What's the surprise? 61 blacks were shot in Chicago by other blacks over the time of the trial. Do you know any of their names?
Personally I am bored by the constant "racism" shout. Yes, blacks are over represented in jails and prisons cause they commit a lot of the crime.

 

[Compatibilist]

I thought one of the jurers was black. Oh well, makes no difetence.

She was just as black as Barak Obama

 

[opendebate]

I think this is a great article. Like I have always said, this was a complicated case because of all that it shines the spotlight on. First of all what is up the SYG Florida Law, the injustices in our system that are being played out on a regular basis against Black Americans (especially young males) and the profiling that would have HAD to have taken place that night for GZ to make the choices he did. It also, however, recognizing the fact that under Florida law and given the charges, the jury had no choice but to return a not guilty verdict. Read it if you dare...

Law and Justice and George Zimmerman - NationalJournal.com

 

[Compatibilist]

Well, it would help if blacks stopped committing so much crime and would not be in the Justice System. You know the DOJ stats as well as we do. What's the surprise? 61 blacks were shot in Chicago by other blacks over the time of the trial. Do you know any of their names?
Personally I am bored by the constant "racism" shout. Yes, blacks are over represented in jails and prisons cause they commit a lot of the crime.

Yes I agree... and it's a shame many of them grow up in neighborhoods where they see wealth/decadence from drug dealing gangster types. And... it doesn't help with all these rappers promoting this and exploiting these young men

 

[Oftencold]

I wrote The Definition of Justice, not The Department of Justice. :roll:

And what does the Florida court system have to do with the Executive Branch of the government? Is this what you're talking about?



I think I understand the criminal court system FAR better than you do....lol

You do not. Did you, you'd not be talking about it providing justice to the dead as though it were some dramatized Victorian seance.

 

[grip]

You do not. Did you, you'd not be talking about it providing justice to the dead as though it were some dramatized Victorian seance.

By that reasoning murder is legal because the dead have no say anymore? Okay, then The Declaration of Independence must be foolishly wrong...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

They bring charges of murder against people because it's a CRIME. If they didn't then all the other people would be endangered as potential victims to more killings. You have a right to life and someone can be punished for your death to bring justice for society, even though the dead won't be aware of it.

 

[Oftencold]

By that reasoning murder is legal because the dead have no say anymore? Okay, then The Declaration of Independence must be foolishly wrong...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

They bring charges of murder against people because it's a CRIME. If they didn't then all the other people would be endangered as potential victims to more killings. You have a right to life and someone can be punished for your death to bring justice for society, even though the dead won't be aware of it.

I'll try again.

Years ago an acquaintance of mine stole my car and attempted to sell it.

Soon though, I recovered the car. Since the thief had a lot of emotional problems, and I had the car. I asked the prosecutor if I could drop the charges. He explained to me, rather brusquely, that the accused was not being prosecuted for an offense against me, nor is any felon so prosecuted. He told me flatly that the thief was being prosecuted for his offense against the State. In other words, justice for me as the victim did not enter into consideration.

And again, to state what people ought to be getting taught in middle school, laws might be legislated for all sorts of reason, from the noble, to the foolish to the cynical. Laws might well be enacted with an eye to providing justice, or perhaps revenge, which a lot of people confuse with justice, to the victim. However, criminal courts are not constructed for that purpose, with the possible and probably corrupt exception of sentencing. They are constructed to determine guilt, and then only in certain cases, the preponderance of the procedures being set in place to prevent the conviction of the innocent.

To further illustrate. If the defendant is clearly morally responsible for harm to a victim, is a reprehensible person, is callous, even jovial at the thought of the harm they've done, if they acted out of sadism, hatred and spite, but violated no laws or regulations, any American criminal court not lost to corruption would be compelled to acquit the defendant without providing a whit of "justice," to the victim.

 

[grip]

I'll try again.

Years ago an acquaintance of mine stole my car and attempted to sell it.

Soon though, I recovered the car. Since the thief had a lot of emotional problems, and I had the car. I asked the prosecutor if I could drop the charges. He explained to me, rather brusquely, that the accused was not being prosecuted for an offense against me, nor is any felon so prosecuted. He told me flatly that the thief was being prosecuted for his offense against the State. In other words, justice for me as the victim did not enter into consideration.

And again, to state what people ought to be getting taught in middle school, laws might be legislated for all sorts of reason, from the noble, to the foolish to the cynical. Laws might well be enacted with an eye to providing justice, or perhaps revenge, which a lot of people confuse with justice, to the victim. However, criminal courts are not constructed for that purpose, with the possible and probably corrupt exception of sentencing. They are constructed to determine guilt, and then only in certain cases, the preponderance of the procedures being set in place to prevent the conviction of the innocent.

To further illustrate. If the defendant is clearly morally responsible for harm to a victim, is a reprehensible person, is callous, even jovial at the thought of the harm they've done, if they acted out of sadism, hatred and spite, but violated no laws or regulations, any American criminal court not lost to corruption would be compelled to acquit the defendant without providing a whit of "justice," to the victim.

The basis of all laws are to create a society based on equal rights and fair treatment. And the judicial branch has the responsibility of applying these rules. Our Constitution is considered the supreme law document of the land from which all our governing principles are interpreted from.

 

[Oftencold]

The basis of all laws are to create a society based on equal rights and fair treatment. And the judicial branch has the responsibility of applying these rules. Our Constitution is considered the supreme law document of the land from which all our governing principles are interpreted from.

Where in Earth did you ever get such a notion?

The basis of most laws is to concentrate power in he State. Our vast body of "progressive" tax laws for instance is designed to create structure inequality. Laws that establish an age of majority clearly create a secondary class for the innocent young. "Fair" is usually a childish term when used by most people anyway, and subject to much individual interpretation. For instance, I find it monumentally unfair that my informed vote has no more value than the vote of a self serving sub-literate.

Military draft laws are obviously unfair and create inequality. Laws that create State lotteries appeal to unfairness and deliberately create vast inequality in order to enrich the State. Laws requiring people to get licenses to conduct harmless private transactions that involve no others are transparently unfair and are created to empower and fund the State. Any and all forms of publicly charity confiscated from unwilling taxpayers for programs that they find detestable are unfair, and obviously do not promote some simplistic notion of "equality."

Further, all laws in any modern government are enforced ultimately by the threat of deadly force, from zoning laws to prohibitio0ns against homicide, which policy can never really be fair and equitable. (Yes, parking fines are backed by the threat of gunfire. If you resist long and hard enough, someone with a gun will compel you to go to jail, or in an extreme case, shoot you.)

Of course, some of our basic laws do try to enforce very limited "fairness," and partial "equality before the law." But the overwhelming body of law in the modern state is a creation designed to manipulate, contain, control and sometimes cull the populace. It really can be no other way in any practical sense. We are Humans, and this is how Humans behave.

 

[grip]

Where in Earth did you ever get such a notion?

The basis of most laws is to concentrate power in he State. Our vast body of "progressive" tax laws for instance is designed to create structure inequality. Laws that establish an age of majority clearly create a secondary class for the innocent young. "Fair" is usually a childish term when used by most people anyway, and subject to much individual interpretation. For instance, I find it monumentally unfair that my informed vote has no more value than the vote of a self serving sub-literate.

Military draft laws are obviously unfair and create inequality. Laws that create State lotteries appeal to unfairness and deliberately create vast inequality in order to enrich the State. Laws requiring people to get licenses to conduct harmless private transactions that involve no others are transparently unfair and are created to empower and fund the State. Any and all forms of publicly charity confiscated from unwilling taxpayers for programs that they find detestable are unfair, and obviously do not promote some simplistic notion of "equality."

Further, all laws in any modern government are enforced ultimately by the threat of deadly force, from zoning laws to prohibitio0ns against homicide, which policy can never really be fair and equitable. (Yes, parking fines are backed by the threat of gunfire. If you resist long and hard enough, someone with a gun will compel you to go to jail, or in an extreme case, shoot you.)

Of course, some of our basic laws do try to enforce very limited "fairness," and partial "equality before the law." But the overwhelming body of law in the modern state is a creation designed to manipulate, contain, control and sometimes cull the populace. It really can be no other way in any practical sense. We are Humans, and this is how Humans behave.

I got it from here.... Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law is a term which does not have a universally accepted definition,[2] but one definition is that law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.[3] Laws are made by governments, specifically by their legislatures. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution (written or unwritten) and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics and society in countless ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people.

Humans are governed by the same physical laws that control the universe. The illusion is that there's some other option.