Stevie Wonder To Boycott 'Stand Your Ground' States

Acala said:
I am always amazed at how willing people are to second guess a jury when they didn't see all the evidence, didn't see the witnesses testify first hand, didn't hear the jury instructions, and have no direct knowledge of the facts. ALL they know is what the news media has told them and that is perhaps the single LEAST reliable source of information in the modern world.

But more importantly, people lack an understanding of what a criminal trial is even about. A criminal trial is not about determining whether or not an individual committed a crime. It is about measuring the government's proof. A jury may think the defendant committed a crime and still properly acquit if the government fell short of proof. This is what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone thought they knew the evidence and could concluded that "OJ did it". Of course they DIDN'T know the evidence because they were not in the courtroom, but more importantly they didn't understand the burden of proof. There were jurors in the OJ trial who said afterwards that they thought he did it but that there was a reasonable doubt remaining and that is all it takes. That means they did their job exactly correctly. Properly understood, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is very high. It is supposed to be hard to convict. That is one of the few remaining constraints on government power.

Juries are not perfect. They have biases. They misunderstand evidence and instructions. But they are closer to the truth than anyone else and there is NOBODY in a position to second-guess them. Not legally and not factually.

For anyone to say that this was a gross miscarriage of justice based on what they saw in the news media is absurd.
Click to expand...

Wait what? Juries should never be second guessed by anyone?

Haven't seen any evidence that these six women are some epitome of intelligence.
 
Acala said:
I am always amazed at how willing people are to second guess a jury when they didn't see all the evidence, didn't see the witnesses testify first hand, didn't hear the jury instructions, and have no direct knowledge of the facts. ALL they know is what the news media has told them and that is perhaps the single LEAST reliable source of information in the modern world.

But more importantly, people lack an understanding of what a criminal trial is even about. A criminal trial is not about determining whether or not an individual committed a crime. It is about measuring the government's proof. A jury may think the defendant committed a crime and still properly acquit if the government fell short of proof. This is what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone thought they knew the evidence and could concluded that "OJ did it". Of course they DIDN'T know the evidence because they were not in the courtroom, but more importantly they didn't understand the burden of proof. There were jurors in the OJ trial who said afterwards that they thought he did it but that there was a reasonable doubt remaining and that is all it takes. That means they did their job exactly correctly. Properly understood, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is very high. It is supposed to be hard to convict. That is one of the few remaining constraints on government power.

Juries are not perfect. They have biases. They misunderstand evidence and instructions. But they are closer to the truth than anyone else and there is NOBODY in a position to second-guess them. Not legally and not factually.

For anyone to say that this was a gross miscarriage of justice based on what they saw in the news media is absurd.
Click to expand...

And, for anyone to say that this was NOT a gross miscarriage of justice based on what they saw in the news media is also absurd.
 
BlackTerrel said:
Wait what? Juries should never be second guessed by anyone?

Haven't seen any evidence that these six women are some epitome of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Based on what you know of the trial, do you believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder?

If yes, what is the evidence you see which is compelling enough to move you off of reasonable doubt about it.


I'm interested to know.
 
Don Lapre said:
Based on what you know of the trial, do you believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder?

If yes, what is the evidence you see which is compelling enough to move you off of reasonable doubt about it.


I'm interested to know.
Click to expand...

Yes. He provoked a fight with an unarmed kid and when he started losing he shot the guy. Murder.
 
Also, I take objection by calling him a kid , when I was that age , I was an unassigned Airborne Fire Support Specialist ( forward Observor ) , Non Commisioned Officer who had been paying taxes for two years, I was not a " kid" and that "kid" was probably a bigger guy than I was. Had I jumped on some guy, a stranger and started beating him senseless ( which I have not done), I fully would have expected hm to use any weapon he had. End of story.
 
Sad that Stevie wants to indict and convict an entire state of law abiding citizens for the actions of one man...
Gee...that sounds strangely familiar...
 
ghengis86 said:
SYG wasn't even used as a defense!!

SMMFH....
Click to expand...

True, Stand Your Ground wasn't even part of the defense because Zimmerman said he was on the ground having his head bashed against the pavement, with Trayvon Martin on top of him, and he had no option to flee. Therefore "standing his ground" wasn't a choice because running away wasn't a choice. The law was completely irrelevant to the case.

Someone I know made a really good observation the other day and I just have to share it here:

If, during the scuffle, Zimmerman had reached for his gun, but had a few moments of trouble unholstering it or whatever, and that delay in getting the weapon out gave Trayvon the opportunity to flee before getting shot, but instead of fleeing when he had the chance Trayvon decided to continue pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and then he slammed his head so hard that it killed him (either right then and there or later on the way to the hospital or whatever)--so Zimmerman was killed instead of Martin--then TRAYVON MARTIN COULD USE "STAND YOUR GROUND" AS A DEFENSE AND BE FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.
 
WhistlinDave said:
If, during the scuffle, Zimmerman had reached for his gun, but had a few moments of trouble unholstering it or whatever, and that delay in getting the weapon out gave Trayvon the opportunity to flee before getting shot, but instead of fleeing when he had the chance Trayvon decided to continue pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement, and then he slammed his head so hard that it killed him (either right then and there or later on the way to the hospital or whatever)--so Zimmerman was killed instead of Martin--then TRAYVON MARTIN COULD USE "STAND YOUR GROUND" AS A DEFENSE AND BE FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.
Click to expand...

I caught myself whistling out loud after reading that the first time.
 
Ohhhhhhh, I have stood my ground & do like some of SW's songs.
I hope I never have to stand my ground while a Wonder song is on my Mp3 player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top