DaleSpam said:
No amount of evidence can compel a jury to convict, at least not in the USA. The usual name for this is jury nullification, where the jury renders a verdict of not guilty despite the fact that based on the evidence the jury themselves are convinced that the defendant is in fact guilty. So it is an absurd standard that no amount of evidence can meet.
No need to bold the word compel as I have told you what I meant by it which is in correspondence to the actual meaning of it. A certain amount of evidence, i.e. tangible facts to the case can heavily influence/compel a jury to convict. Your last statement is irrelevant.
russ_watters said:
That is patently false. The key components of this - and probably all - police reports are statements of fact, not opinion. 'Lying in the grass bleeding' is a statement of fact. Someone is either bleeding or not - it is not a matter of opinion. It could be an erroneous or falsified fact, but it cannot be an opinion.
More like false statement, incorrect account, incorrect version, or lie, half-truth, etc... False (untrue) fact (truth) seems more akin to an oxymoron.
In addition, what I stated is not "
patently false". Police statements if cross examined are facts. Facts are truths, it is true that the officer said x and y, but not true that x and y exist or occurred. Saying something and it being true is dependent upon its validation, "person lying in the grass bleeding", is a version of the story I've told which is an opinion, what looks to be blood could be ketchup or something equivalent. Unless examined, it remains an opinion of the officer.
That's not how court works. Innocence is the default state, you don't try to prove it
Yes, that is how the legal system works. I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, two sides claim to different stories, so I am thinking the legal system is the best option before unnecessary violence takes place. And, seeing that the grand jury is deciding his fate, I alluded to it being left up to them to decide whether to indict or not. My personal opinion is moot compared to their decision. But I think a trial is a better option that could, if there is, guilt on Zimmerman's part, or prove to people who are damn near calling for his crucifixion, his innocence.
Remember the controversy surrounding the Duke case where 3 lacrosse players were accused of spouting racial slurs and raping an African-American girl? The outcry was nearly the same as this case, and through the justice system it was found she was lying and actually sleeping with multiple males. Once that was proven, everyone shouting on the hilltops for their immediate prison time became silent. It's better to wait for the evidence, but seeing as people who "claim" such things, aren't actually impartial to the matter.
Majority rule IS mob rule. Democracy isn't about majority rule and it isn't about civility either. It's about minorities being empowered enough to feel being stepped on all the time is worth it. The minute it isn't worth it anymore, they protest or even revolt. Welcome to the reality of protests, riots, and even terrorism when things get really out of hand.
That is all created by the government to instill more sheep-like mentalities amongst people. No-one should be living such lives as this isn't the days where we actually need to keep a mate around, live unnecessarily as people generally do, or horde lots of money. Now people want to look younger instead of allowing the process take its course, but those are different topics.
Just like this case, blown way over the top. African-American kid gets shot? Happens a lot believe it or not, but this particular case is way overblown because of the mishap in investigation. Sure the police have issues with their process and favored Zimmerman because he was in constant contact with them so they kind of knew him and wouldn't think, based on his past record of actually helping in catching criminal (some of which were African American) and not having to get violent with them at all, and they were in his neighborhood. So when he shot a kid, they more than likely jumped onto the assumption that he was actually defending himself. That is my take on how this occurred and why the investigation was seemingly mishandled.
As I was saying though, obviously the government keeping people in the dark of the happenings and the media in a fury. First Kony 2012, now this, what bills are being signed currently? (Too conspiratorial, but still... seems a bit unnerving and like too much sugar for my tastes)
