[Steve]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

And if you use phrases like "idiotic comment" and "expect disdain," then don't expect anyone to ever seriously consider any conversation with you to be an "actual debate."

Then shut up and move along kid...

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

I've taken the liberty of highlighting the wrongest parts of your post.

The law does not concern itself with appearances. Juries may, but that's because juries are stupid. When it comes to the facts of a matter, what is apparent is not always what is true. Why else would the prosecution seek to establish motive for a murder, if the most apparent motive of one person wanting another one dead were sufficient enough?

The credibility of a witness is established -- or refuted -- by a variety of factors aside from how the accused is portrayed to the jury. In fact, attempting to undermine a defendant's credibility as a witness or presumed innocence as a defendant by using evidence and/or information unrelated to the crime of which he or she is accused for the purposes of character assassination can result in an undue predjudicing of the defendant's case, which can then result in messy little legal faux-pa's such as mistrials and the overturning of guilty verdicts on appeal.

So basically, any trial prosecutor that argues a case as if the defendant's character is fundamental to that case is going to find themselves up against a number of sustained defense objections.

And really, what do any of us really know? We're not eyewitnesses, we're not the responding officers, and we're hundreds of miles removed from the incidents and the investigative and judicial entities that are handling them. If any of us in the public were by some miracle charged with either the prosecution or the defense of Mr. Zimmermann, then whatever side we were on would lose spectacularly regardless of the man's character or his actual guilt or innocence.

What in the actual fuck are you even talking about?

The law does not concern itself either appearances, but juries may? Well, guess what, who determines guilt or innocence? The jury perhaps?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Absolutely I think Trayvon was the aggressor. All the evidence says so.
I remember you being one of those who didn't think who Trayvon was, was relevant.

The facts suggest Trayvon was also an aggressive asshole. And Trayvon hid between two houses and ambushed Zimmerman. All the facts prove Zimmerman did nothing but follow Trayvon, and Trayvon was the one who turned to violence.

That case is closed.

Everything that you suggest was a "fact", such as trayvon hiding between houses and ambushing Zimmerman is based on Zimmerman's testimony.

Where was nobody else present to either corroborate or deny it.

I would hardly call those facts

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

What in the actual fuck are you even talking about?

The law does not concern itself either appearances, but juries may? Well, guess what, who determines guilt or innocence? The jury perhaps?

The jury doesn't just do whatever the fuck it wants. The courts apply rules to them as well.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

To be fair. His entire life was ruined by the media. I'm not surprised he's having a tough time moving on.

So...... Now it's the medias fault?

It's the medias fault that he has allegedly threaten people with a gun, been arrested for beating women?

Is it the medias fault that you pretended to be a soldier too? That damn liberal media?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

The jury doesn't just do whatever the fuck it wants. The courts apply rules to them as well.

Every defence lawyer tries to play to their sympathies. That's why they have jury selection, they're people not robots.

Credibility is everything, sympathy is everything.
That's how the game is played.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Every defence lawyer tries to play to their sympathies. That's why they have jury selection, they're people not robots.

Credibility is everything, sympathy is everything.
That's how the game is played.

Yup. Until the convicted's attorney files a successful appeal after it's discovered that members of the jury, for example, considered information or testimony that they were instructed by the judge to ignore because, dammit, it just confirmed that juror's suspicions that the defendant was as much of an asshole as his looks suggested he was.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

Yup. Until the convicted's attorney files a successful appeal after it's discovered that members of the jury, for example, considered information or testimony that they were instructed by the judge to ignore because, dammit, it just confirmed that juror's suspicions that the defendant was as much of an asshole as his looks suggested he was.

Yeah, and the jurors the do that are often stupid enough to publicly discuss that after the fact

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Yeah, and the jurors the do that are often stupid enough to publicly discuss that after the fact

Jurors in high profile cases are usually stupid enough to talk about practically anything publicly.

Remember, at least one juror came forward after the Zimmerman trial and said that they had wanted to convict him of a charge that wasn't actually on the table, but couldn't because the court hadn't given them that option.

Like I said, juries don't just do whatever the fuck they want. The law applies standards to them as well.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

Jurors in high profile cases are usually stupid enough to talk about practically anything publicly.

Remember, at least one juror came forward after the Zimmerman trial and said that they had wanted to convict him of a charge that wasn't actually on the table, but couldn't because the court hadn't given them that option.

Like I said, juries don't just do whatever the fuck they want. The law applies standards to them as well.

Putting a new charge on the list of options for convictions is completely different than feeling sympathetic for the defendant.

Why do they go through a jury selection process if what you're saying is correct? Why do both sides argue over things such as gender, race or the religious background of prospective jurors?

What you're saying is absolutely ridiculous.