You seem to be one of those textbook slide ruler type of guys. In the real world the practical side of things are not found in books.
because, just maybe, they couldn't be fair and impartial? Maybe that is what they ended up with after going through several hundred CALLED for jury duty. Thank God you're not a jurist...you wouldn't know what your job would be. And I sure as hell wouldn't want you as an attorney because you chose to ignore law, and juries............. Just go ahead and proclaim you are a racist............might as well, you've been posting like one or are you discriminating against women?
Not sure I agree with that. If there were one or two holdouts that could not agree 100% with acquittal, it would be a hung jury. Someone would have to prove they were tampered with.
I am not a guy. If you read the law and legal definition of jury of your peers, it becomes simple.. Peers are people who live in your county.. not by gender, race or age.
OK, you're not winning anyone over here so I'll give you a single chance at serious discussion. I believe it works as follows. Prospective jurors will be selected at random from the jury pool - that's going to be pretty much 50/50 gender split. Each prospect will be reviewed in turn by both prosecution and defence. I gather both can reject so many jury members giving no reason and so many with a recognised reason (e.g. stated bias). Someone will only get on the jury if both prosecution and defence agree to them. Two likely possibilities come to mind. First, both prosecution and defence didn't care about gender and it just happened that the first six people they approved were female - perfectly plausible. Second, one or both sides wanted female jurors (maybe they thought females would favour their case) so actively rejected any men - also plausible and permitted under the system and if one side objected to the idea of an all female jury, they'd likely be able to use their rejections to prevent it. I idea that it could be fixed or that anyone would want or need to fix the jury just to have any six women on it simply doesn't make any kind of sense. It really guarantees very little in relation to the final judgement.
For starters a man would be better capable to determine whether the use deadly force is truly needed to defend oneself against a skinny unarmed 17 year old.
I provided scholarly evidence that the above statement is crap. You might not have asked for it, but you should have read it.
Is there some part of "reasonable defense" that's getting lost here? Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground,preventing his escape, WHILE beating him about the head and face. It's the pinned to the ground,preventing his escape while being beaten is the legal justification for Zimmerman's use of deadly force to stop Martin's attack. As you can clearly see from the Law in Florida, even if Zimmerman "provoked Martin" in Martin's mind, Martin prevented Zimmerman's escape by sitting on him and deadly force was justified to make him stop attacking.
According to your theory older and larger zimmerman would have been killed by this teenager without him so much as throwing a punch to defend his self.
Did you consider that your practical suggestion only exists in your own head, and not in reality? The scholarly research examines evidence. It does not require a "because I said so" defense. Beyond that, the duty of the jury was not to determine if deadly force was "truly needed" They needed to determine if Zimmerman was engaged in unlawful activity (they found he was not) They needed to determine if Zimmerman was in a place he had a right to be (they found he was) They needed to determine if Zimmerman believed it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent great bodily harm to himself. (they found he did) The job of a jury is not to determine if you believe deadly force was necessary. The job is to determine if Zimmerman believed it.
According to the evidence, the only injuries Martin sustained were to his knuckles and from the gunshot. The same cannot be said for Zimmerman. But again, what does this have to do with a rigged jury? Is it possible for you to stay on your own topic?
Absolutely wrong; it makes all the sense in the world that far too many juries are indeed selected or shall we say engineered to win a case based on a whole variety things unrelated to truth, justice and fairness.
Instead you believe they should be selected to affirm your prejudice. Why bother having a trial? Why shouldn't we just ask your opinion and convict from there?
What are you talking about "Is it possible for you to stay on your own topic?" What I've written pertains to the topic, and the comprehension of what is written is another issue. Whether one pretends not to understand for reasons of propaganda is something you have to answer for yourself. Is one to believe that it not at all possible that the younger, smaller, less experienced teenager was lured into the situation where zimmerman could murder him not knowing the wantobe cop had a concealed weapon?
Back in the day organised crime would target or even get one of their own onto the jury. That persons job was to play spoiler, stop the jury reaching a decision. It is easier to get one and influence them rather than rig an entire jury of 6 or 12 people.
What you have written does not pertain to the topic "the jury was rigged." You've conflated two of your own unfounded conjectures and assumed that one supports the other. You said: The subject of a rigged jury has nothing to do with whether Zimmerman attempted to use non lethal force in his own defense prior to the use of lethal force. You said: As a result you have to show that a jury of all females cannot arrive at a just verdict, and could not be expected to come to a just verdict by the folks that agreed to appoint them. So far you have failed. What it sounds like here is as I described before. You did not get the outcome you determined prior to the trial, and now you assume that the jury was somehow tampered with. You do not prove the jury was tampered with by simply pointing out that the jury did not come to the same conclusion you came to prior to their verdict.
It appears you believe that 12 adequate people can be found, which implies that they would be chosen from a pool, yet you object to finding six by the same method.
I'd also like addend my previous post to point out that in the rule of law, a punch can also be considered lethal force. If Zimmerman had "so much as throw[n] a punch to defend his self"[sic] he would also have to meet the same stand your ground criterion in order to be justified in doing so.
Again "Women are not men, can never be men and don't think like men." In a trial where you have someone that is murdered and you claim, "The job of a jury is not to determine if you believe deadly force was necessary." You really starting to come across as a Zionist disinformation agent.
