Every time I have been called to the courthouse for jury duty I have been released, only a couple of times making it so far as the venire, or jury pool in a particular case, but asked few questions and informed I was not wanted.  Lawyers have to explain to venire persons time and again that just because the attorneys, or one of them, feel the person would not make a "good" juror in that particular case does not mean they would not be a "good" juror in some other case.  Illustrations often include such things as saying that the defendant is employed as a telephone salesperson and if the venire, like the defense lawyer, dislikes being interrupted for telephone solitications, then they, both the lawyer and the venireperson, probably would not make a "good" juror in that particular case.

Attorneys also tell the venire that they are "not trying to pry into your personal life," though they cannot honestly tell them they will not pry into their opinions.  However, when they do this, lawyers find ways of framing their questions designed to coax from the potential juror their "feelings" about this or that, their "thinking on it," &c., hoping to embarrass no one but at the same time seeking a rather candid answer that reveals biases or prejudices.  Wisely, in the George Zimmerman trial now entering the defense presentation in Florida, the jurors were all questioned individually outside the presence of the other members of the venire.  This is a greater guarantee of honest responses, free of intimidation or peer group influences. Had I been among those on the venire, sworn to speak the truth, I probably would not have made it out of this preliminary interrogation.

When I learned that Zimmerman was planning on relying on the defense of self-defense based upon Florida's stand-your-ground law (itself very problematic for me), I thought, He's got to be kidding!  That was because I had heard his 911 call with its crypto-racist remarks and his refusal to do what the dispatcher told him when Zimmerman said "Yeah" in response to the question, "You're not following him are you?"  Zimmerman became the stalker and aggressor.  To me, this is manslaughter at a minimum. Although I rather doubt the prosecution can hang a murder conviction on Zimmerman, the jury's failure to return a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of manslaughter will be very troubling. 

Lest it be said that because I would be reluctant to vote for a verdict of murder, I might be a "good" juror for the defense. Not so.  There is another reason why I could not hope to be fair and impartial toward Mr. Zimmerman.

The Hannity interview.

Zimmerman went on Hannity, bad enough in and of itself given that jackass of a host, and told the Fox News audience that his shooting of Trayvon Martin's -- the teenager's death --  had been "God's plan."

That's right.  God killed Trayvon, not George Zimmerman.  But if God had a plan to kill Trayvon Martin, why did God not prevent the killing?  If Zimmerman had remained in his car and obeyed the dispatcher, would that have been God's decision? Unwittingly, Zimmerman became on the Hannity show an object lesson in the truth of Epicurius's observation that God cannot possibly exist if he is anything like he is most often described -- as both good and as omnipotent.  God could have kept a 17-year-old boy with a package of Skittles and a can of iced tea alive that night, but he did not.  God put a gun into the hand of George Zimmerman and sent him forth to take a human life.  This is the God of the Old Testament on steroids, slaying indiscriminately for reasons that cannot often if ever be described as "good." 

No, I did not belong on George Zimmerman's jury.  And I am glad I do not live in that county in Florida, for if I did, and if called to a venire, I would not be remotely tempted to fake an open mind in order to get on Zimmerman's jury.  Nothing I have heard so far suggests to me that this defendant is a scoundrel and should be punished.

Santayana was wrong: the last refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism.  It is religion.

Views: 1479

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interestingly, the IT director for the state was fired, He had charged (somehow I missed that earlier) that a big chunk of the material (some of it not very flattering) he had extracted from Martin's cellphone did not appear in the discovery materials handed over to the defense.

Looks like there is more to this saga...

The Medical Examiner stated that there was no indication that there was more than one impact with the concrete.  She further testified that Zimmerman's injuries were trivial.  While I don't believe 2nd degree murder is appropriate, 2nd degree manslaughter certainly is .


One of my favorite parts is Zimmerman's story that Martin gets in his face and he (Zimmerman) looks down to get his phone out of his pocket. When he looks up again, Martin punches him in the face! First of all, who needs to actually look at his pocket to retrieve a phone? Second, who takes his eyes off someone who's in his face? Zimmerman's story (stories, rather) is a shambled mess. And, frankly, if I'm innocent (even though I shot an unarmed man), no lawyer could keep me off the stand.

I could.  There is no faster way to get convicted than for the accused to take the stand.  Prosecutors try dozens if not hundreds of cases in their first few years.  They go to seminars to learn how to trip up defendants who insist on testifying.  There was little point in taking the stand since, contradictions and all -- and none of the contradictions were harrowing for the defense -- Zimmerman told his story in interviews he gave to police.  Why take the stand and allow the State to trip you up on cross?  The jury is given an instruction that they are not to take your failure to testify as evidence of anything, and in any case, Zimmerman's lawyers asked each and every potential juror if they could follow that part of the court's charge. 

Even still...

I just don't see that happening in this case because the State introduced several police interrogations with the defendant and although he contradicted himself on some points, he told his side of the story in that way.  I think the jury will be sophisticated enough to know that sharp as the prosecutors were, Zimmers would be cut to shreds on cross, so these same jurors can consider that without violating the court's admonishment to not consider the failure to testify for any purpose.  And BTW, I want to quit referring to this creepy cracker as Zimmerman because a great American had that surname before he changed it to Bob Dylan.

Zimmerman is simply a product of fox news cult' sure.. etc. his parents racists.. i know spani fuckers they hate blacks just like racists whites hate blacks and on and on.. 
don't bother my greed watch the black man.. ugh hugh... 

hello. someone's following me in car.. 
i better dip. 
hey babe some nutty white guy (aka as crzy cracker in florida it's fun term c'mon folks...
and what? stalked (by a non officer of the law) and killed. hello

Although you put it in a rather crude, arguably racist way yourself, you make an important observation re: "spani fuckers" as you put it.  I grew up in South Texas and was not exposed to black people except the yard man and some domestics my middle class parents hired to help my mother do her house work.  When the civil rights movement got off the ground in the '60s, some Mexican-Americans (now called Hispanics) were resentful, if for no other reason than that the white "establishment" ("creepy crackers"?) had kept them "in their place" (e.g. referring to them as "Meskins" and giving them low-paying jobs and somewhat inferior education) for the better part of a century. Mexican-Americans fought alongside gringos at the Alamo, and if you know anything about the history of the border states prior to what was called Polk's Folly, you may know that Mexico's northern border encapsulated not only Texas but all of New Mexico, Arizona, and California.  It was only because so few Mexicans were willing to settle in Texas that the "Texicans" argued it had been virtually abandoned by Mexico.  But, to this day, at least in increasingly smaller numbers, there really is some resentment among Latinos toward African-Americans.  I just wish you had stated it a bit less awkwardly.  I think one of the women on the jury is of Cuban extraction.  At least she is not completely Caucasian as are the others, apparently.  If nothing else, if that one juror really does harbor some prejudice, it might be against the defendant, not Trayvon Martin.

remember Giffords in AZ.. only diff is that kid (watched same channel same type of racist parents) was up all night and just crazy anti'cop.. irony

bet they were both xtian

wanna get into reality try this:




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service