George Zimmerman trial: Lawyers finish jury selection questioning

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Because a black teenager was killed and this has been a very high profile case. It's also racially charged. Why wouldn't you have a black person on the jury? If Trayvon Martin was white, and George Zimmerman was black, they wouldn't put 5 black jurors and an asian on the stand.

They who ??? Who is the they. TM attorney ?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

They who ??? Who is the they. TM attorney ?

Talking about the people in charge. You are supposed to be judged by a jury of your peers, yet in this case there are no men. But I guess the hispanic woman counts to a point for George Zimmerman. Maybe this is what they the prosecution wanted, to have mothers on the panel.

[MariaBonita 11]

Six member, all female jury selected.

It doesn't look good for Zimmerman.

It has never looked good for Zimm. The media and others found him guilty right from the beginning. I will be very surprised if he is found innocent at the end.

[lostinblue 1,989]

They won't say, but I do know the back up jurors are also male and white. But I know that the defense doesn't want a single black person on the jury.

B12 a white female

B29: light-skinned black woman

B30: white male[dismissed]

B76, middle aged white female

B7, middle aged white male

B35, black male

B37, white female

B51, older white female

B55 is a 20-something Asian woman

Juror B2, a middle aged white female, being questioned at bench, indicating personal issue judge thinks should not be aired in public.

B65, a middle aged black female

B-86, middle aged white female

E-6, white female

E40. White woman in her 60s(Rene Stutzman tweets)

E54 white male, maybe 50 (Pipitone tweet)

There is more out there on the web but I have no time to did it up.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Talking about the people in charge. You are supposed to be judged by a jury of your peers, yet in this case there are no men. But I guess the hispanic woman counts to a point for George Zimmerman. Maybe this is what they the prosecution wanted, to have mothers on the panel.

O I C. We are not to profile, assume things based on color, classify people by race, etc, Unless of course it benifits us- Gotcha

Sweet Marvin.. You are just as bad as the people you rally against..

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

O I C. We are not to profile, assume things based on color, classify people by race, etc, Unless of course it benifits us- Gotcha

Sweet Marvin.. You are just as bad as the people you rally against..

Your comprehension skills never fail to amaze me. I didn't say anything about profiling, I said we are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Period. Blacks can be just as judgmental as anyone else in the world. But as I said as well, if this was a white child, I know for a fact you wouldn't see an all black jury.

But one thing you did point out, it's George Zimmerman on trial here, not Trayvon Martin. That's what I hope they don't forget.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Most of us here have been on a jury at least once or least have been through the process of not being selected many times. We all know how it operates... The defense tries to remove those they think would be predisposed to finding their client guilty, the prosecution tries to removes those they think would be predisposed to finding the defendant innocent.. Each side has a number of veto votes, they make compromises, and the jury is set... The defense thought black people would be prejudicial to their case so they were a major target after other obvious factors. For the prosecution men were likely to sympathies so they got the axe.. So Zimmerman was able to get the blacks off the jury at the cost of an all female jury. I do think su is right about the outcome - if he is found innocent it will not go over well because of the jury makeup.

I have not been following the trial that closely.. NPR did a bit yesterday on the jury selection - The last two removed from the jury by the defense (two black females) one was removed due to ties (i would say loose ties) with an anti-Zimmerman activist and I don't remember why the other one was removed but it was something similar..

If you were in charge of the defense and your job was to apply the small number of veto votes to remove jury members most likely to find your client guilty who would have you removed first?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Your comprehension skills never fail to amaze me. I didn't say anything about profiling, I said we are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Period. Blacks can be just as judgmental as anyone else in the world. But as I said as well, if this was a white child, I know for a fact you wouldn't see an all black jury.

Probably not seeing that the demographics in Seminole county would make that virtually impossible - Seminole county is about 11% black and 80%+ white. You'd have a hard time compiling an all black jury in that jurisdiction. Besides, peers - as in in jury of one's peers - points to equals. We either are or aren't equals. I hold that we are no matter our color, gender, faith, whathaveyou. We're humans and citizens of this great nation. To top that, all the Constitution requires is an "impartial jury" not a "jury of one's peers". Sixth Amendment. Look it up.

I pointed this out earlier: The one jury I served on was all white in a county that is a bout a quarter black. The accused was black as was the victim. We managed to judge the case on its merits and hand down a just verdict. I do not believe that the outcome would have been any different had there been a 4 black and 8 white member jury instead of the 12 white member jury that we had.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Your comprehension skills never fail to amaze me. I didn't say anything about profiling, I said we are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Period. Blacks can be just as judgmental as anyone else in the world. But as I said as well, if this was a white child, I know for a fact you wouldn't see an all black jury.

But one thing you did point out, it's George Zimmerman on trial here, not Trayvon Martin. That's what I hope they don't forget.

Of course you are being prejudice profiling stereotyping and being racist and I can comprehend just fine. You are asserting that somehow it is not fair because they are no blacks on the jury.,so how could it be a fair trail. I.E. whites can not be impartial. The prosecution helped pick the jury or did you miss that .

As for judged by your peers. If that was the case it would be 6 middle class Hispanic men.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Probably not seeing that the demographics in Seminole county would make that virtually impossible - Seminole county is about 11% black and 80%+ white. You'd have a hard time compiling an all black jury in that jurisdiction. Besides, peers - as in in jury of one's peers - points to equals. We either are or aren't equals. I hold that we are no matter our color, gender, faith, whathaveyou. We're humans and citizens of this great nation. To top that, all the Constitution requires is an "impartial jury" not a "jury of one's peers". Sixth Amendment. Look it up.

I pointed this out earlier: The one jury I served on was all white in a county that is a bout a quarter black. The accused was black as was the victim. We managed to judge the case on its merits and hand down a just verdict. I do not believe that the outcome would have been any different had there been a 4 black and 8 white member jury instead of the 12 white member jury that we had.

Peers comes from English common law and the Magna Carta.

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As for judged by your peers. If that was the case it would be 6 middle class Hispanic men.

No it wouldn't. Since we don't have a separate class of nobles, anyone eligible to serve on a jury is a peer.

Edited June 22, 2013 by The Patriot

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Of course you are being prejudice profiling stereotyping and being racist and I can comprehend just fine. You are asserting that somehow it is not fair because they are no blacks on the jury.,so how could it be a fair trail. I.E. whites can not be impartial. The prosecution helped pick the jury or did you miss that .

As for judged by your peers. If that was the case it would be 6 middle class Hispanic men.

So, by your comprehension, by asking to have one black person on a jury, when a black child was killed is being prejudiced. Your second part is correct though. How many times have blacks been killed or beaten and the culprits have gotten off? Medger Evans, Sean Bell, and quite a few others.

And you keep missing my point, if a white child was killed, would they have 5 blacks and an asian on the panel? Fair is fair right?

Your last part is true, and what my point of my last post.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Probably not seeing that the demographics in Seminole county would make that virtually impossible - Seminole county is about 11% black and 80%+ white. You'd have a hard time compiling an all black jury in that jurisdiction. Besides, peers - as in in jury of one's peers - points to equals. We either are or aren't equals. I hold that we are no matter our color, gender, faith, whathaveyou. We're humans and citizens of this great nation. To top that, all the Constitution requires is an "impartial jury" not a "jury of one's peers". Sixth Amendment. Look it up.

I pointed this out earlier: The one jury I served on was all white in a county that is a bout a quarter black. The accused was black as was the victim. We managed to judge the case on its merits and hand down a just verdict. I do not believe that the outcome would have been any different had there been a 4 black and 8 white member jury instead of the 12 white member jury that we had.

True, but the nature of this case is race. That's what I was trying to get at. This has been a racially charged case since day one. In your case two black people were involved and there was no racial bias to the crime. There have been several folks, important or not, that have weighed in on this and race has been the primary factor.

Look at the cop who lost his job because he wanted to use TM targets for shooting practices: http://rt.com/usa/trayvon-martin-target-practice-833/

Look at the cop who lost his job because he tweeted about TM: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27/10886960-officer-suspended-for-saying-act-like-a-thug-die-like-one-in-martin-case?lite

Nature Boy said white folks can be impartial, this might be true. But let me ask you something. Adam Lanza shot 27 people in cold blood, 20 of those were kids, but did you hear about Adam shooting targets? He was more of a threat than a 17 year kid walking home from the store. Christopher Dorner went on a killing spree, and didn't kill half as many people that Adam Lanza, but that didn't stop them from making a racist video game about him: can't post the video, too much racial slurs.

You can't even have a rational discussion about this killing IRL or on here because the folks that believe GZ was in the right are the same folks that carry guns, the same folks that say they would blow someone away if they even looked at them wrong or thought they were slighted in the least, yet have completely normalized his behavior to say that TM overreacted to the situation. The last guy I argued this with IRL was a white contractor. Another white contractor and I was talking about it within earshot of this guy, I knew from his body language(fidgety, nervous,) that he didn't agree with what were were saying, the guy I was talking to felt like GZ was the problem. I remember he turned around and said, "well you know, TM wasn't no angel." Before I could say anything, the guy I was talking to said"what does that have to do with it?" And just let him have it. I was stunned, the guy just left after that. He didn't come back and work on our building again. I remember Jim(the guy I was talking to) said, you can always tell when it's about race, he knew just like I did the guy was looking at his skin color, not his actions.

[Karee 4,191]

True, but the nature of this case is race. That's what I was trying to get at. This has been a racially charged case since day one. In your case two black people were involved and there was no racial bias to the crime. There have been several folks, important or not, that have weighed in on this and race has been the primary factor.

And that's the problem right there. People are trying to make it about race. Because TM was black, and GZ was white/hispanic should have nothing to do whatsoever in determining guilt in this trial. The minute that race becomes a component of this particular case, is the moment justice has failed.

If the U.S. govt. wants to file some kind of civil rights charges against GZ, that's another matter.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

And that's the problem right there. People are trying to make it about race. Because TM was black, and GZ was white/hispanic should have nothing to do whatsoever in determining guilt in this trial. The minute that race becomes a component of this particular case, is the moment justice has failed.

If the U.S. govt. wants to file some kind of civil rights charges against GZ, that's another matter.

Trying, they already have. He was targeted because he was black. That's the reason logic has gone out of the window. Folks say run away from strangers, but that doesn't apply to TM. SYG says you have a right to fight if you want, but no one thinks TM was in any danger at all. If TM was white, GZ wouldn't have even given him a second look.