rehmwa 2 #1651 April 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo the defence will be happy with an all black Jury? I'm sure *YOU* would be - however, that would be just as 'racist' as an all-white jury. In that, under a fair selection process, it shouldn't matter if it happens in either scenario. If there is any indication of unfair bias in the selection process - the review should be the selection process, not just the cosmetic outcome. i.e., all black, all white, or any type of other meaningless cosmetic mix, shouldn't matter as long as a review of the process examines if the selection was done by the book. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #1652 April 23, 2012 ...Discrimination is a systemic problem, said Kenneth Glasgow, founder and president of the Ordinary People Society, a human rights group, in Houston County. "What we have to change here is a bad system, a corrupt system that causes disparities," he said. Between 2006 and 2010, the suit alleges that prosecutors in Dothan used peremptory strikes to exclude 82 percent of qualified black jurors in death penalty cases. As a result, juries in every death penalty case in Houston County have been all white or had only one black juror, when the circuit is nearly 25 percent black. African-Americans were struck from the jury pool because they wore eyeglasses, were too young to serve at age 28, or were considered an "angry black man," Stevenson said, referring to trail documents... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #1653 April 23, 2012 age and eyeglasses are very random reasons to shoot down a potential - attitude about race (demonstrated anger at something random) surely would be a good reason sounds like the defense did a crappy job balancing out the offense in the selection phase the process needed fixing - however, the evidence is in the process (age and eyeglasses???) not the results which you cite based on cosmetics alone. 1 - the outrage should be over rejection of ANY candidate for eyeglasses etc (abuse of process) 2 - the outrage should not be over the racial quota you seem to define as fair you fix #1, then it's balance for everyone. you try to fix #2 instead of #1, then you create unproductive discord you seem to be looking for favoritism, instead of equal treatment a real solution looks at process, not quotas - else you are perpetuating and aggravating crappy attitudes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1654 April 23, 2012 QuoteIn that, under a fair selection process, it shouldn't matter if it happens in either scenario. If there is any indication of unfair bias in the selection process - the review should be the selection process, not just the cosmetic outcome. i.e., all black, all white, or any type of other meaningless cosmetic mix, shouldn't matter as long as a review of the process examines if the selection was done by the book. I agree - I was using Kevin's simplistic "color is everything" logic as a rebuttal. I'll go edit to make it more clear.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #1655 April 23, 2012 Wow..that's some deep-seated racist attitude you've got there, although I doubt you are capable of seeing it. So an all white jury will vote for acquittal in the face of any evidence and an all black jury will convict, regardless of the evidence? Do you have any idea how racist your thinking is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #1656 April 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteWouldn't be possible if it even makes it to jury selection. The defence will want an all white jury and will do their best to get one. you are aware that it only takes one juror to prevent a guilty finding, right? The defence hardly needs an all white jury, it would want to avoid an all black one, which would be a violation anyway. The defence would be perfectly happy to get black jurors that believe in law and order and are tired of crime. They would want to avoid black jurors that hold your belief that police actions are inherently racist or suspect in general. But....we're WAY away from jury selection. I didn't think we'd see a charge in the first place, nevermind a poorly written one. I still find it unlikely that it survive the pretrial, though now that he's out on bail, the damage to him of having a trial is diminished. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fernjack455 0 #1657 April 23, 2012 Damn....... You finally got something right. The phrase generally used is: Witch hunt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #1658 April 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteIn that, under a fair selection process, it shouldn't matter if it happens in either scenario. If there is any indication of unfair bias in the selection process - the review should be the selection process, not just the cosmetic outcome. i.e., all black, all white, or any type of other meaningless cosmetic mix, shouldn't matter as long as a review of the process examines if the selection was done by the book. I agree - I was using Kevin's simplistic "color is everything" logic as a rebuttal. I'll go edit to make it more clear. We don't want your bias showing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1659 April 23, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn that, under a fair selection process, it shouldn't matter if it happens in either scenario. If there is any indication of unfair bias in the selection process - the review should be the selection process, not just the cosmetic outcome. i.e., all black, all white, or any type of other meaningless cosmetic mix, shouldn't matter as long as a review of the process examines if the selection was done by the book. I agree - I was using Kevin's simplistic "color is everything" logic as a rebuttal. I'll go edit to make it more clear. We don't want your bias showing. The only bias here is yours, as you show over and over.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #1660 April 23, 2012 ...Nearly 135 years after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to eliminate racial discrimination in jury selection, people of color continue to be excluded from jury service because of their race, especially in serious criminal trials and death penalty cases. EJI on June 1, 2010, released a new report, “Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: A Continuing Legacy,” which is the most comprehensive study of racial bias in jury selection since the United States Supreme Court tried to limit the practice in Batson v. Kentucky in 1986. “The underrepresentation and exclusion of people of color from juries has seriously undermined the credibility and reliability of the criminal justice system, and there is an urgent need to end this practice,” said Bryan Stevenson, EJI's Executive Director. “While courts sometimes have attempted to remedy the problem of discriminatory jury selection, in too many cases today we continue to see indifference to racial bias." During two years of research in eight southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee), EJI interviewed over 100 African-American citizens who were excluded from jury service based on race and reviewed hundreds of court documents and records. EJI uncovered shocking, present-day evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #1661 April 23, 2012 Ah, a conspiracy theorist you are. Suddenly it all makes sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #1662 April 23, 2012 ...Black defendants in even overwhelmingly black counties throughout the eight states face all-white juries, Stevenson says, a trend rooted in de facto racism and attributable to some white prosecutors' presumption that black jurors would not be tough enough. "Excluded jurors are offended by the idea that they cannot be fair. A lot of them live where there is too much crime and violence. They support the police and law enforcement generally. They are equally capable of asking the questions and weighing the evidence," says Stevenson, a former MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" winner, whose justice project defends those on death row, the indigent and falsely accused... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #1663 April 23, 2012 You've made your perspective quite clear. Which in no way whatsoever makes me want to believe any information you post from untrusted sites and unknown sources. I live in one of those states. My observations are different from your web trolling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wlsc 0 #1664 April 23, 2012 You don't like the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #1665 April 23, 2012 Quite the contrary. Once you stop ignoring them, you might see it that way as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #1666 April 23, 2012 Quote What are you smoking? Just love how people flat out ignore evidence and instead choose emotion in a legal case. We don't actually have any evidence yet. What is admissible as evidence has yet to be determined.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #1667 April 23, 2012 Rumor is the toxicology reports will play an important role in this case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #1668 April 23, 2012 Toxicology on TM or GZ?You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #1669 April 23, 2012 QuoteToxicology on TM or GZ? Probably both - I recall reading that GZ had a toxicology screen done the night of the shooting, along with voice stress analysis during the questioning.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1670 April 23, 2012 Quote Damn....... You finally got something right. The phrase generally used is: Witch hunt. WoooHoooo! I finally got something right? Ummmmm...what was it I got right? Post 1600 where I said, ""? Got it. I'll save it future use. Wisc: ""My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #1671 April 23, 2012 Quote I'm thinking this: Maybe Corey isn't so stupid after all. Thanks man, I appreciate that...Sometimes I wonder.(ah, the simple pleasures of "off topic" threads...)Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1672 April 23, 2012 QuoteWe don't actually have any evidence yet. What is admissible as evidence has yet to be determined. John, John, John. You seem to be depending on "admissible evidence" a lot. You seem to be locked on the idea that it isn't evidence until it is somehow magically deemed to be so. If it isn't evidence to start with, how can anybody magically snap their fingers and make it into something wasn't in the first place? You're old enough to know that what gets admitted into evidence is not always in line with truth. You're old enough to know that not all real "evidence" gets submitted in court. You're old enough to know that lawyers only present "evidence" which supports the their particular side of the case. You're old enough to know that courts are not so much concerned with truth as they are with procedure. You're old enough to know that in reality judge/jury decisions, particularly jury decisions are all too often based on things other than "admissible evidence". (This is what our resident bozo here is hoping for...a jury based on race that will convict on skin color regardless of "admissible evidence") You're barking up the wrong shin.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #1673 April 23, 2012 I think you're just trying to make Kallend feel old. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #1674 April 23, 2012 Quote I think you're just trying to make Kallend feel old. I'm sure he'd feel better if he had an 18 yr-old GF. With all the available coeds out there, I'm surprised he doesn't. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #1675 April 24, 2012 The decedent is the only one with any sort of tox test. That has been an ongoing issue in most local reports. Usually like..."Why would you test a dead kid and NOT the person that shot him?" 1) normal process of an autopsy. 2) NOT a normal process of arrest or questioning. (this might change) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
