EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 412
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Fission
Canada1184 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:41 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: I have a feeling that if the jury was 5 guys they would have reached a verdict in under 10 minutes. Putting a group of 5 girls in the same room leads to substantial over analysis. Aside from being sexist, are you implying that men are more likely to make ill-informed decisions not based on rational analysis? | ||
|
Vin{MBL}
5185 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:41 Housemd wrote: Is it likely that the decision will come today? no one knows | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45861 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:42 Fission wrote: Aside from being sexist, are you implying that men are more likely to make ill-informed decisions not based on rational analysis? That's what I was thinking he was implying too. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:41 Housemd wrote: Is it likely that the decision will come today? I wouldn't think immediately because they are trying to figure out manslaughter, which I think their decision should ultimately be that he's guilty of that. Then they have to move on to whether self-defense applied. Given that it's almost 7pm, I'm not sure they will decide tonight unless they deliberate several more hours, at least. | ||
|
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:42 Fission wrote: Aside from being sexist, are you implying that men are more likely to make ill-informed decisions not based on rational analysis? Im implying Men and Women think differently. Thats not sexist. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45861 Posts
 | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:45 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: Im implying Men and Women think differently. men are just as dumb as women. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
women process information much more through emotion than men, so in objective testing they are as dumb as men. But when it comes to making tough decisions in these subjective situations, they do approach the situation quite differently. Why the hell is it all one gender anyways | ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:49 biology]major wrote: women process information much more through emotion than men, so in objective testing they are as dumb as men. But when it comes to making tough decisions in these subjective situations, they do approach the situation quite differently. Why the hell is it all one gender anyways It's how the dice fell during jury selection. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
FatChicksUnited
Canada214 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:45 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: Im implying Men and Women think differently. Thats not sexist. Keep in mind that the jurors were presented with the evidence before they were presented with the relevant law. A good portion of their time might be wading through the big chunks of legalese thrown at them, and figuring out how to interpret the facts according to the law. We, being outside the courtroom, have benefited from legal experts explaining the basic rules and outlining what is and what isn't relevant. | ||
|
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:49 biology]major wrote: women process information much more through emotion than men, so in objective testing they are as dumb as men. But when it comes to making tough decisions in these subjective situations, they do approach the situation quite differently. Why the hell is it all one gender anyways Women are more likely to become victims of violent crimes. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:49 biology]major wrote: women process information much more through emotion than men, so in objective testing they are as dumb as men. But when it comes to making tough decisions in these subjective situations, they do approach the situation quite differently. Why the hell is it all one gender anyways everyone approaches situations differently depending on their upbringing. it matters little in the grand scheme of things. there is no guarantee that men would reach a different result than women in this situation. we have one gender because RNG is a bitch, and the defense and prosecutor picked an all women jury out of the dice that fell. | ||
|
Fission
Canada1184 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:51 dAPhREAk wrote: everyone approaches situations differently depending on their upbringing. it matters little in the grand scheme of things. there is no guarantee that men would reach a different result than women in this situation. we have one gender because RNG is a bitch, and the defense and prosecutor picked an all women jury out of the dice that fell. Yeah I imagine socioeconomic background and education play more of a role in how an individual approaches this kind of case than gender does. | ||
|
Kris312
United States70 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:50 Kaitlin wrote: Contrary to the initial impression of most (myself included) from this jury question, I'd say it bodes quite well for the defense. If the jury is working through the instructions, as instructed by the instructions, that's exactly what the defense wants. There is no emotion or common sense being used to fill in the blanks on that manslaughter instruction. That's bad for the prosecution. Well said. They want to be thorough and that is a clear sign that they are not going blindly off of their emotions. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:55 Velocirapture wrote: Just out of curiosity, as a tangent during downtime, how is it possible to prove a shooting isn't in self defense when a victim is killed in one shot to the front and there are no witnesses or records of the event. Giving the prosecution the burden of proving a negative seems like such an easy advantage I don't know why self defense isn't claimed in literally every case. Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise. if the defendant keeps his mouth shut and the forensics dont tell a story, then self defense wins. self defense is not claimed in every case because most criminals are dipshits and dont plan out shit that goes down. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45861 Posts
On July 14 2013 07:55 Velocirapture wrote: Just out of curiosity, as a tangent during downtime, how is it possible to prove a shooting isn't in self defense when a victim is killed in one shot to the front and there are no witnesses or records of the event. Giving the prosecution the burden of proving a negative seems like such an easy advantage I don't know why self defense isn't claimed in literally every case. Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise. Well in this particular case, there were records of the events (and the events leading up to it, e.g., phone calls), and there was an eyewitness. But hypothetically if nothing like that existed and it was the shooter's word against absolutely nothing? No idea how it would be countered. I feel like there always seems to be an attempt at finding background information though. | ||
| ||
