Dunn trial begins in Florida

USFREEDOM911 said:
It is glaring apparent that Dante's the Dumbass hasn't even bothered to educate himself on this trial, past his desire to appear to be a victim of society.

He complained that the trial had "white people on a jury for a white male", when the actual jury is composed of four white women, two black women, four white men, an Asian woman and a Hispanic man.
Click to expand...


How bout that?

USF corroborates Dante's claim that the trial DID have "white people on a jury for a white male".

It's nice to see even a dimbulb like USF can be honest every once in a while.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It is glaring apparent that Dante's the Dumbass hasn't even bothered to educate himself on this trial, past his desire to appear to be a victim of society.

He complained that the trial had "white people on a jury for a white male", when the actual jury is composed of four white women, two black women, four white men, an Asian woman and a Hispanic man.
Click to expand...

What is a "Jury Of Ones Peers"? I had always believed it to be a group of citizens equal to yourself in protections under the law. However, a jury where race might be an issue with regards to fairness, should also be racially diverse. This Jury seemed to be impaneled along those lines; unless I am missing something here?

I also found this comment on a blog which seems to support my first statement.

The expression appears in Magna Carta (to the extent that the original is in the Latin of the day).

Every now and then some ratbag tries to assert that he is entitled by Magna Carta to a jury of his peers, which he self-servingly defines. The first problem is that the Magna Carta is now of only historical and not legal interest. Primary school children get taught that it is the basis of freedoms etc, but that is so (to the extent that it even is so) in a historical sense, not a contemporary legal sense. In practice, its provisions have been so diluted, modified and repealed that it is irrelevant. I don't know of a jurisdiction that derives its jurisprudence historically from England where this is not so.

At one point in history there was a social and legal distinction between members of the nobility and commoners, each of which did not treat the other as "peers". It was, for example, possible for a member of the House of Lords to insist on a trial by other members of the House, rather than an ordinary jury. It seems that Lord Cardigan (of Charge of the Light Brigade fame) insisted on one some time before he became historically more famous.

At the present day, however, all citizens are "equals" and those who insist that they are sufficiently special that their jury should only come from some small selected sub-group always lose.

The following passage is taken from a case in my jurisdiction where an argument about who could comprise the jury of a man charged with wilful damage occurred. The accused claimed to be a descendent of an aboriginal tribe, and therefore tried to insist that his jury should come from co-members also so descended. The reference to Australia does not reduce the generality of the extract. In short, peers means "equals" in the sense of "equals before the law", and that means everyone.

"In popular imagination a reference to Magna Carta invariably means the Great Charter granted by King John at Runnymede in 1215. A recent American commentator Professor Thomas G. Barnes reminds us that Magna Carta is “more often cited than read”. Perhaps that is because it was written in Latin. The special edition published by the Legal Classics Libraryof Birmingham, Alabama, to which these and other remarks by Professor Barnes form an introduction, offers the following translation of ch.39:

“No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.”


The edition referred to is a reprint of an historical essay by Richard Thomson published in 1829, in which, at p.228, it is suggested that “the

word Peer was probably originally derived of the Latin Par an equal…”, adding that “the trial by equals is of great antiquity…”. To accept that what is required by ch.39 is a trial by “equals” is effectively to dispose of the appellant’s second ground of appeal. For, in contemporary Australia, all individuals are equal before the law, and, whatever else may be said about those who comprised the jury at the trial of the applicant in this case, they were at law certainly all his equals, as he was theirs."
Click to expand...
 
Big Money said:
Because everyone who exercises a free speech rights by saying things you disagree with must be convicted of a crime...:rofl2:
Click to expand...

That raises the question whether someone's speech should be used to show their character. I know when Richard Poplawski went on trial here for killing cops, his white supremacist rants were made public.
 
Yoda said:
He was found guilty of 4 of the 5 counts, the jury deadlocked on whether it was first degree murder, which is reasonable considering he shot into a van that resulted in the murder.

Doesnt sound consistent with first degree as I understand it and a first degree conviction in fla can carry the death sentence.
I think your putting to much into the split verdict just yet.
Click to expand...

As long as the guy gets put away for decades I don't really care what he's found guilty of. I suppose it would matter if I supported the death penalty.
 
Big Money said:
Silence! Only Christiefan915 has ever successfully opposed the Darlak and lived to tell about it!

hCE54B64E
Click to expand...

Are you going to stop right now or do I have to get REALLY stern?
 
Truth Detector said:
Dear shit-for -brains; it was a rhetorical question intended to provoke thought. In your case, thinking is improbable. Emoting and erupting are more your style.

Dunce.

But for you edification because you are so painfully retarded, it can't be in the first degree.
Click to expand...

Dear Magnificent Oracle, I know it was a rhetorical question. Why doesn't an all-knowing clod like you understand sarcasm?
 
Dantès said:
I could call you a bunch of ignorant names too like I did what I was 5 in elementary school but that wouldn't bolster my argument; it is laughable that you think such childishness bolsters yours! I guess stupid childish name calling is your forte and when that is all you have you have to go for it, and use it regularly, don't you?
Click to expand...

"When the only tool you have is a hammer..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top