Courts of past centuries in present day

Like similar other things, I don't understand this insistence on limiting court's capabilities as if they are courts of centuries in the past. What prevents from video recording all court procedures for a review by higher courts in case they want to do that? Why the record kept is only what is generated by the court's reporter? Also why not video recording jury deliberations? What is so bad in that? They are discussing things not having an orgy? Such recoding can be,for example, reviewed if sufficient suspicion arise whether the juries put a serious effort to discuss the case or not. All these recordings can ,of course, be done while hiding the identities of those recorded. Imitating people who did not have any of these capabilities at their time doesn't make any sense.

All available means that could help in the establishment of a better justice system should be applied. Those who establish the root of the justice system of this country  were using whatever available to them and we can be more like them if we also use whatever available to us rather than just using what they were using. 

Bringing corruption closer to sunlight

Here is a one of the best ways I can think of to fight back corruption and games played on the system in this case and similar cases. Polling all those who are in the initial jury pool from which juries are selected or polling all those at or above the minimum age for jury service in the area from which juries could be called for service to that court can show us how much did the verdict of those six juries was in line with or diverged from the bigger group. That could cast the best light on how truly those juries were selected through a fair process. The polling needs only to contain one question about what would have the polled person voted had he/she been a member of that jury, guilty, not guilty or neither. Signatures of those polled should be included in addition to their names. The whole list should then be made accessible through the web so that those polled can make sure that no change happened to the votes they selected.

Despite the fact that they constructed a jury with the minimum number of persons, still, let's see what is the probability of selecting that number of juries without any one of them voting guilty or staying neutral from the first attempt.

Superficial Implementation

The trial was a fake show played in front of the whole nation and the jury was prepared for the defendant. Even the acting of the players was not that good. Any justices system implemented in such a naive way is a joke.

Racism demonstrations

For the people demonstrating against racism, if you denied OJ's guilt then you most probably are also demonstrating against yourself.

I am equally on the side of all victims and do not respect any standard lower than that.

I still don't understand this

In general, I still don't understand how starting from established guilt of a murder which a defendant seeks to justify with a claim of self defense, especially when the defendant inexcusably created an environment that caused the murder, is legally treated the same way as starting from a presumed innocence in trying to prove a defendant committed a murder?

Why was the first judge removed?

Look under "Removal of Judge Lester" here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Florida_v._George_Zimmerman

So was the reaction of the judge far enough from what other judges may do in the
same situation to remove him or the corruption investigation should include the appeal court?

Standing on its own

Assuming that someone could convince me that the defendant was really not guilty
I would still  continue being on the position that the trial was fake and the jury was prepared for the defendant because it is a separate issue standing on it own.

Here is a test

Go to the initial pool of  juries from which all the juries for cases in that court get selected. Then start taking random sampling and ask them if they would have voted the same way the juries in this case did. Then based on that calculate the probability that real random selection of six juries would lead to none of them would vote guilty or remains neutral.

Anyone can do similar sampling by looking at opinions of different people. The general opinions I saw does not support that there is good chance for a six persons all of them would vote not guilty in that case with random selection.

Another reason for sequestering the jury and the defense's opining joke of "Zimmerman who?  Good you are on the jury" could be a way to preemptively answer the results of such sampling by suggesting that public opinions are influenced by the media and therefore cant be counted on which is a joke.

Whether to preemptively counteract a general opinion and/or just to hide more a connection and/or preparation of the jury for the defendant,the exaggeration level the defense took with that joke was clear. That exaggeration or unnecessary addition that seems for defensive purpose can be noticed through two paths, the action itself and the
kind of action taken. The defense could have stated that the jury did not have a relationship with the defendant, and that is a reasonable statement on its face, but still one may wonder what made him emphasize that thing. But the defense did not limit himself to that level to achieve his purpose but took the exaggeration level of the joke mentioned above.Who would answer "Zimmerman who" with a case with such publicity? Assuming you could get a jury who would answer "Zimmerman who" what are the chances that you achieved that without sacrificing other things that may not be easily found in people living in a closed box suggested by such answer? Moreover, the general public opinion was clearly against the defendant so why would the prosecutor agree with you on such sacrifices unless he is on your side and part of the plan?

Also, I am not sure if his statement of  "Good you are on the jury" or something similar to that should be understood as an admission that that condition existed in the juries but if it was then for what purpose a lawyer would make such a voluntary admission other than to defend against a connection to the jury and/or prepare for a result he knew the jury was prepared to deliver?
    

Sorry,a totalitarian system is required

I came from where if people were enslaved it is by no choice. That is why any entity thinks that I would willingly allow it to enslave my mind by accepting
the fake world of that trial as the real world is only dreaming.

The Big Shame

It is enough to deal with the self originating immorality of a jury like that which happened with the OJ case and we do not need to add to it corruption of the system.
If it sounds to you that I make strange combinations then know that is because I see all those who suffer injustice in one camp while those who commit the injustice in another.

It is a big shame that trial was displayed as a real thing and treated as a real thing in front of the whole nation. I doubt that those who have the authority to investigate such things are not doing that because they aren't themselves infiltrated with related corruption.

This is about how no one should be allowed to create and replace the real thing with a corruption while the nation watches that and tolerate it.

Jury sequestration

Jury sequestration could have been ordered to serve as a good excuse to end the trial fast. That in turn could serve as a reason why not to start with a 12 juries instead of 6 while the real reason is the more difficulty to prepare 12 juries for the defendant and pass them through the system in addition to the increased probability that one of them may change mind and not follow the plan and in turn leads to hung jury then to a new jury and starting a new process of preparing new jury for the defendant.

More emphasizing and definition for my stand

Also, the trial was just a show and participants (judge, defense, defendant and prosecutor) were making that show and/or knew they were in a show only and
not a real trial.

You can take this to the bank

The  jury in that case was not real. The jury was prepared for the defendant.

Safeguarding my freedom of expression

In order to protect my freedom of expression I reserved an address on the web I can use if I want to.

That address is: www.uemcs.com 
It is currently empty.

A fake show is only a fake show

If only it were convincing to others watching the defense could have spent the time talking about sports or reading newspapers and the juries would still have not found the defendant guilty.

The jury, judge, defense and prosecutor are all most probably involved and should be prosecuted.

I have many criticisms for the justice system here but did it fail in this case as some have said?If you don't include protecting the justice system itself as part of the justice system and by failure you mean that it was not sufficient to convict the defendant then the answer is no. The answer is no because it was not used and this was just a fake show played over a system that was intended to operate in good faith environments.
 

Like any bad TV show

I said and repeated that that trial is fake. It was just a show, and not even a good one, and things were already arranged from inside. I had my suspicions from the beginning but I did not say anything until I accumulated enough signs. The jury was already contacted.

As for the request for man slaughter definition , that was just a game by the jury to hide its real intention and so was most probably the judge's decision to sequester the juries.

What about the judge's decisions to allow some evidences while preventing others? They are also..yes,you guessed it..fake intended to strengthen the image of a real trial and real court. The defendant wouldn't have been convicted regardless.

This was the result of a corruption. Otherwise, this country is filled with people who strongly refuse what happened to the victim here.

Shocked at first

Back at OJ's murder case I used to get shocked and become too much emotionally involved at the disregard of justice and denial along a group line I saw.  Now, I know much more better about this very wide spread complex of establishing group identity in this country and no longer surprised by the moral abyss to which it drives so many people here.

Let me tell you something. If you feel that standing for justice conflict with your group identity then you need to know that you are messed up psychologically in this matter because it is not supposed to.

This kind of justice system encourages crime

You cannot always avoid falling from a cliff by going as far as you want in the opposite direction. Some times you have to walk very fine line between two very dangerous sides. When you already have a beyond reasonable doubt established crime that is being challenged by a self defense claim or at least like this one you don't have as much back yard to retreat and avoid judgment similar to when you don't have an established crime. In cases like this anything given to one side is taken from the other side and your judgment line will be drawn on the life and value of life of those involved and not on any empty area in which there is a safe choice of avoidance. I said "like this" above because in some other cases the one making the self defense claim may argue that he did not choose to put himself in the situation that led to the attack and therefore shouldn't be held to a different standard.

I actually think of the dealing with the whole justice system like that of walking a fine with a deep valley on both sides but it made even more sense in a case like this. 

If you wonder why

If you wonder why I speak against one person on one blog while speaking for a person of the same race group on another then you need to teach yourself better how to hold everyone responsible to only his own actions and choices.

So what about some generalization talk I did? If you took that to mean when applying justice I would assume guilt on an individual level then you need to check your moral standards again. You may hear me say the worst kind of hate speech on earth and I would still not be an inch closer to do injustice because of whatever made me make that kind of hate speech. That was intended to show you separate domains for those two different things and not an admission of guilt.

What is included under the "reasonableness"

Even if you are going to use the beyond reasonable doubt standard, does the reasonableness also applies on the difference between proving whether someone committed a murder or not in comparison with proving defendant's claim as a reason for a murder he committed is false especially when that person unjustifiably chose to put himself in an environment that was a reason for the kind of interaction that happened?

In any case, I don't feel much faith in that there is an honest trial there related to that case in Florida. In fact, because of some signs and reasons, I have doubts that this trial is anything more than a show. Sufficient transparency in showing a real random selection of the initial jury pool and to whom they remained accessible along every step of the way to the time they make their decision with a proven best effort by the prosecution side to select just juries could have substantially helped in showing the honesty of the trial. Otherwise, trusting that every thing is going fairly in a case like this is like trusting that Saddam really conducted a fair election without watching every step of the way.

There is a well connected picture suggesting that this trial is fake.

Lets take another look at the issue

Lets take another look at the issue in the previous post.

We know that A killed B. A claims self defence. In another word A claims that B committed a guilt of attacking him in a way that justified a fatal response.

Now,if we want to apply the beyond reasonable doubt (or at least according to the way it seems to be taken) shouldn't we also apply it on A's claim of B's action that justified
a fatal response? If A's guilt in killing B can be proved only by proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was not because of self defence then it means that it is enough for just any reasonable doubt to prove that B is guilty of what A claims justified killing him which is lower than any known kind of standard of proof.

Wrong application for the beyond reasonable doubt standard?

I have recently noticed what seems to be a wrong application for that standard that is different from known objections related to abusing it and the like. I wonder how those professionals in criminal law may answer it. Here is my point:

The purpose of the standard seems to be clear in that since every person is innocent by default there is a need to be sure of his guilt before incriminating him. That may make sense when person A is being charged with killing person B and there is a need for being sure that he committed that act.But what about situations where it is an established fact that person A killed person B?Would that standard still make sense applied on challenging A's argument that the killing of B was in self defence?

Before whatever actions A claims B took that made him kill B in self defence, we are sure that killing B was a crime. That means we are at the starting point sure that A committed a crime and therefore the burden shift to him to show that it was not a crime. Even if you don't want to require that A makes beyond reasonable doubt argument justifying his killing of B, and I don't know how just that would be, it should still be higher than just making a reasonable doubt on the opposite side's argument that A's claim of self defence killing is false. Otherwise you, as it seems to me, would be empowering easy killing of people. That seems to be especially true in situations where the killer put himself or force a situation on a victim like that case in Florida according to what I currently know.

Let us express that in another way:
Look at this statement:

Did A kill B?

Since we start from the point of being sure of A's innocence (as it is for any person by default) then one needs to remove all reasonable doubts that A's committed the crime in order to move him from the state of certainty  of innocence to that of certainty that he committed the crime.

Now look at this statement:

Was A's killing of B for self defence?

In this case we start from being sure that A committed a crime by killing B. A needs to counteract that certainty with something to undo it. what is not clear to me is how could  reasonable doubt in negating the self defence claim suffice to undo the initial certainty of A's crime in killing B. That may deserve even more attention as much as it was A's choice in making and creating the situation in which ,or even more deserving, because of which the killing occurred.