General Discussion

Kablooie

(19,115 posts)

17. When you're on a jury you sometimes must make decisions you disagree with...

Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:15 AM

Feb 2014

Because you are given a detailed explanation of the law and and are told to make your decisions solely on the basis of that law.
The strict reading of the law may require you to agree to a verdict you think is wrong.
You are never required to explain your decision so you have the option of deciding based on your morals instead of the law, it's not against the law to do this because it can't be proven that you deliberately flaunted the law, but there is a lot of pressure to do the "right" thing and follow the letter of the law.

I'm not saying that anyone did this, I don't know, there could be honest differences in the interpetation of the evidence and application of the law, but when you're on a jury it is not alway easy to do what you believe is the just and moral thing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Juror in 'Loud Music' Trial Wanted Murder Conviction [View all] M0rpheus Feb 2014 OP

Yep. That's what I figured. kcr Feb 2014 #1

What is with editing/journalism these days? BlueCheese Feb 2014 #3

Eminent - love that dude Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #38

it's a put on. dionysus Feb 2014 #45

I believe much of editing / "journalism" has been offshored Skittles Feb 2014 #83

Remember how we got lectured for geek tragedy Feb 2014 #6

Yep - I sure do remember that. . . JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #52

one person--demwing--did, and he was very gracious about it. geek tragedy Feb 2014 #53

+1 Blue_Tires Feb 2014 #61

So self defense by some jurors AnalystInParadise Feb 2014 #73

for the jurors who thought it was reasonable for him to pump geek tragedy Feb 2014 #74

"It said if he believed that he had an eminent threat to himself or his fiancee, so that was a thing JI7 Feb 2014 #2

As was obvious to those of us paying attention. geek tragedy Feb 2014 #4

Imminent not eminent Fumesucker Feb 2014 #5

Floriduh juries presume dead black kids guilty. nt geek tragedy Feb 2014 #7

only 3 jurors bought the self-defense argument. woolldog Feb 2014 #8

I figured it was a lone racist idiot. So I'm disappointed. geek tragedy Feb 2014 #9

or do a better job in jury selection woolldog Feb 2014 #10

part of the defense strategy was to make sure to get some racists on the jury JI7 Feb 2014 #12

The Jury Instructions Did Not Use "Reasonable" DallasNE Feb 2014 #21

Not true. woolldog Feb 2014 #44

The Jury Instructions Are Conflicting. DallasNE Feb 2014 #76

I would assume that whether the killing is "justified" woolldog Feb 2014 #78

Yeah, Dumbass Dunn was so "frightened".. Cha Feb 2014 #11

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #50

This is what I suspected. bravenak Feb 2014 #13

EXACTLY!! SkyDaddy7 Feb 2014 #16

That is some terrible stuff. bravenak Feb 2014 #18

Florida should be held in perjury of the Constitution which promises the government will provide for world wide wally Feb 2014 #14

Data link? Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #56

Here is the link where I read the information world wide wally Feb 2014 #84

Thanks. Great link. Many thoughts. Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #85

On promotion Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #86

Jury Instructions Are Often Key To Understanding A Verdict DallasNE Feb 2014 #15

Isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" the standard for the prosecution, not the defense? Bazinga Feb 2014 #26

Correct - Should Have Said "Reasonable Fear" Rather than "Reasonable Doubt" DallasNE Feb 2014 #72

When you're on a jury you sometimes must make decisions you disagree with... Kablooie Feb 2014 #17

there is no honest, intelligent interpretation of a guy yelling at kids in a car and then shooting geek tragedy Feb 2014 #20

Your right that the jurors had to be prejudiced. Kablooie Feb 2014 #51

problem is, all it takes is a couple of gun humping racist cowards on the jury Skittles Feb 2014 #81

You don't have to make decisions you disagree with NobodyHere Feb 2014 #32

Read up on your rights as a Juror. rgbecker Feb 2014 #71

That figures davidpdx Feb 2014 #19

So, if he had not shot at the fleeing van, he might have walked? Jeebus. Hoyt Feb 2014 #22

which it looks like Dunn can appeal can't he uponit7771 Feb 2014 #37

won't be successful and he's run out of money to hire a lawyer nt geek tragedy Feb 2014 #62

I don't like anyone calling it the Loud Music trial. Calling it B Calm Feb 2014 #23

Can we stop with the gray box? CANDO Feb 2014 #24

'The gray box' is DU's standard 'excerpt' function muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #40

Thanks for the reply... CANDO Feb 2014 #80

I'm afraid to say gollygee Feb 2014 #25

Glad the juror spoke so we know why they hung. morningfog Feb 2014 #27

Worse than alsame Feb 2014 #28

I imagined one .... etherealtruth Feb 2014 #87

This still doesn't make sense mythology Feb 2014 #29

there were two sets of shots dsc Feb 2014 #46

He fired 10 shots in all Yo_Mama Feb 2014 #60

there were actually three sets of shots TorchTheWitch Feb 2014 #77

because Dunn shot into the vehicle as it was fleeing. SD clearly could not be applied at that point. magical thyme Feb 2014 #47

This is WORSE than Zimmerman uponit7771 Feb 2014 #30

No they are the same. Fearful white men, shoot and murder innocent B Calm Feb 2014 #31

At least with Zimmerman there alsame Feb 2014 #33

Again, if GZ hadn't stalked his victim, there wouldn't be a gun and there B Calm Feb 2014 #34

Yeap that's my issue worth Zimmerman was the stalking.... FL a is uponit7771 Feb 2014 #36

Oh, I absolutely agree with alsame Feb 2014 #41

nah black kids don't need a weapon just existence to a gun nut uponit7771 Feb 2014 #42

And to 3 alsame Feb 2014 #43

... to a "gun nut" and Florida juries etherealtruth Feb 2014 #70

The act might be worse than Zimmerman but these people had video uponit7771 Feb 2014 #35

there's no question Zimmerman provoked, too Skittles Feb 2014 #82

Can anyone give, or direct me to, a summary of the evidence on whether Davis got out? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #39

From what I understand Boom Sound 416 Feb 2014 #48

ME said Davis shot in car riverwalker Feb 2014 #54

Thanks - if he was shot in the car, then the 'imminent threat' wasn't there muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #58

2-3 jurors said "he was afraid, so he was justified" geek tragedy Feb 2014 #55

there isn't a summary accept maybe the closing arguments TorchTheWitch Feb 2014 #79

3 Jurors out of 12 is 25%, which is a percentage we all have heard about before. John1956PA Feb 2014 #49

Um, isn't that what "hung jury" means? Courtesy Flush Feb 2014 #57

Whole buncha people here were right and I was wrong. Yo_Mama Feb 2014 #59

FWIW I wanted you to be right and me be wrong, I've just given up after Zimmerman uponit7771 Feb 2014 #63

Impossible: Many very knowledgeable DU lawyers insisted that it was Murder 1 v Murder 2!!! alcibiades_mystery Feb 2014 #64

How many accusations of profiling jurors as racists did you see here? bettyellen Feb 2014 #65

There was an unsurprising confluence between those arguing that the jury was deadlocked alcibiades_mystery Feb 2014 #66

I think a few believed it was sooo clear cut that they thought bettyellen Feb 2014 #67

+1, and these people are MIA for this thread uponit7771 Feb 2014 #69

Amen uponit7771 Feb 2014 #68

it was obvious, and those of us who said "racists seeing it as justified" were geek tragedy Feb 2014 #75

I held out hope (it was obviously dashed) etherealtruth Feb 2014 #88