With everything I've said in this thread, I agree for the most part. He's saying if the races were reversed, Martin would have been charged with murder and I somewhat agree with that. You realize that lady made that story up and the evidence didn't back it up, right? According to her appeal for immunity (or whatever the official document is called) she was not in a direct self-defense mode. She actually walked past her husband and their children to the garage to get her gun from her car and came back in and fired directly at him first. In other words, she was the aggressor and the story she told, which in turn was picked up by the media, didn't add up. http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity
She said when the initial poll was taken, there were 3 Not Guilty's, 2 Manslaughter's and one Murder in the Second Degree. Very interesting. An even split between convicting for something and letting walk. This strengthens the theory IMO that had the prosecution charged on Manslaugher vs. Second Degree Murder (gross overcharge) they may well have won the case. 3 vs. 3 means this jury group could have been persuaded to convict on Manslaughter.
It was raining the night of the incident, right? Just a thought - imagine if TM had been holding an umbrella. Different picture. Different perception of him? Dunno - if I see someone walking in the rain with an umbrella - that does not send off alarm bells. Maybe a bit geeky for a guy - but "the look" is less threatening. Vs. a hoody. What's with the hoodies anyway? A tough guy thing?
You're absolutely right! Lets get rid of hoodies! We need to send a mass email to all those thug corporations that make hoodies. Polo, Calvin Klein, Lacoste, Louis Vutton, Gucci and Versace
The music industry in funded at the top by rich, money hungry white men who are in it just to get the most sales (ironically mostly from suburban kids but that's another thread). Our youth is so dam impressionable that they'll just do whatever is popular and put before them (I mentioned the NWA Catch-22 before), heck I know I was impressionable at a young age. We can choose to reject these BS idols we're given but that's unrealistic, at least to change overnight.
Wow, the juror didn't know what manslaughter was. Proves that justice wasn't served. What a joke of a system. The juror practically said GZ was in the wrong by approaching.
Clearly you could see the class divide, from the way she said she pitied them and their "environment", on their education or lack of, on their intelligence, and to how many times that woman said "they". Just imagine a scenario where a rich upper class rich white soccer mom gets lost in traffic and end up in the hood for the 1st. Imagine the demeanor/attitude she would take in this type of scenario....that's the exact vibe I got.
What about the fact that she didn't know the law and she couldn't interpret it properly? 3 not guilty, 1 2nd degree and 2 manslaughter. Not a slam dunk as you made it out to be.
I would say the juror who was for 2nd degree was a complete moron who had her mind made up long before the trial.
No, it says that acting recklessly in terms of putting yourself in a risky situation isn't ground for you to give up your right for self-defense. You can walk into a hostile situation, and if attacked, you can still defend yourself. Why shouldn't you be able to? When you are on the ground with someone on top of you, that's a pretty easy self-defense case. No one knows how he got there. That's the problem. And because no one knows, you have to give GZ the benefit of the doubt. That's our system - innocent unless PROVEN guilty. It's plausible that GZ was following the guy, and TM didn't like it, got pissed off, and decided to go after GZ and pummel him. And GZ would be afraid and decided to shoot him. It's plausible that GZ didn't think he was putting himself in a situation to do that. The point is, there is reasonable doubt - and to convict GZ of manslaughter, it has to be without reasonable doubt. And that's why he gets to walk.
EDIT: Deleted stuff about Germany b/c I cannot confirm what my friends are claiming about the jury system there. Bottom line: I've served on three juries, and testified to another jury (I was a witness to, em, bad behavior), and all I can say is please God never put me at the mercy of a "jury of my peers." ****ing nightmare.
It's on parents. It always is on parents at the end of the day. I know plenty of black friends (because I'm black) who listened to rap music, now in college, now in grad school, etc etc. Who all grew up on rap music. Rap music is no different from death metal or any other music that could have a negative influence...or violent television...games...etc etc. It's always on parents.
They wanted to figure out how self defense figured in to a manslaughter charge. She said that they all wanted to charge him with something but they studied the charges and none fit.
So do any of Martin supporters find it inappropriate for Angela Cory to call Zimmerman a murderer today? She should be calling for the masses to respect the decision of the jury yet she's poking wounds that need to heal. She needs to lose her job now.
We already have those. They are called judges. Professional jurors would be biased. Take a look at our Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court is suppose to be the last defense against the insanity we call politics, but the last few presidents have made the Supreme Court candidates a debacle and is as divided as the rest of the politics and this country. We all know lawyers tend to be scumbags who serve their pocketbook over their conscious. With juries, you won't have those biased professionals. The rich will buy their jurors and screw the poor. I think I prefer our system over that one.
