Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyB06
GZ got his gun back and rest of us got try and make sense of this judicial atrocity.
|
I'm kind of tired of hearing that this was a "judicial atrocity" or that sort of nonsense. The case should never have been filed. The state's evidence and witnesses pointed more towards the self-defense theory than anything else and there was simply no way for the state to meet its evidentiary burden.
There's no evidence Martin was profiled due to his race. What I see, obviously from a privileged background, is a lot of folks are projecting their own experiences, e.g., discrimination, DWBs and such onto a situation, making a lot of assumptions and arriving at conclusions requiring a certain level of outrage which is really not justified if you're limiting your outrage to the facts of this case or Mr. Zimmerman specifically. If your outrage is more about racial inequality, discrimination, i.e., big picture stuff, I can respect that.
The media made this about race, the President even weighed in. No one can prove Zimmerman broke the law. I doubt it could even be proved 51% at a civil trial. I was disappointed that the judge didn't dismiss the case after the prosecution closed their case because they failed to meet their burden. That was an act of judicial cowardice, but somewhat expected considering the politics.
It's not a judicial atrocity. The system worked. If you don't like the result, be mad at the facts, not at the defendant. The jury did its part, gave a really good look at the evidence and voted unanimously to acquit in the end.