Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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.
|
It is a judicial atrocity.
What should never have happened was it taking 44 days of public pressure being brought to bear to affect an arrest, despite the belief of officers on scene that GZ should have immediately been incarcerated and had toxicology screens performed that night.
(Public pressure not brought to bear until after the police chief told Tracy Martin he was not going to make an arrest.)
Surely you have some idea the burden a delay of that magnitude would have on an effective investigation? The collection of additional evidence? Witness-canvassing that might have actually shed more light on what really happened? Instead, we have the defendant’s self-serving version of events. I agree with you the prosecution was horrible in bringing this case, but at least acknowledge the operational hurdle they had to overcome before their own ineptness took over.
The fact that GZ’s previous 18 neighborhood watch calls to Sanford PD, all 18 referenced “suspicious” looking black men; is suggestive of at least the possibility of a pattern of racial profiling. “F—king punks.” “These a—holes, they always get away.”
Or the state’s final (or penultimate)? witness, the white woman whose home had been vandalized. Why she was even there I’ll never know. Even more baffling, why the prosecution sat mute. Why didn’t they stand and ask “Had Trayvon Martin had burglarized your home, lady?” “Had you ever met Trayvon Martin, lady?”
So don’t tell me the media made this about race. Mark O’Mara made this about race. Mark O’Mara showed the jury the picture of a shirtless, marijuana-puffing (read: menacing?) Trayvon Martin. Did GZ see a shirtless Trayvon Martin that night? O’Mara played race into this better than Heat/Spurs.
Facts of the case?
Unarmed teenager, minding his own business, trying to get back home to watch the game. The kid is followed, confronted by a wanna be cop with a gun (previously told to keep his wanna be azz in the car). Kids winds up dead. Only eye-witnesses is the killer whose testimony, in the face of a myriad of previous proven inconsistencies (i.e. “he jumped out at me from the bushes,” only to have it turn out there were no bushes) cannot be reliably believed.
Beyond that, you don’t know any more than I do what happened. I don’t believe TM ambushed GZ; he was trying to get back home to the 2nd half of a basketball game—it makes no sense. I don’t know when GZ drew his gun, but common sense tells me if one is drawn on you and you see it, and don’t have one, you back up.
As for your earlier references to people “projecting” their own “experiences” onto this situation, can you prove that? And since you’re identifying biases, start with yours.
It is a judicial atrocity.