The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

And I'm against the argument that our judicial system seems to try and get people convicted of "something" rather than nothing when the evidence is really inconclusive....(a point being a local trial of a guy named Widmer who had been tried FOUR times in order for the prosecution to get him locked up...even though all three previous trials he was found not guilty of murdering his wife)....the evidence and the whole thing just seemed to me to be a witch hunt!

Not going to bother commenting on the speculation and what ifs and stuff you'd want to know before delivering your opinion.

I took a minute to Google this local case. Your understanding of what happened must have come from one of those unburdened-by-fact email forwards you get from your ultra-right-wing friends.

The first trial was declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The second was a hung jury. The third jury convicted. He's trying to get a fourth trial, but from what little I've seen, there's not much hope that'll go anywhere.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not going to bother commenting on the speculation and what ifs and stuff you'd want to know before delivering your opinion.

I took a minute to Google this local case. Your understanding of what happened must have come from one of those unburdened-by-fact email forwards you get from your ultra-right-wing friends.

The first trial was declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The second was a hung jury. The third jury convicted. He's trying to get a fourth trial, but from what little I've seen, there's not much hope that'll go anywhere.

I just Googled this as well. It looks like he was actually convicted during the first trial, but it was later overturned due to juror misconduct. So he's gone through three trials and he was convicted twice.

The fourth trial never happened. Widmer and his attorneys wanted one, but they were denied.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I just Googled this as well. It looks like he was actually convicted during the first trial, but it was later overturned due to juror misconduct. So he's gone through three trials and he was convicted twice.

The fourth trial never happened. Widmer and his attorneys wanted one, but they were denied.

Nothing offensive at all about that result...

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nothing offensive at all about that result...

Yea, I'm not really seeing what the problem is here. Could he have been wrongly convicted? Sure. But nowhere am I seeing a blatant disregard for the law by the prosecution, desperately seeking out a guilty verdict based on nothing but personal feelings, instead of the facts of the case.