Support NeoGAF

[Zoe]

This is grossly out of context.... a "boy of color" was her response during juror selection when asked what race the boy who was killed was. And she referred to both George and Trayvon by their first names in the Anderson Cooper interview. You could try and watch it yourself and come to your own conclusions, y'know, instead of relying on misleading tweets.

I don't think a lot of people have noticed "person of color" rising up in popularity over the last few years. Came up in a totally different thread the other day.

 

[Vahagn]

Why don't you read the specific case I was commenting on before you try to belittle someone
And take this strawman graph with you too
Edit: lol I just took another look at this graph and wtf are you even trying to prove
This is not relevant to the case at all

so when something doesn't fit your narrative it's a strawman and not relevant?

I'm not getting involved with you clown, take your racist ass out of here. Not going to get any more of a rise out of me.

 

[KHarvey16]

This is half true. Whilst it would be based on the defendants subjective fear, the jury would objectively judge whether the use of force was reasonable or disproportionate. The UK law goes to lengths to address the fact that in the heat of the moment, nearly all defendants think their actions are reasonable at the time, and thus whilst the fear is subjectively decided, the use of force needs to be objectively judged.

This is precisely the same as in the US. It is not enough that it is reasonable to the defendant.

Add to that, under UK law, the defendant can not have created the situation which required his self defence in the first place. Not necessarily just provoking someone or starting a fight etc, but even following someone, as ZM did with TM. In-fact, I'm pretty sure there's a case I read about where a man did exactly that, followed a guy who he believed to be a thief, and his defence thrown out because the danger was believed to be his own making.

In relation to the availability of the defence of self-defence, it was not accurate to say that a person who killed someone in a quarrel which he himself started, by provoking it or entering into it willingly could not depend on self defence where his victim had then retaliated. The question was whether the retaliation was such that the defendant was entitled then to defend himself.

http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2005/december/r-v-rashford

 

[MThanded]

Why is this graph being posted everywhere? Where's the source, the citation, the numbers to back it up?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

 

[Soler]

so when something doesn't fit your narrative it's a strawman and not relevant?

I'm not getting involved with you clown, take your racist ass out of here. Not going to get any more of a rise out of me.

Why are you either desperately trolling or insulting someone because you can't form a coherent rebuttal?
It's a straw men because
A the Alexander case involves no killings and
B because that article is baloney and has been proven wrong by investigators
Lol you called me a racist for literally no reason
Wtf is this?

 

[DragonSworne]

I don't think a lot of people have noticed "person of color" rising up in popularity over the last few years. Came up in a totally different thread the other day.

It's also really popular with old time racists.

 

[Sent]

Funny enough I think it's from the young Turks lol

PBS. Try again.


I do like how the juror essentially ignored any testimony from Jeantel.

 

[MThanded]

Funny enough I think it's from the young Turks lol

Nice try. Totally wrong.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

 

[Soler]

PBS. Try again.

Yea
My fault
The Young Turks sourced it so I just drew the correlation

 

[Soler]

Nice try. Totally wrong.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

I already said I was wrong but here you go

So the disparity is clear. But the figures don’t yet prove bias. As Roman points out, the data doesn’t show the circumstances behind the killings, for example whether the people who were shot were involved in home invasions or in a confrontation on the street

.

Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states. In fact, the small sample size is one of the reasons Roman conducted a regression analysis, which determines the statistical likelihood of whether the killings will be found justifiable.

 

[PogiJones]

I think race clearly has a lot to do with more than "some things". I think it was the determining factor in this case, and considering that chart, it's the determining factor in a great deal many cases. White on Black crimes are acquitted at like 4 times the rate of Black on White crimes (in Stand Your Grand States, i.e. gun rights/conservative states)

A few things:
First, I just want to say how very sad this chart is. Regardless of whether it represents what it seems to on the surface, or something deeper (as I get to later), it should not be this way.

Second, I don't think you did this, but others have: It's dangerous, IMO, to say that because a trend exists, it applies to individual cases. When you say, "I think it was the determining factor in this case," that's fine, as you've qualified it as a personal belief, rather than some undisputable truth. When someone (not you) claims the chart indisputably shows that it applied in this case, that's not correct. It may have been the determining factor, but it may not have been. After all, there do exist cases where whites are not acquitted, and others where blacks are. So it's important to remember to distinguish between trends and their potential application to individual cases (which I think you've correctly done).

Finally, (and I have to load this full of huge disclaimers considering the emotions running through this thread: I am NOT suggesting that discrimination against blacks does not exist; I believe it does, to a significant extent) a potential factor in the chart that could account for some of the discrepancy is gang feuds or other crimes that are heavily over represented statistically by black people, and would be far less protected by self-defense laws than isolated incidents. Of course this doesn't mean that white people are better than black people, obviously. It's important to acknowledge that violent crime happens far more often among black folks due to the economic disadvantage they've been put at. So it's more likely (statistically speaking!) for a black killer to be involved in a scenario that makes self-defense difficult (like a gang fight, or a drug feud) than for a white killer.

So my point is, the chart could be skewed by crime statistics generally. Again, I am not suggesting discrimination does not happen; it does. But the statistics of crime should at least be a consideration when we view charts like this. Again, I'm talking pure correlated statistics that have nothing to do with the merits of each race, and are only correlations based on the economic disadvantages at which blacks have been placed. I hope I put in enough disclaimers that my point is clear.

 

[rudieboy77]

I assumed because of the way the law is there, he would be found not guilty. My question though is if you are being stalked by someone and feel frightened and threatened, should you just run instead of asking why you are being followed? If you confront the person frightening you, they could in turn say you threatened them. It is just bizarre to me that someone who instigates a situation can be legally the victim.

 

[Vahagn]

Why are you either desperately trolling or insulting someone because you can't form a coherent rebuttal?
It's a straw men because
A the Alexander case involves no killings and
B because that article is baloney and has been proven wrong by investigators
Lol you called me a racist for literally no reason
Wtf is this?

Really now?

And, someone who assumes people haven't read an article they posted isn't desperately trolling or insulting someone? Anyone who posts any data that contradicts your narrative is essentially posting something "irrelevant". Do me a favor buddy, go through history books and find famous lynching cases and tell me that the people who got off and were acquitted had every right to be, and any comparison between two lynchings is irrelevant?

And, any statistics or data about historical lynchings are irrelevant to a case where someone may not have died in the south. Don't worry, I'll wait.

If you don't see obvious historical connections and parallels, that's on you to do a better job researching history. ,

 

[MThanded]

I already said I was wrong but here you go

.

Your narrative is clear. However, I just wanted to clear up that I responded before your post came up. Am I supposed to go into the future?

 

[Soler]

Really now?

And, someone who assumes people haven't read an article they posted isn't desperately trolling or insulting someone? Anyone who posts any data that contradicts your narrative is essentially posting something "irrelevant". Do me a favor buddy, go through history books and find famous lynching cases and tell me that the people who got off and were acquitted had every right to be, and any comparison between two lynchings is irrelevant?

And, any statistics or data about historical lynchings are irrelevant to a case where someone may not have died in the south. Don't worry, I'll wait.

If you don't see obvious historical connections and parallels, that's on you to do a better job researching history. ,

I didn't post the article? What are you even talking about? Go back and reread everything, it appears you have the wrong person

 

[Soler]

Your narrative is clear. However, I just wanted to clear up that I responded before your post came up. Am I supposed to go into the future?

Looking at that source you posted
That Graph is pretty misleading to say the least
There's a shit ton of asterisks

 

[Vahagn]

A few things:
First, I just want to say how very sad this chart is. Regardless of whether it represents what it seems to on the surface, or something deeper (as I get to later), it should not be this way.

Second, I don't think you did this, but others have: It's dangerous, IMO, to say that because a trend exists, it applies to individual cases. When you say, "I think it was the determining factor in this case," that's fine, as you've qualified it as a personal belief, rather than some undisputable truth. When someone (not you) claims the chart indisputably shows that it applied in this case, that's not correct. It may have been the determining factor, but it may not have been. After all, there do exist cases where whites are not acquitted, and others where blacks are. So it's important to remember to distinguish between trends and their potential application to individual cases (which I think you've correctly done).

Finally, (and I have to load this full of huge disclaimers considering the emotions running through this thread: I am NOT suggesting that discrimination against blacks does not exist; I believe it does, to a significant extent) a potential factor in the chart that could account for some of the discrepancy is gang feuds or other crimes that are heavily over represented statistically by black people, and would be far less protected by self-defense laws than isolated incidents. Of course this doesn't mean that white people are better than black people, obviously. It's important to acknowledge that violent crime happens far more often among black folks due to the economic disadvantage they've been put at. So it's more likely (statistically speaking!) for a black killer to be involved in a scenario that makes self-defense difficult (like a gang fight, or a drug feud) than for a white killer.

So my point is, the chart could be skewed by crime statistics generally. Again, I am not suggesting discrimination does not happen; it does. But the statistics of crime should at least be a consideration when we view charts like this. Again, I'm talking pure correlated statistics that have nothing to do with the merits of each race, and are only correlations based on the economic disadvantages at which blacks have been placed. I hope I put in enough disclaimers that my point is clear.

Do you think that Black people commit more crimes than white people? Or do you think Black people are reported, arrested, charged, convicted more often?


How many parties are going to be happening on Yachts and in upscale neighborhoods this weekend? And how many of those people are going to be doing cocaine, weed, meth, or a variety of other drugs. And how many of those homes are going to be busted or raided, how many of those Yacht parties are going to have undercover cops on them?

 

[Zoe]

It's also really popular with old time racists.

Old time racists use "colored person," not "person of color."

 

[MThanded]

Looking at that source you posted
That Graph is pretty misleading to say the least
There's a shit ton of asterisks

You wanted to know where the graph was from. I never posted the graph I just gave your the source. I'm not even discussing the graph or using it in an argument. Take your L "fam".

 

[nib95]

This is precisely the same as in the US. It is not enough that it is reasonable to the defendant.

I know you skipped all the other differences in law, but this one is different too. My understanding is that based on Florida law, if Zimmerman feared for his life or feared GBH, use of deadly force is immediately justified, as a matter of law. This is not the case in the UK. In the UK the objective test of whether the use of force is reasonable is based on a common sense application of the law, past precedence, evidence and reason.

One thing that I greatly admire about UK law (much of which I often disagree with or lambast), is that the common sense application is given priority. Instead of verdicts being completely nonsensical because of errors in legal literature, loopholes or conflicts, higher court judges (eg Supreme) can just turn around and say, yea no, even though they're trying that, common sense tells us the law was not written so this particular thing could be exploited, or justice lost because of this or that, so no, here is some new binding precedent.

http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2005/december/r-v-rashford

Quarrels and arguments have separate precedence and do not fall under the same "danger was his own making" rules.

 

[Soler]

You wanted to know where the graph was from. I never posted the graph I just gave your the source. Take your L.

What? I'm just saying the graph is misleading and says virtually nothing

 

[MThanded]

What? I'm just saying the graph is misleading and says virtually nothing

I never posted the graph. Who are you talking to? I think you are confused. I just gave you the source. I never claimed anything about the graph. You must be confusing me with another user.

 

[Jenov]

I already said I was wrong but here you go

.

So his findings are based on all of 25 cases? And he extrapolated that into a % chance chart... Oy. Those disclaimers should be included in that image.

 

[sangreal]

Old time racists use "colored person," not "person of color."

I hear "person of color" all the time as well. I think people mostly use it to be more inclusive than black (eg Indians, etc) rather than saying brown people. I don't find it offensive, but that is just me

 

[Soler]

I never posted the graph. Who are you talking to? I think you are confused. I just gave you the source. I never claimed anything about the graph. You must be confusing me with another user.

I understand that
I'm just talking in general
Not really at you

So his findings are based on all of 25 cases? And he extrapolated that into a % chance chart... Oy. Those disclaimers should be included in that image.

It appears that the white on black is based on all of 25 cases
The others are the remaining 4,975 I believe lol

 

[KHarvey16]

I know you skipped all the other differences in law, but this one is different too. My understanding is that based on Florida law, if Zimmerman feared for his life or feared GBH, use of deadly force is immediately justified, as a matter of law. This is not the case in the UK. In the UK the objective test of whether the use of force is reasonable is based on a common sense application of the law, past precedent, evidence and reason.

One thing that I greatly admire about UK law (much of which I often disagree with or lambast), is that the common sense application is given priority. Instead of verdicts being completely nonsensical because of errors in legal literature, loopholes or conflicts, higher court judges (eg Supreme) can just turn around and say, yea no, even though they're trying that, common sense tells us the law was not written so this particular thing could be exploited, or justice lost because of this or that, so no, here is some new binding precedent.

That doesn't make any sense. In the US what is reasonable is determined by the jury as well. The defendant could swear all day that it was reasonable but the jury does not use his characterization to reach their conclusion. As in the US, it is the prosecution's job to convince the jury that fear was not reasonable.

Quarrels and arguments have separate precedence and do not fall under the same "danger was his own making" rules.

What?

Furthermore, a defendant does not lose the right to claim self-defence merely because they instigated the confrontation that created the alleged need for self-defence. A person who kills in the course of a quarrel or even crime they started might still act in self-defence if the 'victim' retaliates or counterattacks. In Rashford,[5] the defendant sought out the victim, intending to attack him in revenge for an earlier dispute, but the victim and his friends responded out of proportion to the defendant's aggression. At this point, the defendant had to switch from aggression to defence. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant will only lose the defence by being the aggressor throughout. The question is whether the defendant feared that he was in immediate danger from which he had no other means of escape, and if the violence he used was no more than appeared necessary to preserve his own life or protect himself from serious injury, he would be entitled to rely on self-defence. On the facts, the jury's decision to convict was not unsafe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

This is nearly identical to Florida's law.

 

[FartOfWar]

plus in Canada, it's super hard to get off murder using a firearm. Yeah we have shorter jail sentences but murderers go to jail

http://www.irwinlaw.com/store/produ...-murder--the-canadian-criminal-justice-system

You and cmerril are shortsighted jingoists, plain and simple.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I hear "person of color" all the time as well. I think people mostly use it to be more inclusive than black (eg Indians, etc) rather than saying brown people. I don't find it offensive, but that is just me

This. It's a term I have used many times to describe myself in certain situations.

 

[Vahagn]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

Most crimes have an approximately 2 to 1 ratio between white and black. Some have a 3 to 1 ratio. Murder and Manslaughter is about 1-1.

 

[FartOfWar]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

Most crimes have an approximately 2 to 1 ratio between white and black. Some have a 3 to 1 ratio. Murder and Manslaughter is about 1-1.

Not sure what this is about, but those statistics are a social tragedy once you adjust for total population percentages.

 

[PogiJones]

Do you think that Black people commit more crimes than white people? Or do you think Black people are reported, arrested, charged, convicted more often?


How many parties are going to be happening on Yachts and in upscale neighborhoods this weekend? And how many of those people are going to be doing cocaine, weed, meth, or a variety of other drugs. And how many of those homes are going to be busted or raided, how many of those Yacht parties are going to have undercover cops on them?

I specifically said violent crimes, I believe. The statistics are very, very clear on the discrepancy there. I could entertain the assertion that the discrepancy in drug crime is due to lack of enforcement among whites, and therefore an illusory statistic, but I cannot entertain an assertion that the 6 times homicide victim rate and 7.5 times homicide perpetrator rate among blacks are illusory statistics. Then, since those number correlate pretty well with crime overall, it seems that crime is fairly accurately represented, with perhaps a bit of a law enforcement thumb on the statistical scale against blacks for non-violent crimes.

Again, it's not because they're black, but rather because of the general economic disadvantage that forces many more black people into crime. The race and the crime are mere correlations with the same cause: economic disadvantage. Yet, that correlation could explain much of the discrepancy in that graph. I repeat again, I'm not saying discrimination does not exist; it does, significantly so. I'm merely saying that the graph may be deceptive on the surface.

EDIT:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

Most crimes have an approximately 2 to 1 ratio between white and black. Some have a 3 to 1 ratio. Murder and Manslaughter is about 1-1.

Correct, and there are roughly 6 times as many whites as blacks in the U.S. It's tragic.

 

[nib95]

That doesn't make any sense. In the US what is reasonable is determined by the jury as well. The defendant could swear all day that it was reasonable but the jury does not use his characterization to reach their conclusion. As in the US, it is the prosecution's job to convince the jury that fear was not reasonable.

In the US the jury has to determine whether the defendant was in fear of GBH or for his life, and if they find he was, he is permitted to use the use of deadly force. They do not judge whether the use of force, in this case deadly, was reasonable or not given the circumstances. That was my understanding. I could be wrong.

In UK law, the actual force used is the element that the jury decide was reasonable or not, not just the fear or threat itself. A jury can still find whatever use of force unreasonable despite the defendant fearing x, y or z.

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

This is nearly identical to Florida's law.

Watching the trial, the defence insinuated that there is no law against following someone, and that it was no grounds on which Zimmerman's defence could be thrown out or diminished. In UK law, it's likely that ZM following and racially profiling TM to begin with would have jeopardised his defence of self defence from the off set, since the "danger was his own making", unless the victims reaction was was "so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that the roles were in effect reversed". Which I don't believe to be the case at all here, especially given ZM was the armed one (illegal under UK law).


So my questions (and I don't claim to fully know this I'm asking), are...

With respect to Florida law..

A.) If Zimmerman did fear for his life or fear for GBH, was deadly force automatically justified, or did the jury decide it was justified based on Zimmerman's injuries and/or fears, or perception of danger? To rephrase, if found to be fearing for his life or GBH, is he legally permitted to use lethal force, or is that up to the contention of the jury based on their own assessment?

B.) Could ZM following TM, under Florida law, be seen as antagonistic and tantamount to instigating the situation and ordeal, or ZM bringing the danger upon himself? Maybe even forcing TM to act in self defence? Could ZM following TM under any Florida law be used to throw out ZM's self defence argument altogether? Speaking purely legally.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Just got a CNN alert that part 2 of the interview will air today and the Juror says 'George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin'

 

[Yoritomo]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

Most crimes have an approximately 2 to 1 ratio between white and black. Some have a 3 to 1 ratio. Murder and Manslaughter is about 1-1.

I don't think there's anything more shameful in the US. We've fucked over an entire group of people since the inception of our country.

 

[TheYanger]

How do people not understand that it's because of the economics that have been this way for generations, not because of some amazing like conscious effort?

This is what I was talking about in the other thread that just got drowned out by the "RACIST" bullshit. The racism happened a LONG time ago, and everything to this day is essentially aftershocks of that shit. No it's not 'right' but the solutions are much more complex than anything to do with TM/GZ or a guilty/not guilty verdict.

 

[wildfire]

Why is this graph being posted everywhere? Where's the source, the citation, the numbers to back it up?

Here you go.

http://io9.com/disturbing-chart-shows-rise-in-justified-killings-of-773490798

Just got a CNN alert that part 2 of the interview will air today and the Juror says 'George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin'

And this should surprise no one. At this point I want to hear more from one of the 3 jurors who changed their minds on pushing for manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. I want to know how they fucked up.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Looks like a person you don't want into the jury of a case like this.

I think prosecutors really did a poor job in the whole case.

 

[sphagnum]

I don't think there's anything more shameful in the US. We've fucked over an entire group of people since the inception of our country.

A good case could be made for what we've done to Native Americans.

 

[kinggroin]

So if I who look like an Arab go in with a full beard in Sanford to a local park and a white guy feels I am a threat to him because of the way I look, dressed and all and he has a gun and shoots me on the basis that he thought I was an imminent threat to him and his children, I die and he gets acquitted?

If it happens exactly that way, he'd probably get 1st degree and/or death.

 

[FartOfWar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

 

[KHarvey16]

In the US the jury has to determine whether the defendant was in fear of GBH or for his life, and if they find he was, he is permitted to use the use of deadly force. They do not judge whether the use of force, in this case deadly, was reasonable or not given the circumstances. That was my understanding. I could be wrong.

In UK law, the actual force used is the element that the jury decide was reasonable or not, not just the fear or threat itself. A jury can still find whatever use of force unreasonable despite the defendant fearing x, y or z.

It works the same in Florida and the rest of the US.

Watching the trial, the defence insinuated that there is no law against following someone, and that it was no grounds on which Zimmerman's defence could be thrown out or diminished. In UK law, it's likely that ZM following and racially profiling TM to begin with would have jeopardised his defence of self defence from the off set, since the "danger was his own making", unless the victims reaction was was "so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that the roles were in effect reversed". Which I don't believe to be the case at all here, especially given ZM was the armed one (illegal under UK law).

I don't believe in the UK they would consider deadly force a proportional response to following or profiling. Again, that was the prosecution's task...to show that it was not Zimmerman acting in self defense.

So my questions (and I don't claim to fully know this I'm asking), are...

With respect to Florida law..

A.) If Zimmerman did fear for his life or fear for GBH, was deadly force automatically justified, or did the jury decide it was justified based on Zimmerman's injuries and/or fears, or perception of danger?

B.) Could ZM following TM, under Florida law, be seen as antagonistic and tantamount to instigating the situation and ordeal, or ZM bringing the danger upon himself, and maybe even forcing TM to act in self defence? Could ZM following TM under any Florida law be used to throw out ZM's self defence argument altogether? Speaking purely legally.

A. The justification for deadly force is that he genuinely believed he was in danger and that this fear was reasonable. Not that he felt this fear was reasonable, but that the jury could determine that he felt as a reasonable person would feel. Further they can judge the proportionality and reasonableness of the response.

B. The jury could have possibly found that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. They could have also found that, even though he was the initial aggressor, the violent response was out of proportion and Zimmerman was trying but unable to escape from beneath Martin therefore justifying Zimmerman's claim of self defense. We haven't heard if that is the case though. A possible scenario that would have justified Martin defending his life with deadly force is if he saw the gun while Zimmerman was approaching him.

 

[kinggroin]

Official Neighborhood Watch guidelines forbid carrying firearms.

Considering Zimmerman was armed, I doubt a jury would have trouble believing Trayvon reasonably feared for his life.

Oooooo, that's a good point.



...



Why didn't the prosecution push for this instead of second fucking degree murder??

 

[SneakySneaks]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

She also left the house, had a chance to get away, came back with a gun, fired said gun near her husband and child, and was offered a fair plea deal (3 years and later time severed). The sentence was bullshit but she was not as innocent as you make her out to be.

 

[Playsation_]

She also left the house, had a chance to get away, came back with a gun, fired said gun near her husband and child, and was offered a fair plea deal (3 years and later time severed). The sentence was bullshit but she was not as innocent as you make her out to be.

Zimmerman also had a chance to stay in his car, and wait for the police to arrive. The safest place at that moment, in the car.

Now twist that to your liking

 

[Maninthemirror]

Is anyone
Watching part 2???!holy shit!!

 

[B-Dubs]

Is anyone
Watching part 2???!holy shit!!

How insane is it? I've got the US vs Costa Rica game on.

 

[inm8num2]

Is anyone
Watching part 2???!holy shit!!

Still not enough to entice me to watch CNN.

 

[FartOfWar]

She also left the house, had a chance to get away, came back with a gun, fired said gun near her husband and child, and was offered a fair plea deal (3 years and later time severed). The sentence was bullshit but she was not as innocent as you make her out to be.

As I make her out to be? I dropped the url and said nothing.

 

[Maninthemirror]

They are tearing apart the prosecution and essentially saying that given how the prosecution performed and defense said , any jury would have found zimmerman not guilty, even jeff toobin who was critical of the decision said this

 

[AstroLad]

I know the jurors promised this was not about race AT ALL, but it's just such a fun mind-boggling exercise to flip the races in this story and think about everything around it in that light. Oh that big black dude that kid the little white kid? He learned his lesson let's not go crazy here.