freeman3 wrote:Archduke is absolutely right--remember the two Rodney King trials? It does seem a bit unfair, to be honest. But at least in the Rodney King trial there were state actors (the police) so there was more cause for the federal government to step in. But Zimmerman is not a state actor, so I will be interested to see what theory the federal government has for bringing a federal case.

danivon wrote:RJ, the state did not give 'their all' to the case from the start. The reason for the original protests was that they dropped it early on. That was were the allegations of institutional racism came from. I'm not sure that it means that parts of the state - police or prosecutors - were instituionally racist.

Rudewalrus wrote:

freeman3 wrote:a jury (not really a jury of Trayvon Martin's peers but they so seldom are)

I didn't follow this case, and don't know the details, so I won't comment on the justice/injustice of the verdict. I will note, however, that Freeman missed one here:

George Zimmerman was on trial; he was entitled to a jury of his peers, not Trayvon Martin's.

freeman3 wrote:If that's an argument that's pretty weak..If you have something to disprove any of what I just posted, let's hear it. Last time you came up with a white guy who got hit by a car--surely you can do better than that.

Ray Jay wrote:I think we have to distinguish between racism and racist institutions. Perhaps Zimmerman is a racist; perhaps he isn't. My gut is the former. But so what. There are plenty of racists, and misogynists and anti-Semites, and anti just about any group in our society. I've met all of these types. I also generally agree with Freeman's larger point that there are subconscious biases galore in the human psyche.

But that's different than institutional racism. The verdict shows no evidence of institutional racism. There was a trial. The state gave their all to the case. The judge listened. There's no evidence that the jurors are racist.

The stand your ground laws are pro gun and pro property, but they aren't racist. However, there is now a large chorus in the media talking about institutional racism. Has there been any evidence of that?

In any case, based on politics, they felt that had to bring the case to trial (which seems right to me).

freeman3 wrote:Archduke is absolutely right--remember the two Rodney King trials? It does seem a bit unfair, to be honest. But at least in the Rodney King trial there were state actors (the police) so there was more cause for the federal government to step in. But Zimmerman is not a state actor, so I will be interested to see what theory the federal government has for bringing a federal case.

danivon wrote:RJ, the state did not give 'their all' to the case from the start. The reason for the original protests was that they dropped it early on. That was were the allegations of institutional racism came from. I'm not sure that it means that parts of the state - police or prosecutors - were instituionally racist.

GMTom wrote:

In any case, based on politics, they felt that had to bring the case to trial (which seems right to me).

whoa!
You actually believe people should be brought to trial for political reasons? The LAW should decide who goes on trial, not what the uninformed masses think. There is absolutely zero room for "politics" where a courtroom is concerned!

GMTom wrote:

In any case, based on politics, they felt that had to bring the case to trial (which seems right to me).

whoa!
You actually believe people should be brought to trial for political reasons? The LAW should decide who goes on trial, not what the uninformed masses think. There is absolutely zero room for "politics" where a courtroom is concerned!

Ray Jay wrote:The world is never that clear cut. I think politics may be a factor, but certainly not a major factor. The politics aren't in the courtroom. The politics are relevant when deciding whether to use the state's resources to bring charges. In this case it was the best way to resolve the determination of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion."

Zimmerman, a 29-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, is charged with gunning down Martin, 17, as the two fought following a confrontation in the gated Sanford, Fla., community where Zimmerman lives — an act the defendant said was in self-defense.

In the prosecution's final argument on Friday, lawyer John Guy said Zimmerman deliberately followed Martin and "shot him because he wanted to."

Dershowitz called Guy's statement "such speculation. How does he get into the mind of Zimmerman? He hasn't cross-examined him, he hasn't met him.

"To ask the jury to believe that is to ask the jury to convict based on complete and utter speculation and that's not the way the law operates."

The stand your ground laws are pro gun and pro property...

Ray Jay wrote:The world is never that clear cut. I think politics may be a factor, but certainly not a major factor. The politics aren't in the courtroom. The politics are relevant when deciding whether to use the state's resources to bring charges. In this case it was the best way to resolve the determination of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

Interestingly, B37 said that after an initial vote was divided (3-3), she though that “There was a couple of [jurors] in there that wanted to find him guilty of something…”

GMTom wrote:They could have selected men but CHOSE not to do so, it was a calculated gamble on who they thought they could convince. To claim it was not fair is simply crying because you didn't get your way.