PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
I really don't think I'm ever calling for juries to game the system or deliberately defy their oaths. I know that is what you seem to be thinking I am demanding, but really, I am not.
However, I don't find it a problem when a case that might be on the edges of the interpretations of the law goes to trial and almost inevitably goes to appeal, and so on up the various levels of courts we have. I don't see it as part of the problem, I think it is part of what has allowed our system to last as long as it has and adapt. But to each their own.
So I don't see this as malicious prosecution, or a miscarriage or hijacking of the legal system that it even went to trial. I have no problem with this case going to trial because I do think we need to review the consequences of the newly defined version of self-defense and get clarity on just what ground is really yours to stand on and what is a reasonable person's fear of imminent death.
I have seen people seem to argue (mostly some of Zimmerman's ardent supporters that love to be on TV) that if Trayvon had survived the night he probably should be jailed for life or put to death. There is no acknowledgment that a teenager died for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and made a bad decision. Really, did he deserve death for what he did? Unfortunately we really will never know who did what to whom as we only have one side of the story, and no one really saw or heard all that well what happened that night. All that doubt scores points for the defense and I do agree with that. I think sometimes we don't doubt the evidence nearly enough.
At least with a trial it gets worked out and at least someone weighs what information we do have. I don't see how that is such a bad thing.
I really wouldn't be comfortable if every stand your ground or self defense claim was generally always assumed to be justified without some airing of both sides, or as much of the dead person's side as we can get. It isn't like the gun knows who is the good guy and who is the bad guy and the bullets make sure they only hit the bad guy.
Most of the law is not black and white and is often written, IMO, to be deliberately vague by legislatures that either are trying to protect some part of their donor population or punish people they don't like, or some other reason that has nothing to do with justice, fairness, or constitutionality. It seems they rarely have any concern about how anyone is supposed to take those vague words and put it into something that is constitutional, just, fair, or even have any passing resemblance to logic or reality or even manages to set up clear guidelines for how or when to enforce it.
I think it comes down to who you trust less. Currently, I have no trust in my state legislature and next to no trust in congress, although I do think our governor did earn a tiny bit of trust with a recent decision (I'll have to read what that was all about, it just came across the news wire), but I fear he did it not because it benefits the people or he doesn't want those rights restricted, but because it somehow made this state less appealing to national or multinational businesses and their stock holders, but you know, strange bedfellows and all that. As much as I dislike some of the contentiousness between the branches I think it is better than they all get together for too many Kumbaya moments of agreement.
The sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a grid-locked do nothing government is one that efficiently picks a direction that all parts of it agree on.
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -