It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

YankeeFan, you are Concerned.

 

I still believe the initial bungling of the case and the non-collection of evidence is going to mean acquittal. I don't think any judge is going to want to be the one to be seen as halting the wheels of justice, though.

 

You're right. We'll never be able to advance as a people when people make broad statements without facts.

Oh, wait.

 

Have I disputed this?

I've only said that the goal should be fair, impartial, and color blind justice system.

Just going by the numbers, it would seem that is not the everyone's goal.

Why aren't more people working towards that goal?

Zimmerman may very well be guilty of 2nd degree murder. I hope the criminal justice system plays out in a way that will successfully determine that.

But, you can't help but look at numbers like those in the Washington Post poll and think that some innocent white person will be convicted, or some guilty African-American will be exonerated in the name of "justice".

But, that wouldn't be justice. It would be the opposite, a perversion of justice. But, it seems that will be enough for some -- better even.

 

Why shouldn't I be?

When people look at our justice system like a hockey game, where we expect the ref to blow the whistle on each side, and keep the penalties somewhat in line, that's a concern.

We should demand the best from our criminal justice system. And, by and large, I do think it works.

But, the question was asked about repairing "race relations". Well, if convicting an innocent white person, or acquitting a guilty African-American is what is necessary to repair those relations, well, then I'm not sure the fix is any better than the "problem".

The outcome isn't what's important. Justice is. We should work to get it right, not to make sure the numbers match up.

 

+1. The professor nails it.

 

Usually, charging 2nd degree murder includes a lesser included charge of voluntary manslaughter but the prosecution and/or defense sometimes takes that out as a possible compromise for the jurors and make it take it or leave it murder charge. We'll find out.

If I'm a judge, I don't think I would let anyone argue about no initial charge or delay in charging. The point of a trial is to ascertain the facts and apply them to the applicable law. Whether he's charged now or 10 years from now is not supposed to be a consideration, because really does that show what happened? No. That's why speculation/passionate arguments are not supposed to be considered and why there are so many things that are excluded from a juror's consideration.

Do you really want someone's life to be determined in part on the basis of what a police chief in his office THOUGHT happened? No, that's supposed to be decided by the trier of fact, the jury or judge.

 

You know it was OJ's son right?

 

Will they execute Zimmerman tomorrow or will the protestors demand he be tortured first?