My thoughts on the Zimmerman case
Jul. 16th, 2013 10:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lionkingcmslBefore I begin I want to make the following points clear:
A. I am not a bigot or racist. My parents taught their three children to judge people for who they are, not by the color of their skin.
B. I am not going to claim the verdict was right or wrong. I wasn't part of the jury and I have no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
C. I am not going to claim who was right and who was wrong. What happened happened and I do not have access to the facts to the case nor the background profiles of the people involved.
Those points being made clear on to my thoughts.
First Zimmerman was judged by six people who were selected by the defense and the prosecutor. I think people forget that the prosecutor has to approve of the jury. These six were selected because of their willingness to set aside their own prejudices and to render a fair and impartial verdict. The make up of the jury should have no bearing on the outcome. If it does then we have slipped into vigilantism.
One of the jurors has been interviewed and she stated that three of them wanted to convict Zimmerman, but a closer examination of the "Stand Your Ground" law revealed that they couldn't. It wasn't prejudice that decided the outcome, but the letter of the law; which should be applied equally to all accused.
The Zimmerman case is another example of how we slipped into a state of trial by public opinion. It does not matter what a court of law found, he has been found guilty in the court of public opinion.
In that regard I find it interesting that, with some people, when a case goes their way the judicial system is working beautifully, but when it goes against their wishes it is "broken". It is one or the other. You can't have it both ways.
Finally, you people who disagree with the Zimmerman case are really < sarcasm>helping< /sarcasm> your point of view by rioting and attacking people that had nothing to do with the case. If a white mob attacked a black person because of a court decision there would be calls of racial discrimination and investigations. However, it seems when blacks attack a non-black those same voices are quiet. Do I sense a double standard here?
Let me make one point very clear: Racism is racism. Whether white against black or black against white, it doesn't matter. If one race attacks or denies benefits to another race, because of skin color, that is racial discrimination. A black student can sue to get into an all white college and gain acceptance. Now if a white student tried to sue to gain acceptance into an all black college I do believe he would fail miserably.
If those voices want to end racial discrimination then they should raise their voices against all racial discrimination, and not pick and choose what causes they want to back.
I have other thoughts, but I'm sure I my comment section would end up a flame war.
Comments will be screened and moderated. Insightful discussion is welcomed; flames and trolls are not.
A. I am not a bigot or racist. My parents taught their three children to judge people for who they are, not by the color of their skin.
B. I am not going to claim the verdict was right or wrong. I wasn't part of the jury and I have no knowledge of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.
C. I am not going to claim who was right and who was wrong. What happened happened and I do not have access to the facts to the case nor the background profiles of the people involved.
Those points being made clear on to my thoughts.
First Zimmerman was judged by six people who were selected by the defense and the prosecutor. I think people forget that the prosecutor has to approve of the jury. These six were selected because of their willingness to set aside their own prejudices and to render a fair and impartial verdict. The make up of the jury should have no bearing on the outcome. If it does then we have slipped into vigilantism.
One of the jurors has been interviewed and she stated that three of them wanted to convict Zimmerman, but a closer examination of the "Stand Your Ground" law revealed that they couldn't. It wasn't prejudice that decided the outcome, but the letter of the law; which should be applied equally to all accused.
The Zimmerman case is another example of how we slipped into a state of trial by public opinion. It does not matter what a court of law found, he has been found guilty in the court of public opinion.
In that regard I find it interesting that, with some people, when a case goes their way the judicial system is working beautifully, but when it goes against their wishes it is "broken". It is one or the other. You can't have it both ways.
Finally, you people who disagree with the Zimmerman case are really < sarcasm>helping< /sarcasm> your point of view by rioting and attacking people that had nothing to do with the case. If a white mob attacked a black person because of a court decision there would be calls of racial discrimination and investigations. However, it seems when blacks attack a non-black those same voices are quiet. Do I sense a double standard here?
Let me make one point very clear: Racism is racism. Whether white against black or black against white, it doesn't matter. If one race attacks or denies benefits to another race, because of skin color, that is racial discrimination. A black student can sue to get into an all white college and gain acceptance. Now if a white student tried to sue to gain acceptance into an all black college I do believe he would fail miserably.
If those voices want to end racial discrimination then they should raise their voices against all racial discrimination, and not pick and choose what causes they want to back.
I have other thoughts, but I'm sure I my comment section would end up a flame war.
Comments will be screened and moderated. Insightful discussion is welcomed; flames and trolls are not.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-07-16 06:09 pm (UTC)So, does this mean that if us felines were to gang up on the canines, and/or pick on them for their lack of proper claws, that would be discrimination?
You make some very fine points sir. I wish more of our people would take a few minutes to think as you have. (just ‘cause I don’t have the badge anymore doesn’t mean I lost what put me in the uniform in the first place.)
Letter of the law
Date: 2013-07-16 11:17 pm (UTC)After the defense and prosecution rest their cases, you get the instructions from the judge. The letter of the law.
Quite a task to make everything meets the instructions. I found it interesting. And you never know what the jurors experienced going through all the points. They go over the evidence. We had boxes of stuff. Hundreds of items, everything tagged and labeled.
It wouldn't make a good news story. But it is precise. Very cut and dry.
I do believe the system works.