[WS:] This is actually what baffles me about this case. How could a reasonable person draw a conclusion that a person who originally stalked and challenged another person can become a victim. This were the quip about "shysters casting doubt obvious facts" came from (no offense intended, as indicated by the emoticon ;)).
To reiterate - the conclusion that Z was a victim because he was injured by M during a scuffle that Z started is based on a fundamentally false logic of the variety that X who killed his parents deserves leniency because he is an orphan. I understand that the defense tried to emphasize Z's injuries - which were probably real - to make their case. What I do not understand is why jurors did not see through this and instead went with this obvious fallacy. This is why we have jury trials, no? To make a common sense judgement about claims made by lawyers. In this particular case, the decision made by the jury is so at odds with the common sense, that it is truly baffling. That is it.
If you want my personal opinion based on what I read, I did not think there was sufficient evidence to prove murder, which as I understand requires an intent. There was nothing in what I read showing that Z had the intent to kill M. But manslaughter is a different story, and the fact that the judge instructed the jury to consider this charge is telling. The fact that this jury did not find any evidence supporting this lesser charge in light of the established fact that it was Z who pursued M and therefore initiated a series of events that directly led to M's death is mind boggling. You can be convicted of manslaughter for far less than that - exceeding the speed limit or not paying attention.
knownot: " And BTW, you here conflate local police "they" with state-wide/prosecutor "they". Also BTW, I have not suggested, because there are not relevant facts on the basis of which one reasonably can suggest"
[WS:] True - this is a broad generalization based on conjectures. However, I know of cases in which white people were arrested on charges that would almost certainly put most black people behind bars, but because the daddy was retired law enforcement (federal rather than county, but still law enforcement) the cases were each time dropped. And this is in the ueber-liberal Montgomery County, MD - so I can only imagine what is going on in less liberal ones. An then there was the infamous acquittal of two NY cops who allegedly raped a woman. So please do no tell me that y conjecture about law enforcement folks closing their ranks to protect their own is unfounded.
In any case, I do not mean to insult the legal profession or law enforcement by any means - but I find the outcome of this case mind boggling.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."