On Jul 16, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marta: "With jurors like this ignoramus "
>
> [WS:] Why do you consider this person "ignoramus"? I think, but of course
> can't prove, that she acted on a well ingrained Southern stereotype of
> white men defending their honor and property, hence their "good
> intentions," and black men being good for nothing hoodlums.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Joanna. One of the jurors was interviewed by Anderson
>> Cooper. She said Zimmerman had "good" intentions. That in his heart he
>> was "good." With jurors like this ignoramus there is no justice possible
>> because she cannot even get the facts straight and her perception is flawed.
>> Marta
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2013, at 3:43 PM, JOANNA A. wrote:
>>
>>> I have not followed the case closely, but here's what I know
>>>
>>> 1. Martin was walking home with ice tea and skittles.
>>>
>>> 2. Z decided M was a punk who needed to be stopped and followed him
>> first with SUV, then on foot. This despite being explicitly told not to do
>> so.
>>>
>>> 3. There is a scuffle during which Z might have been over-powered, at
>> which point he shot M.
>>>
>>> So M had every reason to believe that he was followed and had no idea
>> why, since he had done nothing wrong.
>>> He had every reason to believe that Z was following with evil intent
>> (which he was).
>>> Z shot M because the gun was there, which removed the need to fight M
>> physically.
>>>
>>> So, basically, Z acted recklessly putting himself and another in danger
>> on the grounds of baseless suspicion. The result was the death of an
>> innocent man. The kindest verdict would have been manslaughter with some
>> serious jail time.
>>>
>>> Joanna
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Wojtek, citing Florida law about self-defense, notes:
>>>
>>>> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter
>>>> is
>>>> not available to a person who:
>>>>
>>>> (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
>>>> unless:
>>>
>>> So you have evidence that Z provoked the use of force against himself?
>>>
>>> The evidence presented in the case suggests otherwise ...
>>>
>>>> So it is clear to me that Martin had all reasons to feel
>>>> threatened when approached by armed Zimmerman ...
>>>
>>> Wait, M knew Z had a gun? Under what theory?
>>>
>>> Supported by whose testimony?
>>>
>>> Hint: actually this is specifically unsupported by testimony ...
>>>
>>> /jordan
>>>
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>