On 2013-07-16, at 12:29 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> 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.
The stereotype betrays ignorance, no?
B37 consumes no media beyond the Today show—no radio, no Internet news, and no newspapers used for anything but lining her parrot's cage. Perhaps because she does not consume any media, she was under the false belief that there were “riots” after the Martin shooting. She also described the Martin killing as "an unfortunate incident that happened."
I suspect most jurors are not as proudly ill-informed as juror B37, though Mark Twain clearly thought it the norm: “In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence and probity, swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than in theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty and equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal?”
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>>
>>>