The trial of Zimmerman has revealed the very politicized and the compromised legal syatem at the state level. Politicized, because judges and prosecutors are elected ( anyone can run for these positions. You do not need a law degree or anything else) to office and therefore are wary of public opinion and do all they can not to be seen with disfavour; and this compromises the process and the application of the law.
Judges are careful when making rulings, not because of points of law but how it will play with the voting public and prosecutors are always careful when making decisions on whether to charge or no not charge someone and what charges will be brought forward. They will play to the camera and crowd ( the reluctance to bring charges by the Florida prosecutor in the first place and acting only when there was an outcry from the black community; the manner in which the investigation was carried out by the sheriff( another elected psoition) department, the failure to preserve the "crime" scene, the failure to question Zimmerman immediately etc.) . The motivations here was not the law but the politics. No one wanted to "make a mistake" in what was seen as a white/black case...err on the side of the majority voters. By the way Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian, as if that mattered.
Jury selection is another political matter. In this case the judge ruled that two white women, who had been excluded because of the prosecution challenges, were put on the jury because the judge ruled that their exclusion was racially motivated ( do you think that these two women would be sympathetic to the prosecution's position after this?). The jury was composed of six white women. What happened to " be judged by your peers"?
The case became a spectacle. A young black man was shot. The person who shot him was lold by the police not to pursue him any further. The pursuer muttered something about "them not getting away with it" and a struggle began and Martin was shot. What happened? Why the struggle? Who started it? And who fired the shot?
This is what the trial should have been about but from the outset it became a show between the judge on one side and the prosecution and defence on the other, with the usual "experts" and the media. And the issue of who shot Martin bercame secondary.
The verdict was not surpriising. It was always going to be difficult to prove" beyond a resonable doubt that it was 2nd degree murder. The prosecution should have gone with a lesse and more practical charge, but there was no glory in that. They "rolled the dice", to get the glory and to further their political career and blew it. The judge made the ruling on the two white jurors with an eye to future too. Only the defence did their job.
This is the consequence of sociological jurisprudence, where society, its make-up and its values trump evidence. ( It reminds me of so many cases where this factor was present and the outcome was the same . The "white" accused gets off but the "black" accused does not. One of the most glaring example happened in Detroit some years ago, when three white men were charged with beating an" Asian" man to death with a baseball bat (calling him a"Jap", by the way, he was Chinese out for a drink with some white friends) and were found not guilty because according to the judge they were drunk, they had lost their jobs in the auto industry, which they blamed on the Japanese carmakers and they thought that he was Japanese). In this case, after much media attention, especially 60 Minutes, the Federal government brought charges against the three for violating "the Civil Rights" of the deceased. They were tried in Federal court, (where judges are appointed and are thus less susceptible to political/ community pressure/ values ) and found guilty.
This is a case where the Justice Dept. needs to examine and bring charges of the "violation of civil rights" of Tryvan Martin.
Zimmerman had a problem. It was a young, black man in a hoodie. Florida's law gave him a license to kill and he did got away with it.
Judges are careful when making rulings, not because of points of law but how it will play with the voting public and prosecutors are always careful when making decisions on whether to charge or no not charge someone and what charges will be brought forward. They will play to the camera and crowd ( the reluctance to bring charges by the Florida prosecutor in the first place and acting only when there was an outcry from the black community; the manner in which the investigation was carried out by the sheriff( another elected psoition) department, the failure to preserve the "crime" scene, the failure to question Zimmerman immediately etc.) . The motivations here was not the law but the politics. No one wanted to "make a mistake" in what was seen as a white/black case...err on the side of the majority voters. By the way Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian, as if that mattered.
Jury selection is another political matter. In this case the judge ruled that two white women, who had been excluded because of the prosecution challenges, were put on the jury because the judge ruled that their exclusion was racially motivated ( do you think that these two women would be sympathetic to the prosecution's position after this?). The jury was composed of six white women. What happened to " be judged by your peers"?
The case became a spectacle. A young black man was shot. The person who shot him was lold by the police not to pursue him any further. The pursuer muttered something about "them not getting away with it" and a struggle began and Martin was shot. What happened? Why the struggle? Who started it? And who fired the shot?
This is what the trial should have been about but from the outset it became a show between the judge on one side and the prosecution and defence on the other, with the usual "experts" and the media. And the issue of who shot Martin bercame secondary.
The verdict was not surpriising. It was always going to be difficult to prove" beyond a resonable doubt that it was 2nd degree murder. The prosecution should have gone with a lesse and more practical charge, but there was no glory in that. They "rolled the dice", to get the glory and to further their political career and blew it. The judge made the ruling on the two white jurors with an eye to future too. Only the defence did their job.
This is the consequence of sociological jurisprudence, where society, its make-up and its values trump evidence. ( It reminds me of so many cases where this factor was present and the outcome was the same . The "white" accused gets off but the "black" accused does not. One of the most glaring example happened in Detroit some years ago, when three white men were charged with beating an" Asian" man to death with a baseball bat (calling him a"Jap", by the way, he was Chinese out for a drink with some white friends) and were found not guilty because according to the judge they were drunk, they had lost their jobs in the auto industry, which they blamed on the Japanese carmakers and they thought that he was Japanese). In this case, after much media attention, especially 60 Minutes, the Federal government brought charges against the three for violating "the Civil Rights" of the deceased. They were tried in Federal court, (where judges are appointed and are thus less susceptible to political/ community pressure/ values ) and found guilty.
This is a case where the Justice Dept. needs to examine and bring charges of the "violation of civil rights" of Tryvan Martin.
Zimmerman had a problem. It was a young, black man in a hoodie. Florida's law gave him a license to kill and he did got away with it.
