Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If he's found guilty, it'll be because there's either some magical evidence to this case that has managed to be kept hidden from the public entirely (yes, I'm allowing for this possibility, no matter how slim it appears)
You mean like the autopsy which, you, yourself mentioned is at yet unreleased?
Sure. I fully accept that if such information exists and hasn't yet been leaked, it's quite possible that the evidence against him is much stronger that we've seen so far.
Quote:
I'll reiterate in case someone missed it:
per the autopsy:
Where was the entry wound? At what distance was the gun discharged from the victim?
Absolutely valid questions. Do you honestly believe that if the gunshot was in Martin's back and from a distance that this would not have been leaked by now? I mean, someone got a hold of security footage from the police headquarters and released that. In a case like this, where emotions run high, evidence in support of the emotional position pretty much *always* leaks. Evidence that opposes the emotional position either never does, or gets little air time.
Not like this is a conspiracy or anything, it's just human nature. You get a lot more viewers telling them stuff they want to hear than stuff that tells them they're wrong. Similarly, those with strong emotions have a willingness to find and release any information that supports their side. You honestly haven't noticed this?
Quote:
ALSO: I'm unclear if you think this is a good law, gbaji. Can you clarify?
I believe I've already written at length (twice I think) about various parts of the applicable statute and why it's good law. In this case, where many people have already formed strong opinions and assumptions, they don't like the law because it doesn't allow for what they want. But if you step back and look at broader sets of cases, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Quote:
ALSO: ALSO: Don't just handwave away the possibility of a corrupt/racist law enforcement system in this case. Unless you are a complete fool, that is.
There's a whole huge range between handwaving that away and assuming it must be true. Do you honestly believe that had Martin been a white kid, dressed exactly the same, doing exactly the same things, on the same night, taking the same actions, and ending with the same result (face down with a bullet hole in him), that the police would have done anything differently? If so, why? Other than a fairly circular assumption that police are racist, is there a reason to think this?
I'm quite certain that if police arrived on a scene with a dead white teen, shooter saying he was assaulted, with physical evidence to support that claim (bloody nose, wound on the back of his head, grass on his back), and three witnesses who all corroborate the same story, that they would have ruled this self defense as well. Do you honestly think otherwise? Again: Why?