Martin and Zimmerman - A reasoned logical discussion

[Tiberius]

I disagree with the stand your ground law.

So do I. I don't see how that changes my point at all. Even without a stand your ground law, you have a right to defend yourself. All the stand your ground law did in this case was delay him being arrested.

not for those people confronting the suspicious person, that's for the police.

He was a member of the neighbourhood watch, that's what they do.

I disagree with said law.

Then you disagree with a right to self-defense? If someone attacks you and you have a gun, you'd just take the beating? Even if it was life threatening or you were scared?

You don't understand how jury system works.

Trial by a fair jury is the last resort of an incompetent lawyer. Any lawyer worth half his pay would never have allowed the issue to come to a trial, or failing that, would have nullified the trial by stacking the jury with people either by temperment known to be, or have been conditioned by purposed pre-trail publicity to be, likely to vote in his favor. Lawyers are not made renowned by uncovering the truth of guilt or innocence. They are made renowed by whether they convicted or gained acquital.

Clearly I don't understand, because I was under the impression that lawyers have nothing to do with jury selection...I thought that was the job of the presiding judge? I could be wrong, but that is what happens over here in the UK. What is the point of a jury system if lawyers for either side can affect their presumed impartiality?

---

Note, I'm not saying he's not guilty. I'm saying that (a) none of us were there, so none of us know exactly what went down that night, and (b) none of us have access to the actual evidence that is being compiled for the trial. Given these two truths, the only logical conclusion we must reach is that we cannot know. We can guess, we can judge based on the little facts out there, but we cannot conclusively state "he's guilty".