Comments

1
Oh hey look, Andrew Sullivan is soapboxing about something he doesn't understand. Stop the presses. This case had nothing to do with "stand your ground". It was simple self-defense.

Bazelon and Cohen nailed it. The trial did not exist to satisfy our moral outrage. It was a dispassionate analysis of available fact, of which there was little (which is an indictment of racial bias in policing, but it's too late to change the way they handled the immediate aftermath). There was simply no option but to acquit.

Ta-Nehisi Coates had a typically profound take as well: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv…
2
I really agree with Bazelon's perspective. I sat on a jury earlier this year in Portland that had a strong overreaching-of-police aspect to it. All six of us felt unbelievably trapped by the constraints of the charges and the horrible wording of the laws on the books. None of us wanted to punish the young man we saw in court, but over and over we were told that there was no room for us to interpret the law as we saw fit. The whole process made me sick.
So in some ways I sympathize with these jurors, even though in my gut it seems so straightforward, and so incredibly unjust.
3
Unjust, unconstitutional laws should not be respected.
4
@ jriley :

There is the Jury Veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_veto, for when you think a law or charge is unjust.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.