Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PlanetaryOrbit

PlanetaryOrbit's Journal
PlanetaryOrbit's Journal
October 7, 2014

Help me understand something about the Trayvon Martin case.

Since things have settled down, I wanted to revisit an old issue:


I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me the Trayvon Martin case - which I find a very confusing case - was essentially, "Blame the law, don't blame the jury," am I right? That is to say, under the parameters of the law, the jury didn't really have much choice but to acquit Zimmerman?


If so, then why did many people get angry at the jury instead of the law? Would convicting Zimmerman have actually been the right choice, under the parameters of the situation? Seems to me the jury had little choice but to acquit.


It's immensely confusing.


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 28, 2013, 11:04 PM
Number of posts: 155
Latest Discussions»PlanetaryOrbit's Journal