I just finished watching Dr. Phil. It was a show about Trayvon, the prosecutors and the jury. Started not to watch it because I don't trust Dr. Phil to NOT be "white." Glad I did.
I forgot that he was a jury consultant (that's how he met Oprah; during her trial where Texas ranchers sued for saying "don't eat beef" on her show). To my surprise, he said pretty much what people on this forum said about the lousy prosecutors. For one, that they were lousy (my word). He said that as he was watching, he kept waiting for them to point out that everything that happened, did so because of Zimmerman. The "but for Zimmerman getting out of his car, this would not have happened." "But for Z following him, this would not have happened." "But for Z carrying a loaded weapon when the Watch Rules say you are NOT carry a weapon, this would not have happened."
He quoted one of the jurors when she talked about the judge giving them 4 sets of law - self-defense, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, AND Stand your Ground. The juror said it was all so confusing! Dr. Phil said that was the prosecution's worst "mistake(?)." Had the prosecution done the "but for...", the jurors would never have been confused. The first juror to stand up and summarize the case would have had a "hook" to make her case for Zimmerman going to jail, because "but for" every action he took, Trayvon would be alive today. Zimmerman precipitated EVERY action that night and the prosecution put on a weak case that allowed for confusion.
are there still those who believe 'right and wrong' have anything to do with this?I saw this episode a couple of weeks ago. And even Dr. Phil realizes that it was wrong for Zimmerman to continuously following Trayvon Martin. It was an interesting episode to see, to say the least.
'might makes right'. this is about white power and privilege.
the prosecution did exactly what they were there to do. get an acquittal.