5 years on from the Trayvon Martin shooting, Shaun closely reviews the evidence and the common biases involved. Interestingly, Shaun’s view is that the not guilty verdict was appropriate, since it was not possible to prove a charge of murder in the 2nd degree based on the evidence available. Shaun’s view is that a charge of manslaughter would probably have resulted in a conviction.
Who is this shaun?
He really just says one statement, that, according to the law, is ‘well, they fucked up, the lawyers should have done this to actually get a conviction’ and that’s not disagreeable… they went for broke and got nothing.. they might have got something (some sort of ‘justice’ for the family) had they not tried to reach so high
the rest of the video is about the inconsistencies in the one story we have left of the incident.
I find it interesting that he makes assumptions on ‘what one would do’ when he is English and lives in a society that is not a weapon carrying, defend indoctrinating upbringing.
What he says makes sense to us, in our environment (English and Aust) but I disagree with some of his statements about what a ‘reasonable’ person would do… he means reasonable when you are raised with gun protection not being ‘norm’.
I mean, I agree, with him – but not in a historical geographic viewpoint.
why is no one else interested in this?
Arts said:
why is no one else interested in this?
It’s on my list of things to be interested in when I run out of other things to be interested in.
It currently sits at number 7,127.