I wasn’t going to weigh in on this, but…
There’s already more than enough people reporting on the Zimmerman verdict, but when I was reading about the outspoken Juror B37’s interview with Anderson Cooper, this section in particular caught my eye:
These two statements directly contradict one another. Going overboard, by definition, means doing far more than necessary. You can’t go beyond necessity and still be “justified.” A justified response is one that is proportional to its stimulus. If you’re below or beyond that equilibrium, you fall outside of that quality.
So, Juror B37, which is it? Was Zimmerman overboard, or justified? You can’t have it both ways.
Obligatory Legal Crap
I have about as little to do with this case as anyone possibly can. I’m not affiliated with the family of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman, the juror, or Anderson Cooper or his show. This was just gnawing at the back of my mind.
Posted on July 22, 2013, in Analysis, News and tagged Anderson Cooper, George Zimmerman, Juror B37, Trevyon Martin. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.
This case is just awful all around, no matter which side you partake and whatnot. And then you have this person (that I’m tempted to refer to as a c-word ending in “-unt”) who’s keen on cashing in on this tragedy while at the same time teabagging on the grave of this dead kid. I think Zimmerman should have been tried for manslaughter, I felt Florida prosecutors failed to make their case for Murder 2 and were overconfident, and they failed the Martin Family, the very family that worked their asses off to make and keep their tragedy relevant. Because even though this happened in February of 2012, I have yet to see any media coverage until after the Martin Family made their Change.org petition in April.
And there is my stance on this case. But I am confident that we can all agree that B37 is just an awful human being, trying to cash in 15 minutes on a dead kid.