@no1marauder saidPer your article...
I already did on this very page. It was a Yahoo article.
It's you who hasn't provided any supporting links.
"According to CBS News, all eligible African American jurors were dismissed by prosecutors after a full day of vetting. Much of the questioning centered on Anthony's age, race, and whether jurors would hold it against him if he decided not to testify. The outlet noted that one prospective candidate, who was identified as Black, reportedly said they'd "have a hard time putting a brother in jail." Meanwhile, another allegedly stated, "Silence is deafening — it matters. It's difficult to ignore."
where does it say this person was an educator?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidTwo paragraphs later it says the other Black jurors were excluded because ADA Mitchell said they didn't want "educators".
Per your article...
"According to CBS News, all eligible African American jurors were dismissed by prosecutors after a full day of vetting. Much of the questioning centered on Anthony's age, race, and whether jurors would hold it against him if he decided not to testify. The outlet noted that one prospective candidate, who was identified as Black, reportedly said t ...[text shortened]... ng — it matters. It's difficult to ignore."
where does it say this person was an educator?
@no1marauder saidI got this one, Mott.
LMAO!
I'm sitting at a bus stop waiting for the #1 line. A group of football players come up and tell me I should leave. I refuse. One of them, 50 lbs heavier than I am, shoves me.
I'm the "instigator"?
Marauder Crockett poster assumes that the victim was lawfully occupying a public space. That would be Anthony. This is the point of the dispute. If Anthony walked into another team's restricted tent being told several times to leave and refuses, a confrontation has occurred. We can stipulate that Anthony becomes part of the chain of events. So the question is not whether Austin deserved what happened as he did not. The question is whether the bus stop analogy accurately reflects the facts and it certainly does not.
A perfectly legal right to sit at a city bus stop.
NO right to enter a private space.
Some people really suck at analogies. Crockett good get tutelage from Sueann.
I used to grade papers on this stuff. Give it up crockett
1 edit
@sh76 saidWhatever the creative justifications the Goetz jury used to disregard such a critical piece of evidence were, the fact remains that both Defendants were approached in a threatening manner by a group of seemingly aggressive folks that they could have reasonably concluded meant to do them harm.
"Approached him and asked for money" hardly does the scenario justice.
Four people walked up to where Goetz was sitting, formed a semi-circle around him so that he had no way to run, and then one said "Give me Five Dollars"
It was perfectly reasonable got him to assume he was about to get robbed and/or beaten. That was hardly even controversial.
If he, in fact, went up ...[text shortened]... co-author, his partner, was my English teacher in 11th grade, though that's neither here nor there.)
@AverageJoe1 saidActually anyone could enter that tent as far as I know it was certainly not restricted to team members since Metcalf and his pals were not on the track team. And even if we assume Anthony shouldn't have been there, Metcalf had no authority to tell him to leave and certainly none to shove anybody.
I got this one, Mott.
Marauder Crockett poster assumes that the victim was lawfully occupying a public space. That would be Anthony. This is the point of the dispute. If Anthony walked into another team's restricted tent being told several times to leave and refuses, a confrontation has occurred. We can stipulate that Anthony becomes part of the chain of events. So ...[text shortened]... rockett good get tutelage from Sueann.
I used to grade papers on this stuff. Give it up crockett
So Metcalf was the "instigator" regardless of whether that legally justified Anthony's level of force in response.
@no1marauder saidYou lost me with “as far as you know” because you don’t know quite about this.
Actually anyone could enter that tent as far as I know it was certainly not restricted to team members since Metcalf and his pals were not on the track team. And even if we assume Anthony shouldn't have been there, Metcalf had no authority to tell him to leave and certainly none to shove anybody.
So Metcalf was the "instigator" regardless of whether that legally justified Anthony's level of force in response.
Oh, and your analogy, you should have rounded it out by saying that you were sitting at the bus stop minding your own business. In the case of hand, Anthony is not minding his own business. Geez
@AverageJoe1 saidYes he was according to the trial testimony described in the link I already gave you.
You lost me with “as far as you know” because you don’t know quite about this.
Oh, and your analogy, you should have rounded it out by saying that you were sitting at the bus stop minding your own business. In the case of hand, Anthony is not minding his own business. Geez
I know you didn't read it, but maybe you should.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou don't see a distinction between one case, in which someone is about to get robbed on a train, and another, where someone is being thrown out of a place reserved for a team of which he wasn't a member?
Whatever the creative justifications the Goetz jury used to disregard such a critical piece of evidence were, the fact remains that both Defendants were approached in a threatening manner by a group of seemingly aggressive folks that they could have reasonably concluded meant to do them harm.
If Anthony would have simply walked away, there is no reason to believe Metcalf would have followed him. On the contrary, Metcalf's goal was simply to make Anthony leave a place where (in Metcalf's mind) Anthony didn't belong (not being part of the team).
Goetz, on the other hand, had nowhere to go. He either had to blast away or get robbed. And given that he had the gun, it's highly likely they would have beaten or killed him when they saw it in the course of the pending robbery.
In any case, self-defense cases are always highly fact-specific, and comparing one to another is always a difficult business.
1 edit
@sh76 saidMost of this post is factually incorrect and the bottom line is that if Metcalf and his group had simply left Anthony alone the whole incident wouldn't have happened and they had no legal authority not to leave him alone. And unlike Goetz, it seems highly unlikely Anthony meant to kill. 35 years seems an excessive sentence here.
You don't see a distinction between one case, in which someone is about to get robbed on a train, and another, where someone is being thrown out of a place reserved for a team of which he wasn't a member?
If Anthony would have simply walked away, there is no reason to believe Metcalf would have followed him. On the contrary, Metcalf's goal was simply to make Anthony leave a p ...[text shortened]... cases are always highly fact-specific, and comparing one to another is always a difficult business.
I agree with the last paragraph of course.
4 edits
@no1marauder saidYou dumb worthless pos of clown. Of course it’s private it’s like their locker room like in football. I actually ran track and played sports unlike you. Anthony left/skipped school he wasn’t allowed to run from getting in fights and causing trouble a punk. He plunged a five inch blade so hard in his chest that it went all the way through the heart and into bone. As far as rain it was barely sprinkling it was before any down pours. I live here. Not on the team that is the other way around.
Actually anyone could enter that tent as far as I know it was certainly not restricted to team members since Metcalf and his pals were not on the track team. And even if we assume Anthony shouldn't have been there, Metcalf had no authority to tell him to leave and certainly none to shove anybody.
So Metcalf was the "instigator" regardless of whether that legally justified Anthony's level of force in response.
@no1marauder saidMy my, , marauder Crockett has veered off into Neverland. Did he respond yet to his great analogy about the bus stop?
Yes he was according to the trial testimony described in the link I already gave you.
I know you didn't read it, but maybe you should.
He won’t because he does not want me to grade him. So I guess I will just give myself an A+..
@mike69 saidYes but you're a well known liar. It was a tent over some bleachers and people were mingling there. Anthony graduated with a 3.7 GPA; some "troublemaker".
You dumb worthless pos of clown. Of course it’s private it’s like their locker room like in football. I actually ran track and played sports unlike you. Anthony left/skipped school he wasn’t allowed to run from getting in fights and causing trouble a punk. He plunged a five inch blade so hard in his chest that it went all the way through the heart and into bone. As far as rain it was barely sprinkling it was before any down pours. I live here.
Note how marauder Crockett wants us all to set aside our daily plans and dig into the testimony at the trial. Whew.
Don’t you think we know enough?
And funny that he seems to imply that if we read that, we would see that all of the testimony is in favor of letting Anthony be found not guilty. Makes me want to throw up.
@AverageJoe1 saidI already did.
My my, , marauder Crockett has veered off into Neverland. Did he respond yet to his great analogy about the bus stop?
He won’t because he does not want me to grade him. So I guess I will just give myself an A+..
@no1marauder saidGive it up, Marauder Crockett.
Yes but you're a well known liar. It was a tent over some bleachers and people were mingling there. Anthony graduated with a 3.7 GPA; some "troublemaker".