I don't think its an opinion but a fact. Crockett lied that the jury was all white (fact). She implied the jury was biased because no blacks were on the jury (fact). Simply mentioning these facts is not bias.
The black jurorers were not disqualified from being jurorers. They all went through the process to qualify and those who were disqualified did not meet the qualification. Nor did many other people including whites and minorities.
By implying that the blacks were disqualified due to racism is unsubstanciated and therefore stirring up trouble. People make unsubstanciated claims as though truth. This is what stirs up trouble.
I just trust the system until its proved that something is wrong. Its worked for decades and 1,000s of times before regardless of race. White men have been convicted of murder under the same circumstances and are doing more time than Anthony.
I don't know. But I bet some think its because they hate blacks. Thats the stock standard race focused answer. Which stokes the fires and now we see more violence as a result.
This is a good example of how words and narratives lead to division and hatred on the streets.
We would expect the majority of jurorers be white considering they represent the majority of the population. Not that this is the criteria based on skin color or ethnic background.
The premise for grievances about the jury mix and black representation is based on the unsubstanciated belief that this is because of racism. As I mentioned earlier the ideology makes all differences and every inequality due to race and descrimination.
It assumes racism and descrimination before and without any evidence. It turns other reasons into racial reasons. The entire worldview lens is about victim and oppressed and perpetrator and oppressor. Theres no room for any other reasons.
This is what I mean by fixating on everything being about race and differences as the measure for what is good and truth. The idea of making everything the exact representation of every single difference people have so its fair and equal, regardless of all else. I think this is what is creating descrimination by hyper focusing on the differences.
The ironic thing is even if we do go along with this DEI thinking the jury should have mostley been whites because thats exactly the right % reflected in society. Yet still people complain its not good enough. We need to force it so that we have skin color over everything else. To me that is racism plain and simple.
It was inaccurate and a lie that Crockett used the example of a 300lb person threatening a smaller man. To build a case for self defense that caused Anthony to fear for his life that he had to pull out a knife and stab the big man in th heart.
Metcalf was average size, he did not have a weapon nor make life threatening attempts to Anthony. The jury was presented with the facts and they concluded it met the criteria for murder.
It was inaccurate to bring in George Floyd as an example of this case as no police officer was involved and there was no struggle where Metcalf was on top of Anthony using life threatening physicality. This was between two male students at an athletic meet.
Totally uncalled for and irrelevant. Designed to tap into the same hatred and anger for Floyd and that is exactly what we are seeing.
In fact here are those words coming out of her own mouth.
But notice how she exaggerates the example by saying not only was this a threatening massive bully but that they were on top of her. To push home the false defense that Metcalf was the agressor and he posed a life threatening threat. She is creaating a false narrative.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett is facing backlash after defending Karmelo Anthony for killing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet: “If a 300-pound man is beating me, like on top of me and...
www.facebook.com
Maybe like a pocket knife that has a couple of other uses. But still a knife that went through his bone and into his heart. Its still the use of a deadly weapon when it does that.
I think I have shown its more than an opinion. I mean you could argue why saying those things is ok. I know that in todays postmodern society morals and the truth are relative. But I think for most of our history we sort of know justice and what is fair and good. We have lost this in recent times and its all become a mess and fighting over what is real and truth.
The proof is in the pudding in that we now see it on the streets. We are literally killing each other for being different. For holding different opinions.
As I said the proof is in the pudding. In the fall out from what has been said. We are now seeing death threats and actual harm and violence on the streets and escalating the culture war.
I know and its not the only example. Why have we come to this point that we want to kill others over social matter ? I think its because we lost God. We need Jesus back in the forefront of our hearts and minds to unite us. Its the only way. He sacrificed Himself for this very reason.
One actually said they could not convict a brother. At least some of the others were excluded because they were teachers. But that also applied to all teachers. I would imagine they had a reason. perhaps because it involved students and within the schooling system. The point is it was not based on race.
One eligible Black juror said they’d “have a hard time putting a brother in jail” during prosecutors’ round of vetting. Learn more here.
www.revolt.tv
I reckon we could go through all court convictions for murder and find examples where the jury consisted of all sorts of combinations. Including large % of minorities and blacks in white cases. But no one complains then. They trust the system for the most part. Anthony's case is no different to 1,000's of others where no one is complaining or citing racism.
Ok then why are you making objections to the jury mix. Why this case and not 1,000s of others which are the same.
How ?. According to the eye witnesses and the evidence presented the jury determined Metcalf did not pose a physical threat to justify leathal force to kill Metcalf. Simple as that. They reached the verdict pretty quick (3 hours) as it was pretty clear. This kind of murder happens time and time again (too much) and the same verdict is given.
People are playing th race card as has been happening in recent years and its now spilling into the streets and leading to more murders.
Two wrongs don't make a right. That is wrong as well. !0 years for a murder and home invasion seems light. I hate the court system with all these compromises and plea deals. It blurs the line between right and wrong.
Yes the false claim that all the students surrounded Anthony has also been pushed to build a case of self defense. The eye witnesses and evidence presented in court does not support these false narratives.
Imagine if an officer or official asked someone to leave because they were causing trouble. They persisted to stay and cause trouble. They were not suppose to be in the area but refused to leave. Then the person has to be physically removed. So they stab and kill the person trying to remove the trouble maker. Is that justified or self defense.
This sort of reminds me of the same ideas being displayed out on the streets where any authority is attacked with violence. Where the actual perpetrator is made out to be the victim and the victims made out to be the perpetrator.
I don't think so. If we take away the false narratives and just look at the facts I think its pretty straight forward. If we started to say that the mere presense of someone without a weapon, following normal protocols for dealing with trouble makers. Which can end with having to physically remove them. Then It seems clear Metcalf was not an immenent threat to Anthony's life.
That anyone who is asked to leave or has to be physically removed because they are causing disruption can literally kill someone because its self defense. That would be a blood shed.
Surveys show that many young people/students believe violence and even killing someone who is percieved as hateful and a threat because of their beliefs is justified.
More than half of Australian high school students believe “sometimes people deserve to be hit”, according to a national Pat Cronin Foundation study.
patcroninfoundation.org.au
Ninety one percent of undergraduate students believe that words can be violence, according to a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and College Pulse.
www.fire.org
The findings, from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), show a broad decline in tolerance for opposing views, with 71% of students saying it's acceptable to shout down speakers
www.roic.ai