another media circus

another local trial broadcast live that will be a ratings storm for the news media and their advertisers for as long as it lasts... just as with every prior news media circus, this is another sad example of how immature and mentally ill the majority of the human race is at this time in social and evolutionary development... it is a sign of how pathetically empty human lives are at times how emotionally involved people get in reality tv drama, or in tv in general... here's my take on the opening arguments...

watching some of the opening arguments, the prosecution was concise, professional, and well organized... the initial evidence that the kid did not touch the killer shoots holes through the killer's claim that he was assaulted by the kid, which negates the self-defense claim... the fact that the killer outweighed the kid by almost 50 pounds, had some mixed martial arts training, and chased the kid with a loaded gun makes the killer's claim of being attacked and overpowered by an unarmed kid not logical... the killer admitted following the kid and the audio sounds like he was running... but the forensic evidence that the kid did not put his hands on the killer will be tough for the defense to refute...

the defense was trying to play on emotion, very - even shockingly disorganized, even fumbling, and somewhat confused... at the start he had to be redirected by the judge to not personalize when he tried to talk about his own family and was reminded he was to stick to the evidence and the case on trial... he meandered through minutia and appeared to be trying to distract and confuse the jury with disconnected details that made little sense out of context in an opening argument, which may be the only defense he can muster, discrediting the evidence, coming testimony by witnesses, and plant reasonable doubt thought fumbling presentation since the unfettered details seem to look very bad for the defendant... the long and winding opening used a lot of conjecture about what the kid's motives were without facts or evidence... the lawyer did a lot of interpretation of the phone calls before letting the jury listen for themselves... the lawyer also did a fair job of rasing possible doubt about the accuracy of witnesses and then attempted to claim that the one witness that partially supported the killer was the only one that overcame all the obstacles (darkness, rain, etc) that made the other witnesses unreliable... and the claim that the kid was pounding on the killer seems incredulous when forensic evidence proves he did not touch the killer... this sort of presentation does plays on emotions, not intellect, and works well with emotional juries... intellectuals would grow bored and even feel annoyed as the bumbling emotional attempts at manipulation and confusion is too obvious... the killer is human and did not intend to kill the kid, it could have been you making the same mistake...

and while i may tune in again to see just how courtroom procedure flows these days in what we call the real world (as opposed to law and order or any other courtroom story, for now that's enough for me...