Stand Your Ground ... Again

First, I never trust what the press says about a case; they usually get something wrong, often something significant.That having been said, if what the report says is accurate, it appears that the jury believed that the guy was the aggressor in the incident. In that case, he is not entitled to assert any kind of self-defense unless he withdraws and is then pursued.

No, it isn't. In fact, the first thing it makes me think is that he was planning ahead and went over there with the idea in mind of trying to manufacture a self-defense claim.

He was the aggressor. He went over there, gun in hand, to start trouble, not defend himself. He had a camera in his hand, obviously with the idea in mind that he could manufacture a self-defense claim. He pulled the gun and the other people in the video put their hands up and backed away. At the moment he pulled the gun, nobody had made any threatening moves to him and nobody else had pulled a weapon.

You're ignoring the fact that he was the aggressor. He went there looking for trouble, camera in hand. If you go at someone gun in hand and they act in self-defense, you cannot claim self-defense unless you withdraw from the situation. He didn't.

And still ignoring the fact that he was the initial aggressor.So they weren't the Kennedys. So what? So they were loud and obnoxious. So what? So they were thuggish. So what? They were not attacking him. He was the aggressor. He is not entitled to a self-defense claim.Yes, he stood his ground when three men went at him in the street. Those three men went at him in the street because he was not just brandishing a weapon but pointing it at them. They were entitled to claim self-defense against him.

When he pulled his gun before anyone had said or done anything threatening. Have you seen the video? If not, you need to watch it, or you don't know what you are talking about. No. I'd let the police handle it. Seriously, if I genuinely think my life would be in danger if I confronted someone over loud music, I'd be an idiot to go do that. My life is worth considerably more to me, as is the life of any other random human being, including one who is loud, obnoxious, thuggish and playing music too loud. And anyone who doesn't see that the same way is an idiot.

Two things to consider.One, that video was likely not the only evidence against him. I'd bet there was also testimony from eye witnesses who fleshed out the incident considerably.Two, on appeal, all the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict. Any reasonable inferences from the evidence that support the verdict will be accepted and any inferences counter to the verdict will be disregarded. All eyewitness testimony supporting the verdict is accepted as accurate and contrary testimony will be disregarded. If there is evidence or reasonable inferences arising from the evidence sufficient to support the verdict then it will be upheld.It is extraordinarily for a guilty verdict to be overturned on appeal based on insufficiency of the evidence.

Any actual evidence to support this claim?

Sure, include the Jim Crow years.The claim is that juries rarely take the law into consideration in rendering verdicts. Now, I'm not saying juries are never racially prejudiced. I'm not saying the system as a whole isn't biased against minorities. But even considering those things, juries still largely base their decisions on the facts as they find them and the law as it is given to them.Could the system be improved? Absolutely. But that's not nearly the same as saying juries rarely take the law into consideration.