How would you know? Isn't that the issue with the case at hand?
And I do have some trouble believing that completely.
The point is you engage in subjective speculation with zero proof of any bigotry or bias. Get back to me when you have something
other than a projection of your subjective assumption.
Also if you make me defend and agree with Omni again I shall be peeved. I prefer defending you. Seriously, the automatic assumption the jury has to be aboriginal or have some
aboriginals to have been fair is simplistic. The issues a jury can and can not consider are screened by the trial Judge. You underestimate how a trial Judge controls what the jury
discusses and how they act as a failsafe to keep juries focused on the actual issues.
I can tell you the issue was not about race as much as leftists would like you to believe it was. They are playing the race card. The decision probably would have been no different had the person
been killed been white. Why? Because the Crown must show beyond reasonable doubt the homeowner had the criminal intent to kill someone. What you and others do not understand is
the fact that the homeowner may not have intended to kill someone with his gun does not mean he is innocent of other charges regarding use of a firearm.
I think what has happened is some people and I hope not you wanted a Frankenstein to burn. Humans lust blood. When they see blood they want more and want juries to act as surrogate
lynch mobs for them. Its not what juries do or are intended to do. They are to act in a manner removed from screaming with pitchforks and looking for a Frankenstein to burn on fire.