But, you did say:
Steve James wrote: "Anyway, if you want to look at the case based on the "ethnicities" of the jurors, then I have to agree that if it were a Black civilian who walked into a White female police officer's apartment and shot her, people would expect some penalty."
That's right, "IF" I looked at the case the way you did, I would agree that "if it were a Black civilian...". However, your assertion was prejudiced. I.e., if you had been a jury, your mind was made up. However, the protesters were also prejudiced. The difference is that neither they nor you were in the jury or heard all the evidence that the jurors did. None of my comments before you mentioned "minorities" were about how a reasonable person might judge the situation, and how there could be differences.
Steve James wrote:
Moreover, I didn't believe that you could predict the verdict (guilty or not) based on the jury makeup.
Both prosecution and defense consider court location and makeup (e.g., social environment, economic, education, race, etc) in the jury selection process.
Like I said I don't believe that "you" could predict the verdict based on the jury makeup. I know that trials are often moved because the defense feels that the environment is prejudicial. The Rodney King trial was moved, and there were protests because of it and after the verdict. But, you're right, the defense and prosecution look for people who are not prejudiced. Yeah, they always take other things into consideration, but one side will lose either way. Iow, they don't know any more than you do how a jury will find.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."