do they immediately let their race, emotions, or agenda distort their conclusion? do they focus too much on emotion and "togetherness" and let that prevent them from thinking logically?
We all tend to do this. One could argue that you are doing this in this thread. You took the facts of the case and came to the conclusion that it must have been self defense. The jury felt the same way. There is nothing to prove it was self defense. So there has to be another side to the argument. Some looked at the case and the same way you came to your conclusion they came to the conclusion that T. Martin was murdered.
The funny part is you are accusing these people of playing the race card but you seem to be using it yourself. These people couldn't just be laying out another possible scenario, they just are obviously tied up in racial emotions or some type of agenda.