Quote:
Originally posted by Ties
See, this is the thing.
Zimmerman was directly responsible for the murder of a teenage male. The prosecution's fault was that they were gunning for a murder charge with little to no substantial evidence. The only evidence that was there were the witnesses, who were anything but helpful during the entirety of the case. When you look directly at the race of every jury member, it is a majority White jury who sees Zimmerman as kin. Now, they could have definitely went for a manslaughter charge, but they didn't. And that is what is infuriating the posters in this thread.
|
Ignoring the fact that you are implying that because the Jury was white they decided the verdict as not guilty, let me address a few points you made. First of all, the burden of proof is on the state whether it is 2nd degree or manslaughter. Secondly, in either case, the argument of self defense is the same: if zimmerman felt that his life was in imminent danger (whether or not you agree with him, and whether or not you think it was reasonable, and whether or not his injuries were grave, because none of that matters LEGALLY), then he was legally permitted to use the gun for the purpose that he did. Further to that, the state's case was more than full of reasonable doubt regardless of the charge they were going for (See my earlier post). I understand the emotional/layman reaction that he killed someone and therefore should face punishment. Unfortunately, the legal system does not work that way, and the law is much more nuanced and complicated than that. Further, his acquittal does not make him "innocent" or "right", it just means that he is legally not in the wrong. You can still say that shooting an "unarmed" teenager is "wrong", that is a separate matter. But legally, he is not guilty, and the jury followed the law correctly in this case (no matter the emotions).
