Quote:
Originally posted by BLaCKPoWeR
The defense never has to prove anything; they just have to shoot down the prosecution's proof. We don't need to know for a fact that the defendant is innocent; we just have to have a reasonable doubt/uncertainty about his guilt, but you know that. 
It's really ****ed up.  |
I know that
It still pisses me off.
Like, to me, him being on top when he was shot doesn't prove that Trayvon was attacking him, but even if it does Zimmerman was the one who aggressively approached him when he was repeatedly told not to. Does Trayvon not have the right to defend himself against a man who weighed twice as much as him, following him in the middle of the night, who was actually armed? Like WTF does that prove? And the fact that they're allowing them to bring the fact that he smoked weed up in the trial... WTF does that have to do with anything. It's like they're painting him to be this vile creature to make Zimmerman look better. That ****'s irrelevant. Just because a person smokes weed doesn't mean they're a bad person and would attack George Zimmerman's punk ass. It's pissing me off. AND They were wrestling on the ground. Zimmerman could've sustained his injuries from the ground itself.
