Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You have a serious misunderstanding of the way this whole thing works.
I didn't say that he wasn't guilty of murder 2. I didn't say that he shouldn't be found not guilty. That's the whole point. He may very well be. The problem is that the prosecution has the burden of proof, so if they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had malicious intent which seems to be their most difficult hurdle at the moment, then the jury MAY NOT find him guilty of murder 2. You see, there's a jury of peers that consider the merits of the case and where to allocate their consideration. They could find him guilty of murder 2 regardless. They could defer to a lesser charge of manslaughter, which is looking more and more likely.
|
i actually understand exactly how this works -- it's you that seems confused. malicious intent is a hurdle the prosecution isn't even going to reach because they're never getting past self defense. that is the same reason manslaughter won't and can't stick. you can't just fly past self defense and split the difference with manslaughter. either you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was not acting in self defense or you have no case
you've said you personally don't believe there is sufficient evidence for murder 2. there isn't. the same applies to manslaughter and for the same reason. so you can basically hope for a miscarriage of justice in order to put this guy in jail without evidentiary basis