Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitVelvetSmooth
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I went back and actually read the 2nd point, and its even more mind-bendingly ridiculous than the first! Didn't think it was possible! The words of the guy standing over the unarmed dead body are usually true, if there's anything I've learned from watching police procedurals. That's probably how it went down, sure.
|
what is it about the criminal system that you're struggling with? the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
zimmerman's story is the only eye-witness testimony anyone has, and it's largely corroborated by the evidence. does that make it true? no -- it doesn't have to be. it has to instill a reasonable doubt. so when you make a contrary claim based on absolutely no evidence, there is reasonable doubt as to whether your fabricated narrative is exactly what happened. you don't convict a man of murder based on that.
the burden wasn't on zimmerman. you don't have to believe him. you have to prove that his story is not what happened, beyond any reasonable doubt. that's impossible, given the evidence
it's really not that hard to comprehend