Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231
My points are clear and consistent. In hindsight, Trayvon should have never physically gotten involved with Zim. Like I said before, being followed, harrassed, by an armed creepy dude...Trayvon made a quick decision...he didnt know if he was being robbed, abducted, etc. Trayvon is not an adult and he made a decision that cost him his life...true. Death should be norm for his actions? No. And for the law to side with Zim and say this is justified with no penalty. Well we need to rethink alot of things and there should be protests.
|
Ignoring for the moment your generic and consistent assumptons and mischaracterizations of the facts and evidence ... You honestly believe a "not guilty" verdict means the law "side[d] with Zimm"? Would mean Zimm's actions were "justified"? Where do you get that sh**? A not guilty finding says
neither and you should damn well get that straight.
All a not guilty finding says is - "The State can't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt Zimm is guilty of the crime that the State has alleged he committed." Nothing, absolutely nothing, more than that. The same standard would apply to Martin if the roles were reversed. I hope to God it will always be applicable to those accused of crimes.
A finding that the facts don't meet lawfully required burden of proof is a damn far sight removed from an affirmatively "siding" with Zimm or affirmatively saying he was "justified".
Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?
I weep for the rule of law. Pitchforks and torches all around.