Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
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.
|
I weep for the rule of law and history of injustice throughout this country as well.