Burden of proof is "without reasonable doubt," not "without any doubt what so ever." Reasonable doubt can be achieved with strong circumstantial evidence. Unless it's the OJ jury, who probably needed video evidence of the actual stabbing before they can convict.
It wasn't dropped because it was a stupid charge. They had a pre-trial diversion program for first-time offenders that Zimmerman took advantage of.
It was a stupid-charge. He said "**** You." I haven't read anything about an actual physical confrontation with the officer. That is stupid. Waste of resources to arrest and charge someone for verbally abusing an officer. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't show that GZ was an anarchist who thought the law wasn't important. Many people take advantage of programs to get out of BS charges.
LOL you called me out for saying everything was circumstantial evidence, excuse me I should have said everything except the blatantly obvious fact that GZ shot TM is circumstantial, excuse me. Glad you pointed that out, I don't think anyone else here was aware of this. Please inform them...
So blatantly obvious that nobody should be saying that this case is entirely circumstantial, n'est pas?
Yes, that is exactly what I think...?? Facts haven't changed people, there is still not enough evidence to convict GZ of the murder of TM. We're well aware that he shot TM, that doesn't need to be pointed out BECAUSE IT IS THE BASIS OF THIS ENTIRE THREAD. I am sorry that you can't find anything else to argue except the fact that I didn't include the most obvious and irrelevant piece of the case. I can't wait for someone to say irrelevant??? He shot the guy, it's why he is being charged with murder! Yes, that is why there is a case. It's not why he is guilty or not. We know he shot him. He admitted the second it happened that he shot him. The important pieces of this case are GZ's intent, which can't be proved, and the actual confrontation that led to the shot.
So everyone on neighborhood watch is a wanna-be policeman? They can't be family men/women protecting their communities? Only police can protect? Why have parents than? If he had been on patrol with a loaded weapon this would be completely different, but he wasn't. He was going to Target when he noticed TM. Even if he did want to be a police officer, it doesn't change what happened that night, and it doesn't reveal anything that happened that night. They can assault his character all they want, it still won't convict him of murder. Why? Because it is all circumstantial.
Cmon V, you know what I meant. He was protecting his community, that's why he joined the neighborhood watch. Didn't I read that they ASKED him to lead the watch? It is against most neighborhood watch programs to carry a gun while on duty. He wasn't on duty, he was rolling to Target. And yes people go to target armed, it's called a CHL, here in Texas they want you to be able to bring them onto university campuses...
so when he started following trayvon armed with a loaded gun he was protecting the community thus putting himself on watch right?
It could if he's shown to have little respect for the law or the court his side of teh story becomes less credible.
It's not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to carry a weapon with a license. If you have an issue with the 2nd amendment contact your representatives or move to a different country. I'm kidding, but seriously, you can't charge him with murder if he did everything by the law. He reported something suspicious, wanted to keep an eye on the suspect (not unreasonable at all considering one attempted burglar escaped while waiting for police already), and he and TM at some point came into contact with each other. IF there is evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ attacked TM first, than you have an easier conviction, if they can't prove that it is his word against, well no ones. He showed a lack of judgement, that is certainly true, c.r.i.m.i.n.a.l.l.y. n.e.g.l.i.g.e.n.t m.a.n.s.l.a.u.g.h.t.e.r. Franchise, I agree with you to a degree. It will affect the case only because I assume the prosecution is going to base much of their arguments on his credibility, but there are reasonable refutations to counter-argue each of their attacks. It's much easier to convict someone in the public's eye than a court of law. His "lack of respect" for the law is an assumption based off very little, saying F you to a cop doesn't mean you don't respect the law, it means when you're drunk you stay stupid **** that we all think. If you are under 30 you have likely at one point been drunk and around an officer and wanted to say "F You." Who hasn't run into a dick cop and wanted to stand up to him? Most of us wouldn't sober, many of us wouldn't drunk. It doesn't mean he didn't respect the law, it means he didn't respect this officer when he was drunk.
Im a little surprise the anti-Zimmerman zealots have not brought this story up. http://gma.yahoo.com/texas-man-foun...r-dispute-053934284--abc-news-topstories.html
This guys is clearly guilty of second degree murder in the least. It just seems a lot of people portraying Zimmerman in this same manner. He very well could have, but there is zero evidence at this time to support it.
I am not really sure what you are arguing here. Stand your ground isn't an absolute as been shown in a few other cases that have been brought up in this thread. This is another example. Anyway comparing this to the Zimmerman case though there are key differences that make this open clearer, one it was done on the neighbor's property and two he videotaped the incident. Neither of those apply to Zimmerman's case so this case doesn't really add much to the Zimmerman case except showing that there are limits to the Stand Your Ground defense.
