Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
It still surprises me that WB and others are still trying to essential hold court on the dead kid. He wasn't the one who stalked somebody with a gun. It was Zimmerman who did that and really should have been charged...


As you well know, there is a presumption of innocence in our jurisprudence. Courts require evidence. Police are supposed to have probable cause to charge someone.

Furthermore, under any self defense case, "stand your ground" or not, one of the questions is whether the shooter had a reasonable fear of serious physical injury. One of the questions surrounding whether Zimmerman's actions, therefore, would be what-if anything-about Martin placed Zimmerman in 'reasonable fear.' Therefore, Martin's size, clothing and actions would all be factors to be examined.

Therefore, under the law, every self defense case "holds court" on the deceased.

Finally, neither you nor WB were there, neither of you are police officers and neither of you are sitting on a jury hearing admissible evidence. Therefore, both of you are simply engaged in speculation.

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as your not part of the court case. However, it does mean that you're just as guilty as anyone of prejudging the case. But you're doing so to convict Zimmerman without benefit of a trial.

Worse, you seem to think that a person should be charged--and subject to potential loss of life, liberty and property--even if there isn't adequate evidence to do so.

 Quote:
Instead it's very likely he's not going to be charged at all.


What happened to "it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer"?