Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
If nobody could be charged unless evidence proved conclusive that they were guilty you would never need trials...a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand and there's conflicting evidence. Is there a good reason for this not to go to trial?


Under the code of ethics a prosecutor has an ethical obligation to bring to trial only those persons whom he or she believes can fairly be found guilty by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, under our system of laws, the district attorney is not supposed to charge someone on the "I don't know what happened" theory.


I would hope so. My only fear is that "stand your ground" will circumvent what should normally happen in this type of case.

 Quote:
I would also note that, for all your talk about how you haven't prejudged the case, language like "a child was killed by Zimmerman's hand," certainly implies you've made your mind up before knowing the facts.


You might feel that way but your selective in your criticism. WB takes Zimmerman at his word and states his story as fact and I notice you remain silent. Isn't that bias on your part as well as WB's?

Fair play!