Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
We don't and that's fair to say we can't judge what we don't know. But I still view it from.... Some kid got shot and it should be Zimmermans burden of proof to prove it was self defense. It is outrageous that the police dropped charges given that there is significant reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't do this maliciously. He has to prove that he truly went to his car after being instructed to drop pursuit. That's suspect. I find that hard to believe.. Zimmerman has to prove that Martin assaulted him and if so, but that that wasn't self defense. If you saw a creepy guy chasing you doesn't martin have the right to stand his ground? And we have to do all that knowing full well that Zimmerman has a shady history that leads you to believe he has some anger issues.
So yeah, because the end result was an unarmed kid getting shot by a guy with very shady evidence to suggest martin initiated a fight that warranted guns for self defense, I'm starting with the idea that Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent.
First of all, Zimmerman and the witness statements that have been collected may well have carried the burden of establishing legitimate self defense as far as the state prosecutor was concerned. Just because you don't feel satisfied as you witness the incident through the distortions of whatever news feed you use doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Second, it's possible for both of these men to have been acting in self defense within the parameters of the stand your ground law. Martin doesn't have to have mounted a completely unprovoked attack against Zimmerman for Zimmerman's defense to be valid.
You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here. That's what we call prejudice.
“[Cruz] might not be the most fun to have a drink at the bar with, but America needs a designated driver.” - Mica Mosbacher, wife of the late Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce