Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
None of Zimmerman's story makes sense at all.
I think Zimmerman stalked the kid for seventeen minutes, Martin ran, Zimmerman confronted him, had his firearm out, Martin popped and Zimmerman fell, Martin jump on top of him, and Zimmerman shot him.
How could Zimmerman pull out his hand gun if it was behind him while he was getting beaten into the pavement with his mouth full of blood?
|
Think about this Rochard. What has the prosecution proven? What is the prosecutions version of events? What has the prosecution said happened exactly and how have they proven it? The prosecution is attacking Zimmermans version of events. Thats fine. Perfect. Thats what they should be doing.
However...
What is the prosecutions version of events? When can all agree Zimmerman murdered a kid. Fine. Has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the law and proving a Murder 2 charge. The prosecution has not even offered a version of what happened and as such, has not proven that version beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman can lie about everything. He might have not told a single word of truth. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove every element of the case.
Where has anyone seen a murder trial where the prosecution did not walk everyone through THEIR FULL AND COMPLETE version of what happened. They haven't done that. They've tried to call into question all of what Zimmerman said, did etc. However, they have not proven what happened. What happened meaning a very detailed account from start to finish, without holes in it from the first 911 call to the time police arrived. The prosecution has not proven that Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman and punch him in the face.
Everyone can disagree all day long with Zimmermans story, his account and so on. But everyone seems to keep forgetting that the Prosecution has to prove not only that Zimmermans account is wrong, but they have to prove their own version of events beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution even gave two possibilities of how Martin was shot. This is an example of why I am interested in the legal side. Just giving two different possibilities of how Zimmerman shot Martin means that there is reason to doubt either. Two versions means there's a reasonable doubt as to whether either happened. That's a problem for the prosecution who is supposed to have a theory and defend it, leaving no doubt whatsoever.
We all understand someone got shot and its horrible and personally, i'm 100% ok with Zimmerman getting set on fire in his cell tonight.
I'm not interested in Zimmerman.
I'm not interested in Martin.
I'm not interested in retarded race baiting.
I'm not interested in justifiable homicide and gun laws or anything else.
What interests me is the criminal justice system and the fact that a trial was forced by politicians after investigators found no reason to charge Zimmerman, that Obama had to take a swipe at it as President of the United States, affecting the jury pool, that the media (NBC/CNN?) was playing a doctored 911 call, that all media outlets were showing a pic of Zimmerman in a orange jumpsuit looking like a thug along side a pic of a 12 yr old Martin and so on and so on and then a prosecutor showed up with almost nothing. His strongest evidence is the non emergency call where he basically has to use that to show Zimmerman as a vicious murderer and the fact is that Zimmerman is guiding police to his location, his voice and demeanor the whole time is very calm and he almost sounds like someone too lazy to care about anything. He doesn't sound like a killer. HE was there to do a job. He was doing his job. Clearly everyone misunderstood each other. It ended horribly. But the prosecution has to use those tapes to make him sound like a killer because there is nothing else. Just the fact that the prosecution asked for 3rd degree murder and child abuse is bizarre.
The whole thing is insanely bizarre.... and no doubt tragic. Tragedy happens all day, every day, all over the world. A Chinese girl got thrown out of a Boeing 777 and then was ran over by a rescue vehicle. Thats what life is. There doesn't have to be a good guy and a bad guy. There doesn't have to be an attacker and a victim. There doesn't have to be two lives destroyed because one life was destroyed. It's certainly not reasonable in a country that loves its rhetoric about justice to hold a politically motivated murder trial, fire a police chief and end his career and destroy someones life based on very shaky evidence and no real theory as to what happened. When the closing arguments are about skittles and quoting Martin Luther King... not reminding everyone of the exact sequence of events, how that theory and every element of the charge were proven beyond a reasonable doubt... that should be a red flag to anyone who believes in freedom or justice.