Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The only evidence presented that he acted in self defense was that he wasn't winning the fight. To assume that alone means he was jumped is absurd, the prosecution simply dropped the ball.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
It used to be that the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, not that the defendant had to prove that he is innocent.
There was not much actual "evidence" presented by either side other than circumstantial, and that favored the defendant. There was no actual "evidence" available for the prosecution to charge Zimmerman, much less convict him neither of second degree murder or manslaughter.
But we do live in a time of persuasion by opinion. Many opinions have been conjured up about what happened and why--with no connection to actual "evidence." Wild speculations abound about the character of either Zimmerman or Martin. And various scenarios have been created about what happened based on stereotypical characterizations and how these must have determined who did what and why. These opinions mostly depart from analysis by fact and wander into various historical grievances and emotional outrage at perceived injustice. The race industry and the anti-gun and anti-Stand-Your-Ground or other gun rights legislations certainly created another hot-point to attack what they "feel" are inimical to their progressive agenda. Actual facts and law are irrelevant to this case.
This is the method by which we are transformed from a constitutional republic to a centralized bureaucracy. Sacrificing the innocent for the greater good has always been the way of "benevolent" tyrannies.
It is not unlike how the SCOTUS has rewritten the Constitution.
Hybrid Mode
