Yea, it'd really be amazing for a man to be convicted based on assumptions and not the actual evidence. Just amazing
Weird that this case and George Zimmerman is your draw a line in the sand moment when it comes to the legal system. This happens literally every day in courtrooms all over America. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is not some kind of measurable black and white standard. Circumstance can't be just thrown away as a matter of convenience when it doesn't fit your viewpoint. You seem smart enough to understand this which is why I can't tell if you're being a contrarian or riding hard for Team GZ.
Generally contrarians have sounder arguments. Essentially what you've spent this entire thread doing is saying since the jury wasn't there Zimmerman can't be found guilty of murder. I'm standing over your bloody body with the knife that matches the wounds but I said someone else did it and I just happened to be walking by when I was handed the knife. No one else saw the murder go down and I have no reason to lie so there's reasonable doubt so I should walk.
I don't know if anyone is saying that and, regardless, that's not the point. The question is whether the state can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ did not have a reasonable fear that he would suffer serious bodily harm unless he shot TM.
You're obsessed with what
may have happened leading up to the fight - whether he profiled, whether he pursued - but that is of very little, if any, relevance to this case. These things would not justify being attacked, so they do not impact GZ's claim of self defense. What is of much greater relevance is who started the physical fight, and did GZ have a reasonable fear at that time? On those points, we have pretty much zero evidence to support the state's case, and a lot of evidence that corroborates GZ.
No independent eye witnesses saw how the fight began. GZ says TM attacked him. Dee Dee says the last she heard was GZ asking "what are you doing here?" and it seems unlikely he would ask this question only to immediately jump TM, especially after GZ had already called police and they were on their way. And, of course,
we know (the jury doesn't) that TM fancied himself some sort of street fighter, boasting about it in his text messages, and had been involved in a number of fights in the months immediately prior to the shooting.
After the fight began, the eye witness testimony, expert testimony, and GZ's injuries are generally consistent with GZ's account that TM was on top, pinning GZ to the ground, hitting his head on the sidewalk. For example, the closest eye witness is certain that TM was on top, hitting GZ "MMA style." The only other purported "eye" witness testified that she thought it was GZ on top, but she was ultimately demolished on x-exam, admitting that all she saw were shadowy figures and that she assumed GZ must have been on top after seeing their pictures on TV in the initial news reporting (which showed TM as a younger boy). The defense expert confirms that TM's shirt was hanging away from his body when he was shot, which would not have happened if he was on his back, and is consistent with him being on top of GZ, leaning over him. I don't think the state presented any evidence to contradict this.
Thus, no impartial jury should find beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not act in self defense, but we will see.
