| | | >> With that said, the burden of proof falls on Zimmerman, not the prosecution; one cannot kill a witness and then have one's vindication rest upon one's own description of events.
To be fair, Zimmerman is NOT relying on one's own account of events. There was highly credible testimony from Goode that backed Zimmerman's account of events. And Zimmerman's own behavior was highly consistent with his account. And his injuries also support his account of events and show that Trayvon was the aggressor.
And I don't believe your premise is correct, either. Trayvon was not a witness in any legal sense; he was dead.
It is not unusual, AT ALL, for credible claims of self defense to go without charges at all when the facts and circumstances support that claim, even based on the killer's testimony. And in fact, the police chief was fired because he refused to arrest Zimmerman for lack of evidence:
“I had one of the city commissioners come to me on two different occasions and say, ‘All we want is an arrest,’" Lee said during an interview with CNN. "I explained to them, ‘Well, you just can’t do that, you have to have probable cause to arrest somebody.’ And it was related to me that they just wanted an arrest, they didn’t care if it got dismissed later. And you don’t do that.”
I just don't think you understand the issues. You have to have evidence to convict someone. There wasn't any.
That's not to say there won't be a conviction. They are determined to get Zimmerman regardless of whether there is evidence or not.
This bullshit about how a trial is a "search for the truth" is nonsense. Some may be, but this one was a search to put someone away to keep blacks from rioting. |
|
