Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
There is enough to convict, you dont seem to agree.
This ain't cowboy country
|
I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:
(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.
As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.
Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.
The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO,
MUST do the same thing to convict.
I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.