Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.
|
The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.
|
C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.
IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)