In an unclear case, you should consider the clearest evidence the strongest.
Like science? Yup, no worries here, Dr. Vincent di Maio took care of that minutes ago. It's "Trayvon" btw, are people even watching the trial or do they still want an innocent man jailed because CNN labeled him a neo-nazi?
Nobody knows what really happened. How the **** do we know that zimmerman isn't lying and that he had his gun out the whole time, and treyvon was only defending himself.
Zimmerman is the only one that showed any intent or malice by saying "these ****ing *******s they always get away with it" right before he confronted treyvon.
In an unclear case, you should consider the clearest evidence the strongest.
We know what mostly happened, we do know for a fact that Zimmerman was underneath Trayvon when he shot him from the autopsy and bullet trajectory.
Also, are you actually serious, if Zimmerman had his gun out the whole time you really think Trayvon would have been beating him up? Would you try and beat a guy up who has a gun in his hand?
In an unclear case you got no guilty, always. If you have ANY doubt in your mind it's not guilty and it's that simple. That's how justice works. You have to be 100% sure, not 99% not 75%, 100% without a doubt sure.
I still think if zimmerman wasn't a piece of **** human being, then a boy's life would not have ended.
17 is a boy, until you're 18, you're still a boy. Nobody knows better until they're at least 21. I didn't know better til I was 23.
Zimmerman is the same guy who racially profiled a 17 year old boy, shot him in the chest when there's no real evidence he was committing a crime, and tried to move the money from his charity funds into a personal bank account.
If he's charged not-guilty then justice will not have won.
He shot him in the chest because the "kid" instead of going home confronted him and attacked him. Dumb ass.
Comment