Jackson, Sharpton, NAACP and their ilk depend on "racism" for their raison d'etre. No racisim = no ****ing job. After all, careers have been built on this stuff. They need "whitey" and his perceived racism.
As regards Sharpton and Jackson, why do they have the salutation of *reverend*?
How often do they bring Biblical principles to the table in their public discourse?
1st degree murder.
2nd degree murder.
Help me lawyers but I think this is the run of it but I'm sure it can be summed up better or more clearly.
"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión
"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn
And in this case, there is no doubt or question that Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman isn't claiming innocence at killing Martin so the burden of proof isn't on the prosecutor to show that Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman did in fact kill Martin. No if ands or buts about it. It's on Zimmerman to prove why he did it. He has to prove it was self defense.
I'm in here not saying one way or the other. I'm saying the facts and you are play a selective evidence game.
To make it simpler for you PoweRob. If you take a look at all the evidence that we have. Not people's opinions. Actual evidence that has been leaked.
The 911 call from Zimmerman.
The GF account of what happened.
Various eye witnesses.
The 911 screams.
Zimmermans account of what happened.
No other evidence is coming to mind. Sorry if I missed something.
Think about the actual evidence that we have. We can reasonably come to a couple conclusions here.
Zimmerman was following Martin (not illegally) as NHW captain because he thought Martin was suspicious. Martin did not like being followed. An altercation happened. Martin was winning the fight. Martin was killed.
Just based on what we have here there is no way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder happened. At best for the prosecutions case its a 50/50 shot with that info. A prosecutor is not going to convince 12 out of 12 people that this is murder. There isnt enough here.
Wrong. You have to explain why you killed them as your defense. The prosecution has to prove that you are lying. Read up on the law. The burden of proof is always with the prosecution.Listen. IF YOU KILL SOMEONE... YOU HAVE TO PROVE WHY YOU KILLED THEM.
How so man? What evidence am I selectively ignoring?I'm in here not saying one way or the other. I'm saying the facts and you are play a selective evidence game.
No you can't shoot someone and its over. But if the shooter says it was self defense, then the prosecution has to prove it wasnt. The burden of proof is never on the defense. The prosecution in this case cannot explain Zimmermans injuries. They cant explain the eye witnesses. They cant even produce a motive for killing Martin. The only thing they have is some holes in Zimmermans story. Which is not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when there is so much other evidence supporting his story.I never said it was murder. When there is a dead body there has to be an explanation for that dead body. You can't shoot someone and it's over. Either Treyvon committed a crime by attacking Zimmerman and Zimmerman evoked self defense and killed him, or Zimmerman wrongly killed Treyvon. One way or another, there was something illegal going on.