Meaningless drivel. Not guilty means not enough evidence to convict, not proven innocent.
That is meaningless drivel as there was no such evidence.
It is nothing but an excuse used by those who do not like the verdict they are referring to.
In Zimmerman's case, there was no evidence that would have supported a conviction under the law. None.
First of all I think the jury made the correct call because there was not enough evidence for a conviction,
There it is again. That is nothing but an excuse.
Given what was known, there was no evidence that would have supported a conviction.
Martin had no criminal record, he'd had never been arrested for anything. Of the two the only one with a criminal record was Zimmerman based on his 2005 arrest for battery against a police officer.
An arrest is not a criminal record.
A conviction is. So tell us if you know what he was actually convicted of? In regards to what you posted, nothing.
And while Trayvon did not have a criminal record, that was because the school's policy of suppressing such activity to falsely represent the stats, not because he wasn't involved with actual criminal activity.
No that is not a fact. Zimmerman refused EMT transport to the hospital and he saw doctor the next day (the only reason he saw a doctor was for a return to work statement) and that doctor said it was possible but Zimmerman refused to have it x-ray'd or to see an ENT specialist to confirm.
Just because a person is loosing a fight is not proof that they didn't start the fight.
It was not a fight but an attack. That is the only thing the evidence supports.
#1 - There is no evidence that Martin left and returned to the area of the fight, all that is available is Zimmerman's description.
Wrong.
The evidence suggests that, or that he laid in wait. There is nothing outside of those possibilities.
Even the witness heard running down towards the area Zimmerman was. That is highly suggestive of Trayvon returning just as Zimmerman claimed. In a place where he was not seen, he then was there yelling at Zimmerman and approaching in a hasty fashion. He was there, then he was here.
#2 - Martin was in a place he was legally allowed to be and was not participating in any criminal activity, after trying to evade the person who was following him 3 times (once walking away from the Northeast cutthrough on Retreat View Circle, one walking away from the clubhouse, and finally running away from the vehicle) he was under no obligation under Florida's Stand Your Ground law to retreat if he felt endangered from the person that was pursuing him (from his perspective). He had a right to stand and defend himself if he preceived he was in danger. (Not the smartest thing in the world I will agree, but he had a legal right to do so.)
That isn't even close.
Trayvon had been looking into homes, which is suspicious and deserving of further scrutiny.
Once being caught doing so, he continued on his way back to the place he was visiting. Which is not evading anything accept being seen looking suspicious.
He knew he was being observed and followed.
In response he circled the individual (an act of intimidation).
Which he then stopped and hurried off and went between the buildings.
Zimmerman got out and followed in the same direction to keep eyes on Trayvon and to get an address.
As he passed the area Trayvon had gone, he looked for him, but Trayvon was not anywhere to be seen.
Zimmerman then continued past the open area of the T to look for an address. Upon his return to the open area of the T, Trayvon came out of the area where he had not been, yelling at him and approached in a hasty fashion.
Trayvon coming out of a place he had not been, to confront Zimmerman in the manner he did, is not standing your ground.
