WildBill wrote:I hope they don't "compromise" with a manslaughter verdict.
I didn't follow every minute of the trial but I didn't see anything that met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's all circumstantial and ad hominem with no real proof. How can any rational person return any verdict other than "not guilty" based on the evidence? Was there some bombshell I missed in the trial?
I can understand somebody thinking Zimmerman shouldn't have got out of his car, but that's not illegal.
I can understand somebody thinking Zimmerman should take a beating even if it kills him, but that's not the law.
I can even understand some racist thinking Zimmerman is automatically guilty because he has lighter skin than Martin.
I can understand all those personal opinions, but I can't understand how someone can honestly think the prosecution proved either charge beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law.