re: #266 theye1

I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion, who the hell knows what jury is or is not going to do? But using the evidence presented in trial, I can’t see how a jury could come to any other conclusion.

Okay, so do you think people, like me, who disagree with you are just stupid, or are we blind to the truth because we’re deluded by something, or we just are bloody-handed freaks who want vengeance, or ignorant of the law, or what?

I can promise you I”m not any of the former. I understand the facts of the case, and if I were on the jury, I would have voted for manslaughter. I know others that would have voted for murder 2, because, by their logic, bringing the gun into the situation showed a depraved disregard for life on the part of Zimmerman. I half agree, but think that Zimmerman’s stupidity saves him here, that he really thought gun was magic make-safe totem.

Anyway: In a case with this little direct evidence, flawed evidence collection, flawed interrogation, etc. etc., there is an uphill battle for the prosecution, to be sure. But they put plenty on the table to show that Zimmerman was lying about the severity of the attack, and that, to me, is sufficient to convict him. The only reason anyone thinks this could be self-defense is that Zimmerman says it was. Nobody saw who initiated physical contact.

So I understand, completely, someone who thinks that given the evidence, Zimmerman should get off. That still leaves the problem that in our justice system, that’s far more likely in the case of the murder of a black person than a white person. And it still mystified me why you can’t see, rationally, that obviously there was a case for the prosecution as well. It’s a little strident.