Quote Originally Posted by BanginJimmy View Post
Wrong. Charges came AFTER the media got their hands on it.





I believe he would have been. I believe if Zimmerman was on top of Martin beating his head against the ground and Martin was able to get Zimmerman's gun away from him and he shot Zimmerman he would have walked, and rightly so.



Did the prosecution not go over their own evidence and witness statements before they went to trial? The only prosecution witnesses that did not support Zimmerman was Martins family. It doesnt take a legal scholar to realize that the case was unwinnable for the prosecution, even if you think they had enough to bring it to trial.



No, it actually isnt and thats been my point all along. This should have never even gone to trial because there was boatloads of evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim of self defense and none that contradicted it. You wanted him convicted but cant cite a single piece of evidence to refute the self defense claim. Why should he have been convicted when you cant find evidence to support it?
I didn't care if he got convicted or not as long as the evidence that was presented to the jury was true. And I've never said he should have been convicted. The prosecution did not have enough evidence to convinct, that does not, in the American legal system, mean that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Zimmerman. There was an unarmed dead 17yo and a +30yo man with a gun, a bloody nose, and one side of the story at the time, according to an affidavit of probable cause signed by a judge. It does not matter what the police charge him with to hold him if the state wants to press charges. This is how the system works.