Rss

  • redit
  • youtube
  • google

The Trial of George Zimmerman

george_zimmerman

We have a beautiful thing included in our constitution for those accused of a crime. You see, our constitution dictates that when you are accused of a crime, you are considered innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Even when there is overwhelming evidence that the accused is indeed guilty, such as with the Aurora shooter, they are still to be considered innocent until the completion of the trial. George Zimmerman wasn’t that lucky though. Even though our constitution makes him innocent until the completion of the trail, everybody seems to have forgotten about those rights.

Here is Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, showing us how much she believes that one can be innocent until proven guilty. There there was Obama declaring that if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon. And more recently discovered, there were the people sent to Sanford by the Department of Justice to help manage the Anti Zimmerman protests.

From the beginning George Zimmerman was portrayed as a gun happy racist white guy who shot a sweet innocent young African American child. We would then discover that Zimmerman wasn’t a white guy, being hispanic himself, who also has an African American grandfather. Then we learn that he was far from racist, and was in actuality a champion of minority rights. In fact, the only evidence that he was racist was a doctored recording of a 911 call that he made. The only evidence of racism that I heard during this trial actually came from the victim, unless you consider the term “cracker” to not be racist.

Pretty much none of the claims made by the prosecution or by the media have been proven during the trail. The prosecution has shown no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was told not to. When the evidence overwhelmingly supported the defense’s position of Trayvon being on top at the time of the shooting, the prosecution had to change their story and start to talk about what could have happened.

That actually brings me to another point. What the hell is the prosecutor doing? The guy sounds like he should be on an episode of Ancient Aliens. The defense brings out their expert who lays down some facts. The prosecution then asks, “But couldn’t it have been aliens happened this way instead?” The prosecution should never ask if it could have happened one way. Could have means that you aren’t sure. Not being sure means you have reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt means not guilty. Once he has to start to ask if his version of the story is even possible, he’s lost the case.