Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
It has already been determined by law and the jury which applied the law that Zimmerman acted responsibly in killing Martin while both were in combatant status.
|
Long before preaching legal concepts, you should first learn basics. 'Not guilty' is not 'innocent'. Not guilty only says proof of his guilt was insufficient. We know Martin did nothing wrong. That is a fact. We also know Zimmerman did action after action that violated his responsibilities and the rules.
1) Neighborhood Watch means only observe. He did not do that. He got out of his vehicle.
2) The police told Zimmerman to not follow. An order from an authoritiy. He ignored the order.
3) Neighborhood Watch says to stay away from a suspect. So as to not create a confrontation. Instead Zimmerman got closer. He foolishly acted as if he had some authority. He clearly did not.
4) Neighborhood Watch says no guns. Zimmerman violated that gun rule. That alone says he could never be innocent.
Zimmerman was wrong for multiple reasons. Is that sufficient for a guilty verdict? Apparently not. Especially when law enforcement did no investigation for a full month. Does that prove he was innocent? Not by a long shot. You should have known that. Obviously you have no grasp of two completely different terms - "not guilty" and "innocent".
Requirements for being responsible increases significantly once one carries. The consequences of being irresponsible should also increase. Unfortunately, Florida's 'stand your ground law' does not encourage that always required increase responsibility. Florida legalized killing only because an adult acted like a child - was emotional.
We know Zimmerman was so irresponsible as to violate four rules - and more. He was not innocent. But the flawed investigation could not prove enough guilt for a prison sentence. He was far from innocent for four and more reasons. But extremist rhetoric, a binary world, only sees the world in black and white. Therefore assumes 'not guilty' is same as 'innocent'. It isn't.