Dacow, I've long had the assumption that you and I share most, if not all, opinions that are idealogical-based. I suspect we do hear as well, but the topic is so red hot, it's sometimes difficult to stay focused.
I absolutely believe that Martin would have been lawful to swing if he had reasonable believe that he was in danger of physical harm. I tried to make that clear, but perhaps I didn't.
But Martin did not have lawful reason to swing if he was annoyed by an idiot tailing him. I'm totally admitting that I don't know what happened or even which scenario is most likely.
But to prosecute a case in the United States, the system is set up that you have to prove guilt. If a juror has any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman didn't intend a physical attack, that prosecution is doomed.
I completely buy the notion that Zimmerman is a scum bucket and no doubt a cowboy wannabe racist. But he can't be lawfully struck on the street because those traits made him rude or annoying.
I don't know what happened. But I think it's plausible that Zimmerman was an azzhole and Martin was a hothead who over-reacted to some race baiting.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.