The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Yes, exactly

(See in situ)

Yes, exactly

That is all true and those are wonderful talking points for beer halls, sewing circles and talk show hosts, the world over!

However, in our criminal justice system, the prosecution has the burden of proof. As such, to the extent "the evidence wasn't there" that means no conviction and it shouldn't have been ever filed. That means, to the extent that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the prosecution could prove this case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (i.e., 95% proof) then it should never have been filed.

To the extent there isn't enough evidence to exonerate him - it wasn't a trial to exonerate him. It was a prosecution of him, and the prosecutor has the burden of proof.

To the extent Zimmerman may have approached him, may have been aggressive, space aliens visited, etc. that is all speculative and again the prosecution has the burden of proof.

To the extent Zimmerman "didn't need to confront him" same thing.

To the extent Zimmerman made too many phone calls, same thing.

The case is and was a flat zero.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein