re: Zimmerman not guilty

quote:

---

It's quite apparent you have zero idea what this word connotes.

---

It is becoming more apparent (more than last night), that you're an idiot.

quote:

---

Saying the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ wasn't privileged to use force

---

Of which they did not.

quote:

---

saying the defense proved that GZ was privileged to use force

---

Of which they did.

quote:

---

GZ would most likely have had to take the stand

---

No he did not. Verbal testimony was provided by him on multiple occasions to the investigators and was presented at trial and was corroborated by other testimony and evidence. Self-defense was proven without him taking the stand and thus did not require him to take the stand - and this holds true for MOST states.

quote:

---

in my estimation

---

Which is becoming a joke.

quote:

---

This is such awful logic that I don't know where to begin. Equating the culpability of an armed civilian tailing a private citizen who had broken no law w/ the simple act of joining a neighborhood watch is evidence of an inability to grasp simple distinctions.

---

You're obviously a moron. You're extending culpability to Zimmerman merely because he followed a suspicious individual. Who are you to make that definition? Culpability in this instance is applied to the aggressor of the physical confrontation and that is as far as it goes. To extend it further means you have to have a finite end point of which there is no clear and appropriate definition.