Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt


Okay. Stop right there. You don't really need to be criticizing someone else of misrepresenting the facts when you're showing that you don't know them either. Zimmerman was not 'found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That's not how the law works. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden upon the prosecution to overcome in the jury's minds to get a conviction. Zimmerman was found not guilty because the prosecution didn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his act was second degree murder or manslaughter under Florida law. Zimmerman didn't need to prove his innocence or that his version of the event was the right one. The prosecution had to convince the jury that their theory of the crime was what happened.


You seem to be saying the same thing but just adding in your opinion about the prosecution.


No opinion. It's actually how our legal system is supposed to work. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to covince the jury that Zimmerman broke the law. I was hoping that you just misused the term. This post shows that you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The jury used reasonable doubt Doctor.


Yes. They had a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter, so the didn't convict and found him 'not guilty'. He was not found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."