By charging Zimmerman with a crime, this gal is disbelieving that it was self-defense then. Does she have to have probable cause to disbelieve it? Is there any way that she would be held accountable to actual evidentiary standards on something like that?
I just can’t imagine what evidence would outweigh the witness statements, 911 recording, and Zimmerman’s injuries. To disbelieve his claim of self-defense when there is so much that corroborates his claim seems willfully negligent unless she’s got evidence that refutes that other evidence. If it was something like the shot going into Martin’s back, then it would be willful negligence by the police department for ignoring THAT evidence.
It just doesn’t make sense for her to file these charges unless there’s something blatant that the police ignored.
” It just doesn’t make sense for her to file these charges unless there’s something blatant that the police ignored.”
POLITICS.....nothing else.
1. Yes
2. No. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman
3. There is a general duty not to prosecute unless the prosecutor is of the opinion that a crime has been committed and a conviction can be obtained. Prosecutorial discretion is pretty wide, though. The check on it is that when the case gets to court, the judge's first determination is whether there's evidence to believe a crime has been committed. If he's not buying, the case gets tossed.