The problem is that with men, this may have been a bit more cut and dried.
He**, with ADULTS this would have been more cut and dried. Imagine a male juror going on the talk show circuit and saying “What the he** was this doing in a court room? All the evidence - ALL OF IT - Pointed to self defence. SH**, the kid was beating the crap out of him when he got shot. End of story.
It certainly would've been cut and dried with me.
1. Kid was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. That's obvious.
2. Zimmerman said he didn't start the fight, but Martin attacked him. And he said it into a lie detector test, and passed.
3. Eyewitness confirmed Martin was on top of Zimmerman raining blows down on him.
4. A grand parade of witnesses brought by the prosecution failed to produce any evidence at all to indicate that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
Forget "reasonable doubt" here. I'm looking for ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that he was the aggressor.
Didn't exist.
Self defense.
And what the F WAS this case in the first place? State should reimburse Zimmerman for his legal fees in a frivolous prosecution and apologize to the defendant, the jury and the world for wasting our ******* time.
Next case.