Atheists, George Zimmerman and the burden of proof

[là bạn điên]

George has displayed plenty of behavior post-trial which makes him look like just the sort of lunatic who might track down a kid and kill him in cold blood. Inadmissible in court, of course.

He does seem to indicate that he has an erratic temperament and poor impulse control but that does not indicate in any way that he acted in cold blood in any way whatsover. It might indicate that a he was the sort of person to lose his temper and attack someone, indeed that is one of several possibilities of thsi case (ie that he confronted Martin, lost his temper and attacked him).

I don't know if there's enough to convict him of murder,

Clearly there isn't

but I think there may have been enough to make a manslaughter charge stick,

I see no such proof. Unless you can prove that Zimmerman was acting unlawfully then you have no case. Merely assembling a list of possibilities is not proof in any way shape or form

and the prosecution's mistake was not going in that direction from the start. Instead, he's free and a danger to society.

The race baiters and ideologues demanded he be tried for murder. The jury has an option to bring a verdict of manslaughter and they didn't. manslaughter is not ' he might be guilty of murder but we have no proof so lets compromise on manslaughter' but a specific crime that needs proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such proof was not delivered.

I take it you think that people should be convicted in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt if it suits your ideology.

Like Minimalist (although predictably with less hysterical frothing) I assumed, given you extreme left views that you would immediately side with those who would convict Martin without evidence.