George Zimmerman Trial

[irishpat183]

Murph dont look at me I dont know sh!t ask GoIrish, he is the expert up there in PA on the goings on of Central Florida. Threats of riots, you crazy!...you racist!

LOL

 

[FLDomer]

Oh, I'm the one not reading objectively. ... you are the one who said I'm selling myself as an expert on Central Florida and what is going on down there, which I never even hinted at. I don't care what race you are because race doesn't matter to me at all. All this talk about the coming riots is offensive ... especially to blacks, who those comments are CLEARLY aimed at. Who should we assume is going to riot when the **** hits the fan? The Polish?

Why is offensive and why is it directed at blacks?? Its directed at any ******* who would resort to that activity IMO. I guess maybe I am just clueless to it because I see the racial tension as being so stupid and wish it wasnt an issue.

I apologize for being pissy towards you, I will cut it out (handshake?)

 

[Golden_Domer]

I did not watch the video, but I did read your post. It mentions city commissioners not the prosecutor. More importantly, it is not the decision of the police whether or not there exists a basis for a prosecutor to file charges. Police gather evidence, investigate, make arrests...prosecutors decide whether to file charges and what charges should be filed.

There is no comparison to this case and Duke lacrosse case. Even if Zimmerman is not guilty there was still reasonable grounds for filing charges and there certainly has not been credible evidence that the prosecutor has withheld exculpatory evidence, or other such outrageous and unethical conduct that got Duke lacrosse prosecutor disbarred.

Yes, thank you, I am familiar with how the judicial process works. Also, I never compared this case to the Duke Lacrosse case. Let's break this down, ok?

First off, you cannot diminish the role of the police chief. Without police investigators and their recommendations, the prosecutors' hands are tied. While Mr. Lee alone could not have charged GZ w/ a crime, his input is invaluable.

Feb. 26, 2012--TM gets shot, dies. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee and STATE PROSECUTOR WOLFINGER make a decision that there is not enough probable cause to arrest GZ because there was not enough evidence to contradict GZ's claims of self-defense.

Cue race baiters.

Protests ensue (see Rev. Shaprton), petitions are created (see change.org), media manipulates the facts (see NBC), politicians inflame the public (see Obama), etc. All of this, culminating w/ Mr. Lee's and Mr. Wolfinger's constructive dismissal from the investigation. Neither are currently holding public office anymore.

The article mentioned city commissioners as being one of the many outside influences in this case. Guess who has the power to hire/fire police chiefs? That's right, city commissioners. Don't you think their influence would be rather significant?

March 22, 2012--By executive order from Gov. Rick Scott, the case is re-assigned to a Special Prosecutor, Angela Corey, a state's attorney from another judicial district. Ms. Corey selects new investigators. Shortly thereafter Ms. Corey's crack team of investigators file an affidavit of probable cause, in which they state that Zimmerman profiled TM and confronted him (wat??). They conveniently leave out exculpatory evidence related to GZ's claim of self-defense. This made it MUCH MUCH easier to find the affidavit legally sufficient and charge GZ w/ a crime. Ms. Corey decides that second-degree murder is an appropriate charge, a charge that many legal scholars agree should not have been brought in the first place.

Furthermore, the second-degree murder charge was announced in a globally-broadcast presser. Do you think this case would have gotten attention around the world had it not been for irresponsible reporting, politicizing, race baiting? I don't think so.

Frankly, I feel bad for Mr. Lee, after reading the CNN article. All he was trying to do was uphold GZ's 4th amendment right. People like him who serve in public office should be admired.

 

[NDWorld247]

Does weed impair your judgement? Sure it does. It makes people mellow, not aggressive. Did Zimmerman ever explain what a person he's never seen before looks like from a distance in the dark when he's on drugs? What does that statement even mean, he looks like he's on drugs?

I could argue ANYTHING, but the only account we have to go on is Zimmerman's. His account is riddled with inconsistencies and statements that are not believable, so I'm not going to take him at his word about anything. Zimmerman would never have caught up to Martin if he didn't follow him either. So, Zimmerman, an armed adult is allowed to follow a kid through the neighborhood and people argue "he didn't do anything illegal", but Martin turns around and he is all the sudden the agressor? That doesn't seem right.

For the record, I'm not arguing Zimmerman is justified in his self defense claim (my opinion is that he is, but that argument has been hashed out numerous times in this thread and not the argument I'm making).

My original post on this subject was "arguing" it's very likely Martin smoked the blunt he had someone buy for him at 7/11. Is there evidence to suggest this to be true? Yes. Is it conclusive? No, just my opinion based on common sense and the timeline.

From there the conversation has evolved to arguing marijuana impairs your judgment (fact) and Martin was the one that confronted Zimmerman instead of going home, based on the prosecution's evidence, not Zimmerman's account.

 

[irishpat183]

Does weed impair your judgement? Sure it does. It makes people mellow, not aggressive. Did Zimmerman ever explain what a person he's never seen before looks like from a distance in the dark when he's on drugs? What does that statement even mean, he looks like he's on drugs?

I could argue ANYTHING, but the only account we have to go on is Zimmerman's. His account is riddled with inconsistencies and statements that are not believable, so I'm not going to take him at his word about anything. Zimmerman would never have caught up to Martin if he didn't follow him either. So, Zimmerman, an armed adult is allowed to follow a kid through the neighborhood and people argue "he didn't do anything illegal", but Martin turns around and he is all the sudden the agressor? That doesn't seem right.

That is subject for debate. While I normally agree with you on that issue (yes, smoked a little pot in my day)

Drugs do not effect people the same way. There are people that get paranoid when they smoke. And I'm sure, granted probably very few, get aggressive.

Just some thoughts

 

[GoIrish41]

Why is offensive and why is it directed at blacks?? Its directed at any ******* who would resort to that activity IMO. I guess maybe I am just clueless to it because I see the racial tension as being so stupid and wish it wasnt an issue.

I apologize for being pissy towards you, I will cut it out (handshake?)

No worries man. I've got thick skin.

It is offensive BECAUSE it is directed at blacks (maybe not by you but you would definately be an exception). When people talk about riots, they are insinuating that the black population (those who peacefully protested before the Zimmerman arrest) will be full of uncontrollable rage and will lash out in the community. That they are too primal to rationally process the verdict and will resort to violence. It is much like what Zimmerman appears to have done in profiling Martin, which caused this whole sh*t show in the first place. How could that not be offensive?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I don't think it has too much "juicy" info, but this is the offical autopsy report:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

 

[FLDomer]

No worries man. I've got thick skin.

It is offensive BECAUSE it is directed at blacks (maybe not by you but you would definately be an exception). When people talk about riots, they are insinuating that the black population (those who peacefully protested before the Zimmerman arrest) will be full of uncontrollable rage and will lash out in the community. That they are too primal to rationally process the verdict and will resort to violence. It is much like what Zimmerman appears to have done in profiling Martin, which caused this whole sh*t show in the first place. How could that not be offensive?

I think some of those assumptions are based on some of the statements release by the Black Panthers along with so other individuals that actually threatened violence and riots...so is the clacks are offended than they should be upset with these organizations and individuals that are this stigma.

 

[NDWorld247]

I don't think it has too much "juicy" info, but this is the offical autopsy report:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

The last thing I want people seeing in my autopsy report is that I have an "unremarkable penis". I'm going to do something before I die to make sure it reads "remarkable". It's probably going to be painful but it will be worth it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The last thing I want people seeing in my autopsy report is that I have an "unremarkable penis". I'm going to do something before I die to make sure it reads "remarkable". It's probably going to be painful but it will be worth it.

Famous last words.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think some of those assumptions are based on some of the statements release by the Black Panthers along with so other individuals that actually threatened violence and riots...so is the clacks are offended than they should be upset with these organizations and individuals that are this stigma.

You won't get an argument from me about anyone who has made those threats, but repeating them, (which I'm told the news has done pretty regularly down there), is just feeding the flames.

Trust me, even 1800 miles away, there are plenty of people making some pretty disturbing, derogatory and outright racist statements about the inevitablity of riots. Maybe I'm just a naive dope, but I believe the the vast majority of people will not choose to resort to violence no matter the verdict. Hope you and your family stay safe if my optimism in people is misplaced.

 

[irishpat183]

Yes, thank you, I am familiar with how the judicial process works. Also, I never compared this case to the Duke Lacrosse case. Let's break this down, ok?

First off, you cannot diminish the role of the police chief. Without police investigators and their recommendations, the prosecutors' hands are tied. While Mr. Lee alone could not have charged GZ w/ a crime, his input is invaluable.

Feb. 26, 2012--TM gets shot, dies. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee and STATE PROSECUTOR WOLFINGER make a decision that there is not enough probable cause to arrest GZ because there was not enough evidence to contradict GZ's claims of self-defense.

Cue race baiters.

Protests ensue (see Rev. Shaprton), petitions are created (see change.org), media manipulates the facts (see NBC), politicians inflame the public (see Obama), etc. All of this, culminating w/ Mr. Lee's and Mr. Wolfinger's constructive dismissal from the investigation. Neither are currently holding public office anymore.

The article mentioned city commissioners as being one of the many outside influences in this case. Guess who has the power to hire/fire police chiefs? That's right, city commissioners. Don't you think their influence would be rather significant?

March 22, 2012--By executive order from Gov. Rick Scott, the case is re-assigned to a Special Prosecutor, Angela Corey, a state's attorney from another judicial district. Ms. Corey selects new investigators. Shortly thereafter Ms. Corey's crack team of investigators file an affidavit of probable cause, in which they state that Zimmerman profiled TM and confronted him (wat??). They conveniently leave out exculpatory evidence related to GZ's claim of self-defense. This made it MUCH MUCH easier to find the affidavit legally sufficient and charge GZ w/ a crime. Ms. Corey decides that second-degree murder is an appropriate charge, a charge that many legal scholars agree should not have been brought in the first place.

Furthermore, the second-degree murder charge was announced in a globally-broadcast presser. Do you think this case would have gotten attention around the world had it not been for irresponsible reporting, politicizing, race baiting? I don't think so.

Frankly, I feel bad for Mr. Lee, after reading the CNN article. All he was trying to do was uphold GZ's 4th amendment right. People like him who serve in public office should be admired.

Yep

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The last thing I want people seeing in my autopsy report is that I have an "unremarkable penis". I'm going to do something before I die to make sure it reads "remarkable". It's probably going to be painful but it will be worth it.

Ha. Talk about character evidence -- at least we know Martin didn't have an STD.

 

[phgreek]

Yes, thank you, I am familiar with how the judicial process works. Also, I never compared this case to the Duke Lacrosse case. Let's break this down, ok?

First off, you cannot diminish the role of the police chief. Without police investigators and their recommendations, the prosecutors' hands are tied. While Mr. Lee alone could not have charged GZ w/ a crime, his input is invaluable.

Feb. 26, 2012--TM gets shot, dies. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee and STATE PROSECUTOR WOLFINGER make a decision that there is not enough probable cause to arrest GZ because there was not enough evidence to contradict GZ's claims of self-defense.

Cue race baiters.

Protests ensue (see Rev. Shaprton), petitions are created (see change.org), media manipulates the facts (see NBC), politicians inflame the public (see Obama), etc. All of this, culminating w/ Mr. Lee's and Mr. Wolfinger's constructive dismissal from the investigation. Neither are currently holding public office anymore.

The article mentioned city commissioners as being one of the many outside influences in this case. Guess who has the power to hire/fire police chiefs? That's right, city commissioners. Don't you think their influence would be rather significant?

March 22, 2012--By executive order from Gov. Rick Scott, the case is re-assigned to a Special Prosecutor, Angela Corey, a state's attorney from another judicial district. Ms. Corey selects new investigators. Shortly thereafter Ms. Corey's crack team of investigators file an affidavit of probable cause, in which they state that Zimmerman profiled TM and confronted him (wat??). They conveniently leave out exculpatory evidence related to GZ's claim of self-defense. This made it MUCH MUCH easier to find the affidavit legally sufficient and charge GZ w/ a crime. Ms. Corey decides that second-degree murder is an appropriate charge, a charge that many legal scholars agree should not have been brought in the first place.

Furthermore, the second-degree murder charge was announced in a globally-broadcast presser. Do you think this case would have gotten attention around the world had it not been for irresponsible reporting, politicizing, race baiting? I don't think so.

Frankly, I feel bad for Mr. Lee, after reading the CNN article. All he was trying to do was uphold GZ's 4th amendment right. People like him who serve in public office should be admired.

well done sir...well done.

 

[GDomer09]

Not going to get into a back in forth with everyone that responded to my post (especially since some of the responses made no sense), but whether you buy Zimmerman's account or not there really isn't any debating that Martin was minding his own business before Zimmerman started following him around. That really isn't in dispute. And the fact that the kid is dead is tragic. Whether you think Zimmerman was ultimately justified in using deadly force does nothing to excuse the big picture point that this situation should never have happened and that our society at large is worse off because it did.

I don't think anyone hear is rooting for Zimmerman because they are glad he killed a kid and want him to "get away with it." I think people identify with or relate to him on some level (which I clearly don't, but it is a big world and it takes all kinds), and that is fine. But I feel like the open rooting for a guy that killed a kid and in some cases lionizing the guy is a little inappropriate. Even if you don't think he deserves to go to jail, he still killed a kid who set out to go get a snack, not rob a house or start a fight with the neighborhood watchman. Making it seem like the state did something wrong by trying this case, or vilifying people who have a hard time accepting that a kid can get killed and nobody has to answer for it doesn't come off real well.

All I'm saying is that you can have a different idea about how this case should turn out than I do, but the vitriol aimed at those you disagree with seems misplaced considering what the case is about.

Also, while I'm here, comparing this to the Duke lacrosse case is offensive. Yes, there was some public outrage in each case, but there the outrage turned out to be about something that didn't actually happen, whereas here a kid is actually dead and he was actually shot by the man on trial for killing him. Maybe the jury finds that he was justified in doing so, but if one person shoots another person the victim is entitled to a trying of the facts. To argue that there wasn't enough of a controversy here to warrant a trial is not being honest or realistic, as strongly as you may feel that he was justified.

It seems no matter how many times you are called out on it, you can't help but to make factual claims about things you do not know. Like I said in a previous post in a more sarcastic manner can't wait to see you in the courtroom for the retrial with all these facts you have.

I agree with you on the trying him part of your post. If you kill someone and there's not 100% fact that you were just there should be a trial.

 

[irishpat183]

Show of hands. How many see this as an accurate size differential between Zimmerman and Martin? Then you are silly. Martin was 5'11", 158 lbs at autopsy. Zimmerman weighs over 230Lbs. But who knows where his rapidly changing weight was at trial.

This is one indicative piece of the goofiness on this thread. It is the defenses job to lie for his client, which includes making the victim look guilty as hell.

Ummm no. GZ didn't get fat until after all this started. He was pretty lean when this all happened (around 180 I think).

And still, Martin is much taller than GZ...GZ is only 5'6-5'7.

So if those cut outs are off...it's not by much.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ummm no. GZ didn't get fat until after all this started. He was pretty lean when this all happened (around 180 I think).

And still, Martin is much taller than GZ...GZ is only 5'6-5'7.

So if those cut outs are off...it's not by much.

According to testimony during the trial, he was 40 lbs heavier than Martin at the time of the incident.

 

[irishpat183]

Right, right, right. Great post.

The thing that I see happening everywhere in the discussion about this case, as happens with so many legal cases, high-profile or not, is confusion of the issue of right v. wrong with not guilty v. guilty. The criminal legal system isn't designed to vindicate the person who was "right." It's designed to preserve order by punishing people who have done wrongs that an orderly society cannot tolerate, in order to incapacitate them from committing further wrongs and deter others from committing wrongs. In my view, the best rule of self-defense, from a policy standpoint, is a rule that draws the line of acceptable provocation at non-physical provocation. Physical provocation means you lose your self-defense rights; non-physical means you don't. This is a country of free speech and I'm uncomfortable with burdening people's rights of expression by making them worry that if they offend someone, and that person is so offended that he attacks them, they won't be able to defend themselves.

NONE of that is to say that I think Zimmerman behaved in a way that was anything other than reprehensible in this case. He's a racial profiler and an officious intermeddler who sticks his stupid snout where it doesn't belong, and the fact that he chose to carry a dangerous weapon while he was being an officious intermeddler means that a kid is dead who didn't need to be. That's how I see it; I understand that many of you disagree. BUT, all that notwithstanding, unless I misunderstand the evidence, he can't be proven to have murdered anyone and he shouldn't go to jail. Although he provoked the crime by following Martin when he shouldn't have, it can't be proven that he physically provoked it. To put it glibly, wrong result in terms of punishing someone who did something "wrong"; but right result legally. And I'm ok with that.

He wasn't a racial profiler...that has already been covered. If he knew that TM was black, he would've stated as much at the begining of the 911 call..."I think he's black". So the fact that he wasn't 100% sure, means there is no way he was specifically out looking for black guys. Sorry, you're just wrong on that one.

As far as sticking his snout where it doesn' belong? Debatable. Given what happened in that neighborhood, you could say that he was doing his job as neighborhood watch.


And again...who's to say TM wasn't planning on breaking in to a house? Are we supposed to just take your word for it because he's a "kid minding his own biz" according to you and some others on here?


See what I'm saying?

 

[irishpat183]

According to testimony during the trial, he was 40 lbs heavier than Martin at the time of the incident.

What? They have him listed at 5'7 175...and TM at 5'11 158 (autopsy)

That report that you're probably referring too is GZ's weight from a police report 6 years ago.

 

[GoIrish41]

He wasn't a racial profiler...that has already been covered. If he knew that TM was black, he would've stated as much at the begining of the 911 call..."I think he's black". So the fact that he wasn't 100% sure, means there is no way he was specifically out looking for black guys. Sorry, you're just wrong on that one.

As far as sticking his snout where it doesn' belong? Debatable. Given what happened in that neighborhood, you could say that he was doing his job as neighborhood watch.


And again...who's to say TM wasn't planning on breaking in to a house? Are we supposed to just take your word for it because he's a "kid minding his own biz" according to you and some others on here?


See what I'm saying?

Really? There is absolutely zero evidence that he was planning on breaking into a house. Funny you are willing to make such an outlandish statement, but completely give Zimmerman a pass. Who's to say Zimmerman didn't go back in the dark area between those condos to kill Martin? See how silly that question is?

 

[jmurphy75]

Did you circle the wagons?

Honestly, how much of this is from instigators on both sides acting in mindless (define as similar to GZimmerman in the first place) ways, each escalating this to the brink?

I saw one up here once. If you act with decorum, dignity, and intelligence, you can work thorough almost anything.

Bogs, there is a chance anything can happen, but statistically when riots happen or protest get out of hand they have similar settings. This situation has them as well so Sanford, Seminole, Orange and Broward Counties are putting everyone on watch. I pesonally don't think there will be riots at the courthouse, but you will see an increase in crime towards small businesses and people in the Sanford area. I was in Liberty City in Miami when the riots happened there, and they were due to an innocent verdict in a trial. My parents were talking about it the other day and NO one thought they would happen.

 

[irishpat183]

Really? There is absolutely zero evidence that he was planning on breaking into a house. Funny you are willing to make such an outlandish statement, but completely give Zimmerman a pass. Who's to say Zimmerman didn't go back in the dark area between those condos to kill Martin? See how silly that question is?

That was my point. It's assumed that GZ was " racially profiling"...why can't we assume that a teenager with TM's past, was up to no good being out at nigth walking around stoned?

And I'm not giving GZ a pass....it's a CLEAR opposite. GZ has been hung from the very begining, my friend.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think there may be two mitigating factors re: large-scale rioting. (1) the public is pretty prepared emotionally for a possible not-guilty verdict; (2) the police are pretty prepared for rioting. Not that it won't happen, but I just can't nearly see it being as bad as Rodney King, Liberty City, etc.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The last thing I want people seeing in my autopsy report is that I have an "unremarkable penis". I'm going to do something before I die to make sure it reads "remarkable". It's probably going to be painful but it will be worth it.

Two of the most important and lucrative inventions of my lifetime - the .com craze and advancements in ED medicines and sadly I missed out on both of them. Otherwise, I would be sitting on a beach making life changing decisions such as to which drink I want next. But yeah... I hear ya. No way I want my autopsy to describe my privates as "unremarkable." I have a wife for those things.

 

[irishpat183]

I think there may be two mitigating factors re: large-scale rioting. (1) the public is pretty prepared emotionally for a possible not-guilty verdict; (2) the police are pretty prepared for rioting. Not that it won't happen, but I just can't nearly see it being as bad as Rodney King, Liberty City, etc.

You never know....Especially in FL.

And Rodney King didn't die.

 

[GoIrish41]

That was my point. It's assumed that GZ was " racially profiling"...why can't we assume that a teenager with TM's past, was up to no good being out at nigth walking around stoned?

And I'm not giving GZ a pass....it's a CLEAR opposite. GZ has been hung from the very begining, my friend.

The entire prosecution case was based on a man making an incorrect assumption (one that ended up with a dead kid). But, you go ahead and make the same mistake he made.

by the way, "racially profiled" didn't come up a single time during the trial.

 

[irishpat183]

The entire prosecution case was predicated on a man making a incorrect assumption. But, you go ahead and make the same mistake he made.

by the way, "racially profiled" didn't come up a single time during the trial.

I was responding to Emcee's post....He mentioned that GZ was a "racial profiler".

And what about GZ's intial assumption was incorrect? Was it a black male? Yes. Was he on drugs? Yes. Was he walking the streets at night in hoodie? Yes.

The only assumption that could've been wrong, but we don't know, was that TM was up to no good. maybe he was? Maybe he wasn't?

But GZ thought it was worth checking out. Nothing illegal or wrong with that.

I'm failing to see what he was incorrect on...but you go ahead and try and tell me what GZ was thinking and how that makes him guilty of murder.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Really? There is absolutely zero evidence that he was planning on breaking into a house. Funny you are willing to make such an outlandish statement, but completely give Zimmerman a pass. Who's to say Zimmerman didn't go back in the dark area between those condos to kill Martin? See how silly that question is?

It is silly, and that's what makes the prosecution such a farce. The Prosecution's entire case is a bunch of "who's to say".

So what if GZ was punched in the face -- who's to say he didn't start the fight?

So what if GZ thought Martin was on drugs -- who's to say he's not just a racist psychopath?

So what if Martin was shot while on top of GZ -- who's to say that he wasn't trying get off GZ at the time?

So what if GZ has claimed self-defense the entire time -- who's to say he isn't just saying that because of what he learned in school?

So what if Martin is dead -- who's to say that he wouldn't have a completely different story?

So what if Martin's dad said it wasn't Martin screaming on the 911 call -- who's to say he wasn't just saying "no" in a trance of disbelief?

What's comical is not only is this there whole case, but at closing they strung together all these hypotheticals with constant "common sense" reminders -- as if closing your eyes and saying it 1,000 times will magically make it so.

 

[Booslum31]

The thing that has been itching at my crawl is why this case? Why is this so special? Why did the media select this one? A man killed another man in the night...why not one of the 30 or so gang related murders (killings) the same month in Chicago? They were all "a man killing another man". It's tragic and horrible that TM lost his life that night...I hate that it happened. But it sickens me more that I hear about a killing a couple of times a week during my morning drive. Just 20 second blurbs on the radio. Where's the outrage? Where's the politicians saying "if I had a boy he could have looked like TM"? Where's CNN/FOX? We have a massive inner-city murder problem and we've selected THIS case to go nuts over...like there is some huge social problem.? Vigilantism gone wild! THAT is stupid. What purpose does focusing on this case serve and who benefits? When the riots start neighborhoods are going to be torn up and people will get hurt. When the looting (err...shopping) starts businesses will be destroyed. There is NO pandemic of white on black crime in this country so this serves no purpose. So why stir it up as though there is? If I were a data miner I say at this point that there have been ***X men/boys killed by gun-shot SINCE the TM shooting which speaks to a much bigger problem than an over-zealous 1/2 white man shooting a black man during a night watch in his neighborhood. I'm sure i'd feel much differently if it were my boy right? But I wouldn't feel any different if my boy got killed in a drive by shooting in the inner city and it just got 20 seconds on the news during the morning commute. I can't watch any of the coverage without wondering...Why this case?

 

[gkIrish]

As Irish Houstonian has pointed out, those of you who begin your argument with "Who's to say" or "Zimmerman could have been..." either fail to grasp our judicial system or just don't care what the standard of proof is in a criminal trial. You seriously want to convict a guy because hell, "Who's to say he wasn't looking for a fight?"

Let's just go Game of Thrones style and give him a trial by combat. Seems more fair!