Richard Jewell, however, was entirely innocent. He never did anything and was tried and convicted in the media.
Mr. Zimmerman, however, definitely did shoot the kid and kill him. His innocence is predicated on the claim of self defense. Maybe he is innocent, but definitely he did shoot someone.
In criminal cases, people get very worked up over results. If a new mother with an infant in a stroller are run over and killed, everyone wants the driver to be charged with murder, even though he might have only gone a little to fast and didn’t see that the road was wet from a sprinkler. They’ll want to charge the one who put the sprinkler out there, a charge which no judge would let survive five minutes.
In this case, that phenomenon works both ways. People are furious over the age of Trayvon Martin and the racial component, on the one hand. On the other, they’re furious at the cavalier manner in which Zimmerman’s life is being ruined beyond repair even though he might be innocent. I don’t think in a civil case he’d be able to get a jury free of the people furiously against him, and if he waives trial by jury, I don’t think he’ll get a judge willing to give him a runaway award. I doubt he’ll come out wholly unscathed from the criminal case. Probably get manslaughter in some degree or other, which will queer his civil case prospects even if his conviction is later overturned on appeal. It’s not pleasant to contemplate, but I think he’ll have to settle for having his freedom and move to another state.
Based on what? The charging document was woefully lacking, and the investigator, under oath, in court, said they had no evidence that it wasn't self defense.
The state has to prove "Beyond reasonable doubt" that it wasn't self defense.
Maybe you should turn off the television. Real life isn't like the shows.
/johnny