LogFAQs > #938750344

Shablagoo posted...

There is no proof that he did.

There is however overwhelming evidence that he did.

How can you claim Zimmerman was acting in self defense without acknowledging that Trayvon may have been also?

Because

1. Trayvon started the fight.

2. There is overwhelming evidence.

3. Even If you ignore point 1 and 2 and pull "Well we just don't know what happened." then Zimmerman is still not guilty by default.

Innocent until proven guilty.

"I believe in guilty until proven innocent and I refuse to look at the evidence that displays innocence. So he deserves to die." is such an insane intellectually dishonest case of mental gymnastics that it would be comically hilarious if not for the serious subject matter.

After all, he lost his life while Zimmerman escaped with a few minor scratches.

IT's almost like Zimmerman defended himself or something.

Not to mention he acted recklessly at almost every step leading up to the altercation and his story doesnt make sense.

Recklessly left his car and recklessly walked down a public street while recklessly calmly talking to police.

Truly a man of vigor and passion. Not just some fat dopey bum from Florida.

Hes not guilty until proven innocent like the absurd strawman that UR has concocted, but his actions suggest manslaughter as he initiated the encounter against the advice of the police.

False. He did not do it against advice of the police. The encounter had already started and he never opposed dispatcher advice. You're just lying.

His actions do not suggest manslaugher, and a jury found him not guilty of it based on the evidence.

And you are advocating guilty until proven innocent. You're going "I will ignore all the evidence, and we don't know what happened. Therefore he's guilty."

It's barbaric. All to just avoid admitting that you got duped by the media.
---

^ Hey now that's completely unfair!
https://imgur.com/yPw05Ob