You believe what you want to believe gbaji. The facts are simple. An unarmed teenager was shot.
And unarmed teenager who was in the process of beating a man senseless according to three eye witnesses. Isn't this exactly the situation in which even the most ardent gun control advocates would acknowledge that the use of a hand gun for self defense should be allowed? If not when you're on your back being beaten, then when?
The man who fired the gun is free to spread whatever story about the account he wants. The only other person there is dead.
And yet, it's the family and lawyer of the dead teen who have been spreading whatever story they want. And it's been the media and overly eager public figures who have been helping spread that story and giving it unwarranted credence. How the **** do you not see this? They are attempting to try this in the court of public opinion and *not* in the court of law.
At any other time or place Zimmerman would be arrested for killing a person.
No he would not! In any case with the same outcome, physical evidence, and witness statements, the shooter would not have been arrested or charged regardless of the skin color of those involved. It's only because Martin is black that we're even having this conversation. Had he been a white kid wearing the same clothes and doing exactly the same things in the same situation, the police would have done the same thing, but you would never have heard about it.
If he was innocent by self-defense his trial would find that out.
Ok. But the prosecutor from the DA's office looked over the case and determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence to even hold a trial, much less get a conviction. That's why Zimmerman wasn't arrested or charged. It wasn't like the police on the scene just decided to let Zimmerman go because the victim was black or something. They handcuffed him. They took him to the police station. They took his clothes and gun as evidence. They interviewed him. They then presented all the information they had (including their own and witness statements) to the prosecutor who made the determination about arrest or charges.
In other words, they followed the actual law and procedures they were supposed to follow. But because a mob of people are screaming, we should ignore that law and those procedures and arrest him anyway? That's what you're effectively arguing for. That we just ignore the law and arrest him anyway, why... because a bunch of people, who don't know Martin, and don't know the facts of the case demand it!
And that's supposed to be justice?