Because Geroge Zimmerman is the one on trial, the law gives him the presumption of innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty.
Because Trayvon Martin is not on trial, he does not have the benefit of the presumtion of innocence.
In May 2012, ABC news reported:
A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.
The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month.
That same month, WFTV reported:
WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.
WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.
This is sufficient to create reasonable doubt.
That’s not enough to prove that Martin was the aggressor. But it is enough to create reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And it’s Zimmerman who is on trial here, not Martin.
Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people have taken sides based on things other than the actual evidence. On both sides, there seem to be people who have based their decision on race, instead of on the actual evidence. And that’s a real shame. The law is supposed to be about evidence, not race.
Barack Obama is such a hypocrite. On January 10, 2013, he signed a bill that provides armed guards to himself and his wife for the rest of the lives. However, in 2004, when Obama was an Illinois state Senator, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers.
In February 2013, the following happened in Illinois, as reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
HIGHLAND – Debi Keeney says she last fired her gun 15 years ago, when she took shooting lessons.
The gun was a gift from a friend but it mostly stayed in a side-table drawer, she said, gathering dust. Then, early Sunday morning, Keeney pulled the trigger again — this time, she said, to save her sister’s life.
“I’m very grateful that it fired this morning,” she said Sunday afternoon.
Keeney, 55, said a man forced his way into her apartment in Highland, threw her to the floor and then put her sister, Donna Carlyle, 47, in a choke hold. He demanded money as Carlyle gasped for air.
“All I could see was Donna’s face going blue, like her life was being choked out of her,” said Keeney.
The alleged intruder, 33, was being treated at a hospital Sunday for two gunshot wounds and was listed in critical condition, police said. They have not released his name.
Illinois’ self-defense law allows a homeowner to use deadly force if an intruder breaks in violently, or if the homeowner believes deadly force is the only way to prevent the intruder from committing a felony.
Fortunately for Donna Carlyle, enough other Illinois state Senators disagreed with Obama during that 2004 vote.
If Obama had his way, Donna Carlyle would have been choked to death by that burglar.