"I think the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented, because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman, and he was not at all defending himself, and so forth," Carter said, speaking from the Carter Center for Peace.
"It's not a moral question, it's a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listen to the evidence presented. And I think another action that was taken in the court was not to bring in the race issue at all."
More
Looks like this Democrat got one right!
ReplyDeletePutting OweBlama to shame again!
Well, Well, Well, A spark of intelligence after all these years. Has he been listing to Rush Limbaugh?
ReplyDeleteFirst thing Jimmy ever said that was right.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Democrat and I agree with his assessment. Prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman probably acted recklessly but it was not proven he committed a crime. The system worked.
ReplyDeleteThe case is impossible to figure out. There is too much outside influence and without witness(es) there are more bias information than factual information. The only informations they have are Zimmerman's side of the story which can be lies or not, a 911 call with a cry recorded(unknown voice), Robberies happening in the neighborhood, and the gun pulled by Zimmerman against Trayvvon Martin. So even if there is another million trials Zimmerman wouldn't be found guilty because of the lack of information.
ReplyDeleteCarter's a pain in the butt but he is a gentleman and has honor. He's not going to pretend anything just to be in step with anyone including the democrats.
ReplyDelete11:02-What about the eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him MMA style? The grass stains on Zimmerman and lack of them on Martin back this up. If anything this case had way more evidence than most and what they did have was often backed up with other evidence such as forensics. This case had much much more factual info than 99% of criminal cases.
ReplyDeleteMost murders and other crimes don't have the benefit of the 911 recordings or witnesses willing to talk for that matter. This was a case overflowing with evidence and every bit of it pointed to Zimmerman not being at fault due to self defense.
Wow, very supprised. It looks like old Jimmy Carter finally got some common sense.
ReplyDeleteProbibly the first time he has ever been right about anything.
ReplyDeleteSo even if there is another million trials Zimmerman wouldn't be found guilty because of the lack of information.
ReplyDeleteJuly 17, 2013 at 11:02 AM
What are you talking about? There was plenty of evidence. All showing Z acted in self-defense. Unless you are referring to the lack of evidence the state had in their sham of a trial.
This trial didn't lack any evidence that's for sure. The thing was all the evidence pointed towards Zimmerman acting in self defense. Every time the state put on a witness that particular witness bolstered the self defense theory. It was as if we were watching Zimmerman's defense presenting their case throughout the whole entire trial.
ReplyDelete