Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Teen's dad: Trayvon saw his death coming" video.

  1. "Sometimes you have to listen to your heart." I hear you. But none of this proves beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of murder/manslaughter. regards
    3
  2. "So what? He's a fucking boy. " Fair enough. But this doesn't prove what really happened. If we're honest with ourselves, we should realize that all scenarios on offer are speculative to some degree. Zimmerman may well have been a Vigilante zealot and racist. Trayvon might well have been a violent person. The information available for each is fragmentary. Translation: caution and modesty is called for when playing armchair psychologist. None of us can prove exactly what happened.
    1
  3. I would also say to you that there's SOME physical evidence in this case, and that evidence by and large does not clash in a major way with GZ's basic story. So if you have a claim of self-defense, and its plausibility is enhanced by, and not contradicted by, the limited physical evidence, then the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. THEY have the burden of proof here, NOT GZ. Why? Because they are the one making the accusation. This is how American justice is supposed to work. Right?
    1
  4. "gone because of this psychopath" This is another assumption w/o proof. He could have indeed been following from a safe distance. Martin could have jumped him in anger, and beating the s--t out of him. That's also an assumption w/o proof. If we want to be responsible, we have to all stop playing God and go just by the known facts. "Following" someone is a vague word and doesn't prove one is a psychopath. Why is the distinction between known fact and speculation so hard for people to grasp?
    1
  5. "Anyone running around with a gun killing people have to be a little fucking crazy." Not if it's self defense.
    1
  6. I agree with you. But the facts by themselves, at least in my opinion to date, do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ did not act purely in self-defense when he shot TM. Thus, didn't the jury do the right thing? They believed he was probably guilty, but didn't have a solid proof. They didn't want to take the risk of putting a potentially innocent man in jail. Isn't this how the justice system is supposed to work? Remember, they didn't say he absolutely was innocent. cheers
    1
  7. "Zimmerman shot him dead." We all know this. Doesn't [rove he's a psychopath. Doesn't prove if it was in self defense or not.
    1
  8. "He chased after this kid and shot him." This is where speculation enters the picture. All we know for sure is that Zimmerman "followed him." That can mean at least two different things. Your scenario - a chase where he runs after him in a threatening way. Another possibility is he followed him at a distance to keep an eye on him. How will we ever know for sure? The assumption that Mr. Zimmerman's transgression (following him) was outrageous rather than understandable is playing God, IMO.
    1