Presumption Of Innocence Is For When Facts Are In Doubt

Posted on by
Image of George Zimmerman
George Zimmerman

The other day, George Zimmerman, the over zealous member of his neighborhood watch, who shot and killed an unarmed teen named Trayvon Martin, was released again on bail. I tweeted that I guess it paid to shoot an unarmed teenager and become the darling of the GOP. A person replied back to me that I should be reminded of presumption of innocence and a fair trial. I don’t think the person knows what presumption of innocence means. In the Trayvon Martin case the facts aren’t in doubt.

What I meant was Zimmerman was able to raise $100,000 needed to make bail after previously misleading the court about his finances when he was granted bail the first time. He has received thousands of dollars in donations to help in his defense.

My tweet was commenting that being a darling of the right gets you a lot of money – I guess crime does pay.

I got a reply to my tweet:

“did we do away with presumption of innocence and a fair trisl?”

7-6-12 twitter convo

Presumption of Innocence is for when facts are in doubt. Trayvon Martin was killed. George Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin. Zimmerman isn’t innocent.

The trial, when and if it happens, is to decide how much trouble, if any, George Zimmerman should face for shooting an unarmed teenager after being told by the police dispatcher not to confront him. The only question to be answered is if Martin attacked Zimmermann out of the blue or if it came as a result of being confronted.

George Zimmerman does deserve a fair trial and due process but he did shoot an unarmed teenager and no amount of conservative spin will change that fact

This exchange reminded me of the classic line from the movie “The Princess Bride” said by the character Inigo Montoya:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

Inigo Montoya

Indeed!


Comments for this post are closed. If you wish to send a note to the editor, visit our contact form