Since that awful Sunday in Sanford, Florida, back in February, the media have shown time and time again they don't understand how the American justice system works.
Take ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams who on Thursday's Nightline said, "So even if Zimmerman was on his back, even if he was losing a fight, he still has a lot of explaining to do and is going to have to prove that Trayvon Martin was the initial aggressor" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MATT GUTMAN, ABC: So, which side does this trove of information benefit?
DAN ABRAMS, ABC LEGAL ANALYST: There's a lot in these documents that seems to help George Zimmerman’s defense team. But let's remember: Trayvon Martin was still shot and killed by George Zimmerman. And so even if Zimmerman was on his back, even if he was losing a fight, he still has a lot of explaining to do and is going to have to prove that Trayvon Martin was the initial aggressor.
Actually, in America, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and therefore doesn't have to prove anything.
Zimmerman's attorneys don't even have to mount a defense.
The burden is on the prosecution to prove Zimmerman "was the initial aggessor" especially as the charge is second degree murder.
Abrams, who has a law degree from Columbia University, should know better.
But this is how the media have prosecuted this case from day one.
Zimmerman was assumed to be guilty by our press right from the start thereby jading the public to the actual facts of the case.
With each passing day, we have have found out more and more that leads one to believe what happened that early evening in Sanford, Florida, was far different than what was initially reported.
In fact, as the the evidence supplants the assumptions, the likelihood Zimmerman will be found guilty of second degree murder appears to be approaching zero.
This is why people should be tried in a court of law and not by biased media members with an agenda.
(HT NB reader Varice Mire)