Every single news article I've read has said he had head injuries consistent with being smashed into concrete, including witnesses, forensic evidence and the doctor's testimony. In fact, the conclusion of those was that his story was backed up by evidence. The question in doubt was whether he instigated the fight by using racial slurs to provoke the boy.
To prove manslaughter, you have to prove that he deliberately engaged the young man in a fight and shot him, not in self defence, and with 100% certainty. The case has little conclusive evidence, and has turned into a big he-said-she-said, which means it's impossible to know what happened.
And perhaps the "stand your ground" law is ridiculous; studies show death and injuries have increased due to it, but it is law, and that means that if there is a possibility that Zimmerman shot the boy in self defence, any possibility at all, then he must be found not guilty under the legal system. Not guilty does not mean innocent, it just means there was not enough evidence to find someone guilty.
|