Ground Hog Day #8<quoted text>
Probable cause does not require proof.
"A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime."
I don't see "proof" in the definition of probable cause.
Proof is what the jury will decide.
If proof were required to charge a suspect there would be little need for a trial.
You need "probably cause" that he was not acting in self defense to arrest him.
You need a "preponderance of the evidence" to try him.
To convict him you need "beyond any reasonable doubt".
Are you really that stupid?!?
So what proof do you have that GZ was not acting in self defence ... or that he committed another crime that start the assault!!!
Crickets playing twilight zone music!!!
Arguing with idiotards is like eating your table for diner!