Now if the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's 'victim of an attack' story why does the prosecutor have to show Zimmerman acted illegally in provoking an attack that did not occur?<quoted text>
The question is, what is YOUR problem?
I'm really curious.
Rougie is all over the map again. His contention has been that Zimmerman was improperly charged for lack of probable cause. I don't see proof that crime did not occur as any part of the definition of probable cause that a crime may have been committed.
As far as proving Zimmerman guilty, the prosecutor must convince the jury Zimmerman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one of the crimes he is charged with. He doesn't have to convince Rogue. If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's self-serving story that he was attacked by the much smaller and younger Martin, he doesn't have to prove Zimmerman did anything to cause Martin to attack him. That's really not a hard concept to comprehend. What is Rougie's problem?