Translation: I can't be bothered reading and learning the science.
we shouldn't hold George Zimmerman to any sort of exacting standard after he shot and killed an unarmed kid because eye-witnesses are unreliable?
Nice strawman, beat it frequently do you? Try, that we should not hold anyone's witness testimony, no matter who's it is to an exacting standard and demand a perfect reciting of events, because the science says that simply does not happen. It's funny that you are happy to accept and in fact jump with glee on the fact that a number of eye-wittneses changed their versions of what they saw over time, but when it comes to George changing his a story you view that as a clear sign of guilt. Why do they get to change their stories but not him? Why do they get to remember things, realise they got things wrong, and modify their statments, but his must be frozen in time? Can you not see your double standard here?
In reality it is normal human behaviour, we remember things differently as time goes by, sometimes we recall things we didn't in the heat of the moment, other times the memory changes as we replay the incident in our minds to the point of losing the original memory altogether.
That's crazy. The only thing that's stopping people from claiming self-defense in EVERY murder is that their story has to pass the smell test. If scrutiny causes the whole thing to collapse you go to prison.
No, you go to prison because the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Even if George's story was shot through with holes, the Prosecution still has to prove their case. In a court of law there is a bar that the prosecution has to reach. Consider the Casey Anthony trial. Her story was so full of holes that you could drive a truck through them, but the prosecution failed to actually prove that she was responsible for her daughter's death. In the same way it doesn't matter whether the Jury believe George's story or not, the Prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually murdered Trayon, that he was not actually in fear of his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. If they can't do that, he should walk, that is the law.
I can't believe you're actually advocating a standard in which a person can kill someone, claim self-defense, tell a story that falls apart under scrutiny, but still walk since memory is fallible. I reject your standard as, frankly, evil.
I'm advocating that we treat witness testimony scientifically and understand that it is faulty and can never be taken at face value, that picking it apart for inconsistancy is very easy to do since memory is extremely faulty and as such often wrong when compared to other forms of physical evidence, and it is well known that all memory changes over time.
I am advocating that a defendant in a trial is found guilty or not guilty by the evidence, primarily the physical evidence that tells the story and doesn't change and not because of eye-witness testimony (even their own) or confessions since in this day and age we know from extensive studies that those are the worse two forms of evidence there are and that more false convictions occur based on them than any other form of evidence.
I am advocating that the prosecution actually has to do its job to get a conviction, that they have to show that what they claim is correct beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that they have shown that it is possible, not that they have poked holes in the defense's claims, and not that their claim is more likely, but that their claims are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the legal standard, and if you find that to be evil, well then I reject your rejection.
