(05-06-2019 10:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-05-2019 11:14 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  You need to do better. There is so much wrong with this post. "You have to prove that he wasn't reaching?" Like you have to prove that you weren't speeding or that you didn't steal something or that you didn't rape somebody? You have it backwards.

You obviously have no idea what "innocent until proven guilty" means and are completely unfamiliar with how the legal system of our country operates. The defense attorney for Yanez didn't have to prove anything, the prosecution had to prove that Castile did not reach for his gun and they failed.

Actually, the prosecution had to prove more than that. They had to prove that Yanez could not have reasonably believed that Castile was reaching for a gun. Without that, there is no way to prove that Yanez had the required criminal state of mind. Castile could have been reaching for a gumdrop, but if his actions gave Yanez reasonable basis to believe that he was reading for a gun, then there is no criminal state of mind.