TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
The burden of proof for a murder case and a rape case are extremely disparate. Victims of a murder trial cannot even give a testimony or be cross examined while alleged rape victims are able. Comparing the two is beyond egregious. You chose to compare it to that trial and not another rape trial for a reason. Are the people who are skeptical of Steven Avery's conviction supposed to be skeptical of Darren Sharper's conviction because of how easy it is to "choose your own interpretations out of favoritism?" Nuance exists for a reason, so do not be oblivious.
It's not even about the content of the cases. It's about the fact that people did not accept the result of the Zimmerman trial, and the same can be said about Parker's case. You can call it an (over)simplified comparison but at the end of the day it's nonsensical to support the notion that a court ruling is always the correct ruling, so the mere fact that he was cleared of his charges in itself is not proof of his innocence.
I only used Zimmerman as an example because it's an obvious case of people disagreeing with the court ruling, I'm not sure what's so hard to get about that.