Again though if the statute does not contain the requisite legal construct to carry the charge, no crime has been committed or can be proved. It’s legally totally correct, not ‘biased’. People on one side of this divide seem to need him to be guilty of something, anything — and him walking is somehow a miscarriage of justice. It must be, right? But… we (society) tested that by charging him with 6 felony crimes and subjected him to a trial by jury, with a judge presiding. He’s innocent of those charges, using the correct procedures — every minute of which was livestreamed and is available to view online. If there was any actual evidence of judicial misconduct or bias the prosecution would have appealed using that very legal leverage. They did not. The ‘federal charges’ many are calling on the DOJ to use now aren’t viable for the same reasons. I’m surprised the prosecution wasn’t censured or even held in contempt for introducing two elements the judge had ruled out in front of the jury. Also how is manslaughter viable for what was proven in court to be an unprovoked attack? The jury had the option of lesser included charges if the primary charge wasn’t proven and still zip. I’m not being ‘see, he was 100% in the right and is a hero’ I’m pointing out what happened during the trial, and what the jury found after looking at all the evidence the prosecution put in front of them.