Quote:
Originally Posted by HailGreen28
The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.
C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.
IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)
|
I'm trying to call attention to the impact of the court ruling, without actually criticizing the ruling based on the cases made in court. It's a fine line to walk and I realize that I might appear both reasonable and unreasonable at different points in a post based on what you believe. I'm not trying to be anything other than truthful.
I am not doubting that Zimmerman might have legitimately feared for his life at some point during the altercation (though that can be questioned by a skeptic), but:
1) the ability to construct a situation in ones mind where they overstate the immediate threat is not to be confused with self-defense, a situation that necessarily requires a
credible threat.
2) the mental construct for Zimmerman of immediate danger would have to be linked more tightly to "black thug guy" than "unarmed teenager" in order to justify lethal force. The problem is that the former construct is based heavily on either a poor understanding of race relations at best, or blatant racism at worst. When we deal with facts, we know that Martin was both unarmed, and a teenager, and to go beyond that in terms of character requires a breach of respect for mankind I am not willing to make.
George Zimmerman is likely not an expert on anything. He's probably a racist. He probably didn't intend to kill someone, but he WAS willing to shoot someone who he saw as different/less than human. He made a mistake. I don't think he was defending himself from immediate danger, and I don't think the evidence suggests that was in very much danger.
I do think it's very questionable reasoning to so much as suggest that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Obviously, a criminal trial is not trying to argue that he acted lawfully, but rather, that he did not act unlawfully beyond reasonable doubt. Also: he shot and killed someone. The state of Florida is likely going to want to be very careful about how they apply the law in similar cases, after ruling that someone can shoot and kill, without acting unlawfully (beyond a reasonable doubt).