The jury was absolutely right [View all]
1: The law, as I understand it.
*Following someone down a street, for whatever reason, good or bad, is legal.
*Ignoring a request from a police dispatcher is legal.
*Confronting someone because they are following you is legal.
*Physically attacking someone is not legal, even if they have just been following you or just confronted you aggressively for following them.
*Shooting someone because they are physically attacking you is legal.
*Shooting someone you have physically attacked because you are losing the fight is not legal.
2: A basic principle
*Only people who are proven beyond reasonable doubt to have broken the law should be sent to prison.
3: In this case:
*Zimmerman claims that he was following Martin, who then confronted and attacked him, and was on top of him and banging his head against the ground at the point he fired.
*If that is indeed the case (and, of course, it may not be), the only person there would be any ground for bringing charges against would be Martin.
*To argue rationally for the conviction of Zimmerman, you either have to argue that it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that he is lying, or to argue that if his story is true he is guilty of a crime.
4: If you are certain beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is lying:
*There isn't very much evidence either way. That means that the accused gets the benefit of all doubts. In this case that's Zimmerman; if Martin has survived and been accused of assault then it would work the other way.
*There is camera footage of damage to the back of Zimmerman's head. I think that's pretty conclusive proof that at some point Martin banged it against the ground, although of course it doesn't prove that it was he who initiated the fight, or that he was doing so at the point he was shot.
*But Zimmerman didn't had to prove that; the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Zimmerman's story is not corroborated, but nor is it implausible, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.
5: If you think that even if Zimmerman is telling the truth that still constitutes a crime.
*It doesn't.
*Self defence is an admissible defence.
*If you want to argue that it *should* constitute a crime to shoot a crime to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old who is launching a moderately serious physical assault on you after you have provoked him, that's a whole different argument. I don't think that it should, I think that it's absolutely not okay to physically attack people, ever, and that pretty much no non-physical provocation (counting threats of physical violence as physical) justifies it, but it's a legitimate debate. But there can be no debate about the fact that, at present, it doesn't.
*There's also a case to be made that the burden of proof in an affirmative defence should be different to when simply claiming innocence. Again, it's a legitimate position, but not one I share, and not the case at present in Florida, I believe (although I may be wrong). For now, my understanding is that in Florida if I murder you in cold blood, claim it was self defence, and no-one can prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, the jury should acquit me, and I think that's the right side to err on.
6: Conclusion.
*It may be - it may well be - that an innocent man has been killed and his killer has gotten away with it. But, also, it may well be that that Martin was killed as a result of physically attacking someone whose only "crime" was to follow him down the street - which, while a tragedy, is absolutely not a crime. And, given that we don't know, there was only one conclusion the jury could come to.
*I think it's reasonable to question why Zimmerman was prosecuted in the first place - was it because the prosecutors genuinely felt there was enough evidence to prove his guilt, or was it - as I suspect - because it would have been wildly unpopular not to?
= new reply since forum marked as read
