A question for those who feel that the correct verdict was rendered in the Zimmerman trial.

[John1956PA]

131. I hope that, if I were on the jury, I would have had the courage to hold out for manslaughter.

I think that the totality of Z's actions render him culpable of manslaughter. Z knew that Trayvon knew that Z was following him. Somewhere in Z's calculus should have been the following thought, "Hey, maybe this is just a visiting kid who is scared of me following him in the dark and in the rain." Z should have known that a scared African-American kid who is outdoors after dark in a gated community will not act with the poise of an older white male. Trayvon likely thought that running might cause his pursuer or some third party to conclude that he was a criminal. Also, he may have thought that danger was imminent and that there was no time to call 911.

The answer to the question as to why Trayvon doubled back may be that Trayvon spotted someone or something which suggested to him that he was being pursued into an ambush. Trayvon was scared and rightfully paranoid. He may have interpreted the presence of some third party on the street ahead of him as a sign that he was about to be ambushed.

I think that, besides being illegal (manslaughter) Z's actions were cowardly. If Trayvon has been the size of an NFL linebacker (race aside) Z would have stayed in his truck. He would not risk having an altercation with someone powerful enough to knock him unconscious with a single punch. As it was, Z viewed Trayvon as a "punk" who, in Z's worse-case scenario, was not strong enough to wrestle Z's handgun away from him if it came down to an altercation. I think that by the moment that Trayvon and Z locked gazes to begin their fateful struggle, Z was already grasping his handgun or, if not, he reached for it within seconds.

I think that the totality of Z's actions were beyond negligent. His actions were intentional and reckless. He should have been convicted of manslaughter.