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

[zencycler]

212. your scenerio

The problem with your scenario is it doesn't seem to jibe with Rachel's testimony and what she says Trayvon and Zimmerman said to each other ("Why are you following me" and "What are you doing around here", respectively). In order to void Zimmerman's claim of self-defense the prosecution would need to either prove that Zimmerman had initiated an assault that started the altercation or overcome reasonable doubt that he was not reasonably in fear of great bodily harm or death at the time of the shooting. And while it seems the jury (along with the viewing public) wanted Zimmerman to be held accountable for something, it seems the only thing which the prosecution may have been able to prove to the jury would have been the crime of Negligent Homicide. But that charge, which would specifically relate to everything questionable which GZ did leading up to the altercation (getting out of car, following, not identifying self at first opportunity), was not included among the more serious charges the jury was given to consider - perhaps because the prosecution wanted a conviction on the more serious charge so they didn't want to include a choice which would result in perhaps a five-year jail sentence. But ultimately, this was the only charge which they may have been able to prove, and for which a self-defense claim at the time of the shooting would not apply.