During the Zimmerman trial, we have had DUers argue for his acquittal, which, of course, happened...

[cpwm17]

40. I'll be brave and state my opinion as I have recently

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:07 AM - Edit history (3)

During the trial I stated here on DU that I thought it was manslaughter. The evidence does indicate that it was TM that assaulted GZ, but I thought GZ had some (sufficient for conviction) culpability for the conflict. I thought a short prison sentence was appropriate.

After the trial, and after giving it some thought, I stated here on DU that acquittal was appropriate. The only evidence we have to go by, from the trial, was that it was most likely TM that brought violence to their encounter. GZ was doing nothing illegal. TM should have just gone home and ignored the asshole that was following him in the truck. GZ still was very near the location during the assault as he was while the 911 operator said not to follow. In the several minute time gap TM had plenty of time to go home. So we must assume that it was TM that came back to confront GZ. GZ's keys were on the ground from what was most likely a surprise assault. It's a proven fact that TM was assaulting GZ when TM got shot.

GZ thought TM was suspicious. We have no way of knowing exactly why. In the course of our lives we encounter various troublesome people, but that in no way gives us a right to assault them. Whoever brings violence to an encounter is responsible for what happens next. GZ had a right to assume that he was facing an attempted murder against him. Self defense is justified.