DelPen wrote:Serious question, does anyone not see ANYreasonable doubt that this was self defense by Zimmerman?
Sorry, I don't think you get to initiate a confrontation with someone (knowing you are armed and on the phone with police) and then get to claim self defense when you end up having your ass kicked and you kill the person you were tailing. That may not be the letter of the law, but it's completely ridiculous to me that he may suffer no criminal sanction as a result of his actions. Murder 2? No. Manslaughter? Absolutely.
DelPen wrote:Where stand your ground comes into play, many states require that if you can leave a situation you MUST flee if possible UNLESS doing so would increase your chance of harm unless you are in your home, car or some other places. FL SYG does not require you attempt to leave if possible. It's all moot anyways since it's impossible to escape when mounted and being pummeled.
Agree or disagree with the law but the state has failed on a colossal to prove any guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that this could not have been self defense just as Zimmerman has said repeatedly and a few witnesses have corroborated to some degree. The prosecution has actually come closer to proving 100% innocence.
The stand-your-ground defense is not being used by GZ, so any discussion of it is moot. They had the opportunity pre-trial to invoke SYG, which would have required Zimmerman to testify in a special hearing. The defense waived that. This is a straight self defense claim. They may yet attempt to invoke that defense, but it's unlikely since GZ stated yesterday he wouldn't be testifying. (Which, considering GZ pursued TM while on the phone with police, would be a dubious claim at best.)
Besides, most of the lawmakers behind the legislation publicly stated that GZs actions leading up to the confrontation and shooting almost by definition exclude him from invoking that as a defense. Not that that has any weight at trial, but if people who wrote the law say "You don't qualify for its protection"..... probably a good idea to not go down that path.
DelPen wrote:It was, extensively, and the police looked at all the evidence and determined that no charges would need to be filed.
They didn't look at it extensively at all, which is the root of the problem. The police on scene the night of the shooting didn't even canvass the neighborhood in an effort to identify TM, and (as was discussed a couple pages ago) they didn't even photograph GZ's wounds. When police work is as bungled as that, it hurts both sides of the case because both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence might go uncovered.