I disagree.
I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that George Zimmerman strapped on a gun and walked out his door for the express purpose of looking for trouble.
I don't think he walked out the door looking to kill anyone, I don't even think he walked out the door looking to shoot anyone.
But I think it's clear that he has some strange hero predilection and when the police department he applied to declined his application (I would have to assume for cause) and the security guard job he had fired him for being overly aggressive he set his sites on a completley unregulated and unsupervised channel through which to scratch his wanna-be law enforcement/authority figure itch - self-appointed community watch captain.
So ol' George was out there with his gun on his hip stalking the neighborhood like he was Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp looking for a cattle rustler (or teenaged kid, any port in a storm) to "bring to justice.
When he saw one he aggressively pursued the kid, in the rain, in the dark of night, and I would have to believe he scared the daylights out of the poor kid. I mean, how does this kid know that Zimmerman is the wanna-be block watch? He didn't identify himself in any way. He just crept around in the dark. I have to put myself in Martin's place and if I were a 17-year-old kid today and some middle aged guy was stalking me through the neighborhood in the dark of night my first inclination certainly wouldn't be that "Hmmm, must be the neighborhood watch". I'd think he was a murderer, a rapist, a kidnapper, whatever, something along those lines. Because let's face it, well adjusted grown men don't drive around at night looking for kids to stalk.
So Zimmerman pursued Martin, but Martin was able to get away.
It would seem as though Martin went so far as to hide in the bushes to escape from this nutcase, or at least that's what would had to have happened if Martin was later to have attacked Zimmerman from ambush.
But the only way Martin would have been in a position to have ambushed Zimmerman would be if Zimmerman had reestablished (or at least maintained, but I think there's evidence that he broke it off for a while) his pursuit.
So, after having evaded what he must have though was some kind of criminal stalker (because, again, Zimmerman hadn't identified himself in any way to the contrary), and after having thought he actually lost the guy, here comes Zimmerman again walking up the sidewalk or across the grass, creeping around, peering into dark corners, obviously still looking for Martin.
At this point Martin says to himself, "You know what? Enough off this running away. I'm going to stand my ground."
And he does.
But Zimmerman has a gun, and as we all know you don't bring a pair of fists to a gun fight.
So despite doing his best (as best as any 17-year-old kid could do) to protect and defend himself from an adult who was acting in a manner completely inconsistent with every adult I know (and probably every adult Martin knew) Martin wound up getting shot and killed.
Not "murdered" mind you. I don't think, and never have thought, that Zimmerman murdered Martin (in any degree).
But Zimmerman's culpable negligence put him in a position where a young, dumb, and full of cum 17-year-old kid thought that his only way out was to fight for his life.
If Zimmerman doesn't strap on the gun, leave the house for the express purpose of playing Junior Assistant Police Officer, doesn't (completely inexplicably) stalk a young kid through the neighborhood, in the rain, at night, doesn't fail identify himself in any way, then no shooting occurs.
Zimmerman recklessly acting without reasonable caution put Martin in a position where he was at risk of injury or death.
And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is culpable negligence. That is manslaughter.
I rest my case.
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another,
without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Tying this all together in a rebuttle of your fantasy:
GZ had the absolute argument to self-defense. Regardless of the circumstances prior to the altercation, which are based entirely off unproven and unsupported assumptions, and regardless of who initiated the confrontation, GZ's claim to self-defense remains valid in the defense against the charge of Murder 2 along with the lesser charge of manslaughter.
GZ did not fight back against TM once the confrontation started, as evidenced by the lack of injury on TM's body excluding the gunshot wound. Evidence shows that GZ was taking a beating to both the front and back of the head in a manner which would create a reasonable fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Even with this fear, GZ exhausted the only option he had to prevent the use of force: he screamed for 40 seconds, pleading with neighbors for help. None came. Finally, as a last resort to prevent the great bodily harm and death he, reasonably, feared was coming considering the assault, brandished his firearm and shot a single time to the chest of TM. Unfortunately, this shot killed him. Even if GZ provoked the attack, and let me take the moment to exclaim strongly that there is no evidence whatsoever that he did anything to warrant being assaulted, once the confrontation started he exhausted every possible alternative he had before finally resolving to use deadly force to prevent himself from being the ultimate victim.
The prosecution's arguments, and I'm being generous not calling them fantasies, are based purely on assumption and speculation. The evidence tells a different story. A man found himself in a confrontation where he was helpless. He had no control over the beating he was recieving. Testimony has shown that GZ was not a fighter, his trainer would not even feel safe putting him in a sparring ring despite months of training. Still, even in fear he took 40 seconds, which by the expert's testimony could reasonably have felt to him like 10 minutes, to scream for help while being beaten MMA style and having his head shoved into the concrete. Under Florida law, jurors must weigh the EVIDENCE of the case. That evidence supports the fact that GZ lawfully defended himself with deadly force against someone who he had a reasonable fear would cause him great injury after exhausting all other options to extracate himself from the situation. This should lead the jury to the conclusion that, regardless of the unfounded claims that GZ provoked the controntation, they must return a verdict of not guilty of all charges by way of self-defense. The law is the law, the evidence is the evidence, and in consideration of that GZ is innocent of both Murder 2 and Manslaughter. I ask that you consider the law and the evidence provided to you and come back with the only reasonable, logical, and fair judgement of finding George Zimmerman not guilty on all charges.
Thank you, I rest my case.
All Zimmerman/Martin posts go in the subforum
