To be fair, the defendant here did *shoot* and *kill* the only person who could have provided testimony to refute the defendant's. Where are they going to get irrefutable evidence from? As a matter of public policy, it seems dangerous to send the message that as long as nobody else is around to see it you can kill someone and then make up a story about how you were defending yourself.
For the record, I don't hate any of the people you mentioned here. Ironically enough, I think it is specifically logic that dictates that his version of events be dismissed. What we know about this incident other than what came from Zimmerman is that you had this wannabe cop who was (wrongly) suspicious of a kid that was doing nothing wrong, and as a result of that suspicion, along with some hubris and ignorance and stupidity, he decided to follow the kid. And as a result of him following the kid, there was an altercation in which he shot the kid.
Everything I know about life tells me that if there is an altercation between the type of person that is going to go follow a kid around a neighborhood armed with a gun despite zero evidence of the kid doing anything wrong and a kid who was walking through the neighborhood minding his own business and not bothering anyone, that the former is approximately 1000X more likely to be responsible for that altercation than the latter. And since in this case the latter died as a result of the altercation and the former's explanation both serves as the only possible scenario in which he could not be guilty of killing the kid and includes a series of events that defy every reasonable inference that a person could make about what happened, I don't think he deserves to be believed.
It certainly isn't illegal to follow someone around your neighborhood. But Zimmerman isn't on trial for that. He is on trial for the shooting that took place as a result of his following someone around his neighborhood. First of all, the fact that he was armed and following a teenager around his neighborhood speaks to his character and credibility, and so it is relevant insofar as it allows me to dismiss his story about what happened. Second of all, I don't believe that Martin started the altercation and I do think that once Zimmerman approached Martin he had the right to defend himself (oh, the irony). I also believe the thing about Martin trying to grab Zimmerman's gun is laughably absurd and further undermines Zimmerman's credibility. I get why he is saying it, I just think it is too far fetched to be believable.
The thing is, I'm with you until this last paragraph. Everything you're saying is fine. Then I get lost on your logic on a couple points. Please try to answer these if you have time:
-How does Zimmerman being armed speak to his credibility? It's perfectly legal to carry and lots of people carry every time they leave the house. That hurts his credibility (i.e. the fact that he owns/carries indicates he is untrustworthy) in what way?
-How does him following a teenager (mind you, there is no way Zimmerman would know that a person who is 4" taller than him in the dark and at a distance with a hood up is a "teenager" when he chose to follow him) speak to his character? He called 911 to report someone he thought looked suspicious and then followed them to see where they were going when they randomly took off running. Seems like the actions of a concerned citizen more than a vigilante murder. Someone with the intent of murder/assault logically would not call the cops to report a suspicious person... they would just go murder/assault them.
-Why do you not believe that Martin started the altercation? There are only two people testifying to the start of the altercation... Zimmerman and Martin's GF. Martin's GF even said that she encouraged Martin to keep going home but he didn't listen and instead
turned around to confront Zimmerman. She said that on the stand.
If Zimmerman was "not minding his own business" from inside his house and looking out the window, or standing in his driveway, then no it wouldn't warrant an ***-kicking. But following someone around could definitely make that person apprehensive about their safety and cause them to protect themselves. If Zimmerman had followed Martin around and made him nervous and Martin responding by punching him in the face, then Martin would be in the wrong and the justice system could deal with Martin. But not only do I not believe that happened, I don't believe people should have the right to take the law into their own hands and kill someone because they got beat up.
If that all happened word for word and I saw videotape proving it, then I would not convict for manslaughter. I just find that whole scenario to be so utterly absurd and implausible that it is hard for me to take it seriously.
So basically what it comes down to is that you just personally do not believe Zimmerman and you also disagree with the law in play here that would allow him to be acquitted. Fine. When phrased like that instead of "Zimmerman deserve to die" it seems far more reasonable.
I don't think they would ever let me on a jury because it would be hard for me to follow an instruction with which I disagreed. It is my understanding that this jury will be instructed that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self defense. I believe that if a defendant is using an affirmative defense, the burden should shift to the defendant to prove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, that would mean that Zimmerman would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense.
Seems legit.
Having said that, and based on what I wrote above, I don't have any doubt in my mind that Zimmerman's story is horseshit and so I would vote to convict. This thread is terrific evidence that there is no way you're going to get 12 out of 12 people to feel that way, though. For whatever reason, people seem to desperately want to believe this guy's story. I can't understand why, but it is obviously the way it is.
Well, 6 out of 6 in this case... so there is a chance. I don't necessarily believe Zimmerman's account, but I find it relatively plausible... at least not very
implausible relative to other options. What we know is that Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious (sorry, but they've told residents in our building to call security on anyone we see in the parking area or in the streets around the building who looks suspicious... and white, black, Latino, or purple someone walking around alone at night in the rain would be suspicious 10/10 times. That is not normal behavior for most people.)... he called the cops... Martin saw Zimmerman watching him and took off running... Zimmerman went to see where Martin went... Martin turned around to confront him per his GF's testimony... and then it gets murky.
Someone escalated it to a physical confrontation, it could just as easily have been either person... it's fairly clear from the forensic evidence and conflicting witness accounts that at one point in the fight Martin was on top of Zimmerman and kicking his ***... and then Zimmerman shot Martin. So in essence the only part of the story that is both important and debatable is whether or not Martin went for his gun, or Zimmerman just drew and fired. I don't really see how there is any evidence either way making Zimmerman's account of that aspect likely or unlikely.
I do think a good chunk of the Zimmerman defenders/rage has to do with people who came into following this case with pre-conceived notions from the media... and then learned how much horse crap was involved in that early media reporting. And they now think that there is practically no case and shame on certain media outlets for trying to manufacture a race war for ratings with doctored/selective/misleading information.
