I haven’t been following all the evidence at trial because I’ve been so busy, but from what I know, this is the sense I get. The jury could only find him guilty of the charged crimes, not of being wrong, violent, and reckless. I guess it is legally possible in FL to recklessly provoke a heated confrontation, then during it have a right to self defense if you believe your life is in danger. That’s seriously messed up, but not the fault of the prosecutors or jury.
I have not followed the threads (and I’m not going to go back and read tens or hundreds of pages), but for me it comes down to this: If you start a fight, you can’t claim self defense if you shoot the guy who’s kicking your butt. So I think there was a chance.
Yes, its sick, isn’t it. The dead boy cannot speak. The message is, if you’re going to shoot someone, make sure they’re dead. If both people are “standing their ground” the one with the gun wins.
If someone is stalking me, and then attempts to detain me, do I not have the right to defend myself?
Had Zimmerman stayed in his truck as he was advised, and had Zimmerman not initiated a confrontation, then Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would not have to look over his shoulder the rest of his life.