Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkingturtle
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
As a grown man, it's reasonable to doubt another grown man should ever feel the need to use a gun to solve a conflict with a boy whom he outweighs by a hundred pounds. Simply invoking "I was scared" should not relieve anyone from all accountability. Thus we have trials, and in this one there will be every attempt made to suss out what Zimmerman's mind-state was at the time of the incident. You may not understand the intricacies, but experts will testify to his behavioral patterns and whether or not what you call "overeagerness" was in fact something more insidious. Then the jury will decide if his invocation of self-defense is reasonable.
I hope that helps you fathom why we has trial.
|
that all sounds nice but it's ultimately incorrect
saying "i was scared" shouldn't relieve him of accountability, but given a context in which fear is reasonable, it does. case history doesn't even necessitate violence for a case of self defense, which makes this an open-and-shut case given zimmerman's injuries
it is not possible to prove his state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt. it is not possible to prove he wasn't afraid for his life, given available evidence. you can prove his "overeagerness" was borne of the most insidious of behavioral patterns, even that he was an outright bigot looking for trouble. but that's not going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was the one that initiated physical violence or that he wasn't actually afraid for his life once he began losing the fight.
between his injuries, his account of trayvon reaching for his gun and saying "you're going to die", and his use of a single bullet, he has a compelling case for self defense. something in his account would need to be disproven for it to fail. that evidence doesn't exist