Thanks for the correction on some of the details. I actually haven’t read much about this case lately and I was basing my scenario on the original news stories.
However, I stand by my point. While I would fully expect the case against Zimmerman to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, the standard of proof on Internet forums is quite a bit lower. Reserving judgment is OK, but if you look through the threads on this topic you’ll notice a lot of freepers completely trusting and repeating Zimmerman’s version of events. The fact that his is the only story available is no excuse. We only have his story because he killed Martin, which should immediately raise suspicions as to his story.
Of course he says Martin was acting suspiciously. What else would he say? However, we now know that Martin was actually not doing anything wrong. Therefore, Zimmerman is either lying or completely misread the situation. In the “benefit of the doubt” equation that should be considered as a strike against him.
Yes, there was a witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, but that says nothing about who initiated the fight. It’s entirely plausible that Zimmerman started something he couldn’t finish.
However, and this is where I differ from a lot of freepers, I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Martin even if he threw the first punch, unless he did it in anger. He was in a strange neighborhood, it was dark, or at least getting dark out, and a strange man in street clothes who outweighed him by 100 pounds was following him on foot after first following him in his car. I think a lot of people would perceive that as highly threatening behavior and strike first. If Zimmerman actually tried to touch him or detain him in any way, which is quite plausible given his recorded conversation with the police (”they always get away”) I don’t see how anyone could fault Martin for throwing a punch. I know I would in that situation. Does this mean that he then has the right to shoot me?
No, I don’t know for sure what happened that night. That should be determined at trial. But the circumstances of this case are such that if I had to bet on one side or the other, I would bet on Zimmerman being culpable both morally and legally.
I agree, and I don't like that, either. For the most part, I think they are creating Zimmerman's version. To my knowledge, other than some brief police characterizations of Zimmerman's account, we don't really know his side of the story. And I think there is at least as much creation of a story for Martin. I prefer to try to learn the facts.
Of course he says Martin was acting suspiciously. What else would he say? However, we now know that Martin was actually not doing anything wrong. Therefore, Zimmerman is either lying or completely misread the situation. In the “benefit of the doubt” equation that should be considered as a strike against him.
You make it sound like "he was acting suspiciously" was a post facto justification for the shooting. It wasn't. Saying somebody is acting suspiciously can be a factual statement even if that person is in fact not doing anything wrong.
Consider this: it's been reported that Martin's cell phone conversation was via a bluetooth earpiece. Under a hood in the rain, the earpiece was likely not visible. People talking on bluetooth earpieces usually do look crazy if you don't know that's what they are doing. Illegal? No. Suspicious? Sure.
Yes, there was a witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, but that says nothing about who initiated the fight. It’s entirely plausible that Zimmerman started something he couldn’t finish.
Of course.
However, and this is where I differ from a lot of freepers, I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Martin even if he threw the first punch, unless he did it in anger.
If Martin started the fight, then the shooting was self-defense. I completely agree with you that if Martin chose to confront and even shove or strike Zimmerman, that was understandable. I was just telling my wife earlier that I think that's probably what I would have done - almost certainly would have when I was 17. That's exactly what is so tragic.
But how about if we try to put ourselves in Zimmerman's shoes for a minute, too? In a neighborhood where police are called, on average, more than once per day, would you be a little more likely to assume bad intent when you see somebody you don't know acting strangely?
As you say, we may never know what actually happened. But I disagree that it therefore needs to go to trial. I would prefer for law enforcement to try to determine if there is evidence enough to convict before they go to trial.
It is perfectly legitimate to conclude that your gut tells you Zimmerman is guilty. That may even be correct. But it is also legitimate to conclude from the evidence that he nevertheless should not be tried. Although I will be stunned if he does not end up in a courtroom at this point.
Inhaling deeply>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finally a rational, well thought out post. Thank you for your reason.