I don’t necessarily buy it either. But it makes the point that we really don’t have all the facts regarding this case. And some facts will forever be in some people’s heads.
I don’t agree with everything Zim did, based on what I’ve read, at least, but I also think a strong case for self defense may be in order here. Or, more precisely, there is not a strong enough case for murder.
The only way, in my mind, that Zims first actions really play into this is if it could be proven that his goal, in following (and maybe confronting) Tray was to cause a physical confrontation. If that can’t be proven, there is really no case, based on what I am reading of eyewitness testimonies.
That would be malice. Malice is not always needed for an action to still be illegal.
If that can’t be proven, there is really no case, based on what I am reading of eyewitness testimonies.
Not necessarily. The question of negligence would still be open. Is it reasonable to believe that your actions could result in injury or death?
Zimmerman believed that Martin was a criminal. Did he fail to consider that searching for said criminal COULD result in a confrontation?
Did he fail to consider he might have to draw the weapon he carried when/if confronted?
Did he fail to consider that drawing his weapon might result in death - be it the "criminal's", his, or a bystander/occupant of a nearby residence?
I think that will be the argument presented to the grand jury.