Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I have an opinion but I'm very well aware that the evidence isn't all in. Honestly though it's hard for me to understand the pro-zimmerman crowd that is so sure that he can't be guilty that the case needs to be thrown out....


Granted I may have missed a point or two while trying to wade through pages of "You are ignoring this user" when Promod is (presumably) spamming us with drivel about how we're all "republinazi Faux news indoctrinated corporate shills" (or whatever he vomited up from this week's Occutard twitter feed). However, from what I've seen, the posters here haven't said Zimmerman "can't be guilty." They've simply expressed doubt in the narrative that Zimmerman was some sort of white (he isn't) racist (he probably isn't, given he's part black) who shot an unarmed kid without provocation.

Furthermore, many of those doubts, as the facts roll in, seem to be grounded in at least some of the evidence.

I will concede that a few posters have expressed the opinion that a murder charge should--or will be--thrown out. And maybe (see above) I missed someone saying more. However, it also appears to me that those posters are doing so based upon the idea that lesser charges such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide were more appropriate. If I recall correctly, that was your opinion as well early on.

 Quote:
Stand Your Ground despite what you said at the beginning has played a role in this and it looks like it's still in play.


As near as I can tell the aspects of the SYGL that are possibly applicable in this case are typical self-defense questions:
  • Who was the initial aggressor;
    If Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, had he exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force;
    Did Zimmerman reasonably believe it is necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself;


The only one that is potentially different than a typical self defense case is whether, if he was the initial aggressor, Zimmerman had no duty to retreat. But even there under SYGL he has to have exhausted every other avenue, which is a similar concept.

And, if Zimmerman wasn't the initial aggressor (and I think a court may be hard pressed to find that following Martin filled that role) then SYGL wouldn't be applicable anyway. It would be "regular" self defense.

Ultimately, based on what I've seen, I think this case will more likely hinge on "regular" self defense and on who attacked who first.