The DA over charged in this case and did not give a compromise charge of manslaughter. I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate the situation and a charge of manslaughter or negligent homicide could have been argued for.
I watched the whole trial. Prosecutor had no case and poorly presented whatever it was he did have. Evidence of criminality just wasn’t there.
The neighborhood watch was setup by the local government. He was participating in the approved plan. Zimmerman was attacked and acted to save himself. He shouldn’t go to jail for anything he did.
How was it manslaughter or negligent homicide?
It was a totally justifiable homicide.
When someone is trying to kill you, you kill them.
End of story.
I agree with you. the situation could of been avoided by Zimmerman but at the same time the guy was attacked by the person he ended up killing.
As I recall, the DA didn’t bring the charges. The local DA had decided not to purse the case.
It was due to pressures brought by black activists and assorted liberals, who agitated and pressured the governor of Florida to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the case.
It was this special prosecutor, not the DA, who brought the charges. And I’m sure it was due to the pressure from the pressure groups, that the charge was murder.
In fact, if you will recall, the incident happened in late Feburary 2012. It didn’t hit the national news until late March of 2012, about a month later. It hit the national news because agitators went on Al Sharpton’s show on MSNBC, and agitated through the media, to bring this case to the attention of the nation. To the local police in Sanford, Florida, it was an open and shut case, no crime committed by Zimmerman, and not worthy of any special attention.
>I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate the situation and a charge of manslaughter or negligent homicide could have been argued for.
LOL. You’re got to explain that to me.
> I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate the situation and a charge of manslaughter or negligent homicide could have been argued for. <
A guy I know is a lawyer. And he’s passionate about the Second Amendment. Very passionate. He’s taken on cases on behalf of the NRA.
And he agrees with you.
Oh, really? Getting your head bashed in by some negro thug is not excuse enough to defend yourself? Self defense is not valid in your world?
That's the argument of the ignorant.
I'm not aware of anything in the trial record that would support that interpretation. There will always be a question about what happened when Martin confronted Zimmerman. We have Zimmerman's account, but without any other witnesses, there is no corroboration. It is certainly possible that Martin said something to escalate the encounter, but there is no evidence of this. Nor should one speculate based on Zimmerman's mixed record since the trial. Based on the evidence available, self-defense was the only verdict an impartial jury could have reached. Indeed, Zimmerman should never have been charged. The initial judgement of the local police and prosecutors to treat the case as self-defense was correct. Charges were only brought belatedly as a political response to mob pressure, and the jury was correct to find for Zimmerman.
GZ was going back to his vehicle when he was sucker punched and assaulted. GZ did nothing wrong and had as much right to be walking in that neighborhood as his attacker.
It wasn’t manslaughter so it doesn’t matter that that wasn’t an option. I paid astute attention to the details (and I live in the same town) and he was defending himself, pure and simple. Trayvon Martin was a dirty little thug that ultimately got what he asked for due to his criminal mind.
.
>> “The DA over charged in this case and did not give a compromise charge of manslaughter. I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate the situation and a charge of manslaughter or negligent homicide could have been argued for.” <<
That is an absolute crock of manure!
.