Even without this I don’t understand how they could successfully convict Zimmerman of murder without rigging the game. I’m no lawyer but doesn’t a charge of murder oblige the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman deliberately initiated a potentially deadly assault on Martin? I don’t see how they could possibly prove that. I would think that involuntary manslaughter would be the most they would have a shot at proving.
To me it’s just another sign that this is a political railroading, not a criminal case.
Does the prosecution need to show that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, or at least initiated the fight, to seek a conviction on Murder in the Second Degree? Your point is well taken. But, no, the prosecution could show that Zimmerman badly over-reacted to a fight once it got started. For example, let’s say Trayvon initiated the confrontation, doubling back on Zimmerman, and saying to him, “Why you following me for?” I think this is, at this point, not in controversy. Let’s even say Trayvon initiated the fight, although I don’t think we have any knowledge of who started the fight other than Zimmerman’s report to the police. And, let’s say that during the fighting, Trayvon opened a can of whoop ass on Zimmerman, concerning which the prosecution only contends that Zimmerman wasn’t already beaten seriously, but the prosecution is simply not credible on this point. But, let’s say that Zimmerman then got on top of Trayvon, had him under control, got his gun out and pointed it at Trayvon. There’s really no evidence of this. But, supposing this was the case, then if Zimmerman then shot Trayvon, execution style, that would be Murder in the Second Degree. Now, I’ll address your point. If Zimmerman wasn’t being beaten so badly, and could have maybe wriggled out from under Trayvon, and - miscalculating the probability that he would sustain fatal or serious injury - shot Trayvon, then it would be some level of Manslaughter.