The death of an unarmed individual by someone carrying a gun is plenty of probably cause. If stand your ground applies, it more than likely applies for Treyvon. Furthermore, because Zimmerman followed Treyvon after being told not to puts him in a position that he will probably be unable to avail himself of standard self-defense OR stand your ground.
I prosecuted several similar cases in Fairfax. I had one with two brothers where one killed the other after being jumped. Got a voluntary manslaughter conviction.
The idiocy surrounding race, what either was like before the incident, etc is meaningless.
There are MANY facts in this case that give you by probable cause. This would sail through a preliminary hearing and go to trial. Ppl are too quick to take the “conservative” v “liberal” side here. I could give two hoots as a prosecutor.
Now, is he guilty? Beats me. But that is a VERY different test than whether or not he should be prosecuted. He should be and will be. It is an easy call.
Unless the shooter is a Fairfax County Police Officer, right?
I haven't seen the Fairfax prosecutor's office bring charges against the several police officers who shot unarmed citizens.
Your analysis is, therefore, peculiar.
So it matters not that Trayvon Martin was using potentially lethal force against Zimmerman? Would you prosecute someone for attempted murder for repeatedly bashing another person's head against the sidewalk?
You are also making an assumption, absent any kind of evidence, that Trayvon Martin had some kind of right to be attacking Zimmerman. Please show where it is illegal for a person to follow and report someone they deem to be suspicious. Also, please indicate any evidence you have that Zimmerman may have been brandishing his weapon or in any other way acting in a manner that would have provided legal justification for Martin to be assaulting him in self-defense.
BTW, as another FReeper pointed out to me, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is more than just eliminating the legal requirement that one has to try to retreat before resorting legally to lethal force. It also provides safeguards against prosecution for using force. So you might want to bone up on current Florida law before you so casually decree that Zimmerman should be prosecuted.
“.........because Zimmerman followed Treyvon after being told not to puts him in a position that he will probably be unable to avail himself of standard self-defense......”
*************************************************************
Just the facts, Ma’am! He was not told not to follow Martin. What was said, when he acknowledged that he was following Martin, was “We don’t need you to do that”.
There is a difference in meaning, no?
It is also disturbing to me that you, as a prosecutor, profess to support charging people with felonies in the absence of any analytical decision on your part that they have committed a crime.
How many defense attorneys have, in the face of your charges, told their clients "look man, this could go either way. If you plead guilty they're offering five years of probation with no jail. If this goes to trial and you're found guilty, you;re looking at ten years". How many defendants took those pleas? How many of those defendants pleaded guilty to a crime for which your position was "is he guilty? Beats me."
Perhaps this is the "Commonwealth" doctrine, since Virginia, as a Commonwealth tends to hold its citizens to a higher standard. I remind you that Florida is no such tyranny. Ironic, the Virginia motto: 'Sic Semper Tyrannis.'
What FACTS? The 'media' facts?
Prosecuted for what? Defending yourself is a crime? He has to prove he was defending himself where any slime of a lawyer or prosecutor can twist it or cause doubt for the jury? When it has nothing to do with TRUTH but the best slime being able to twist truth. They already tainted any possible jury.
Now, is he guilty? Beats me.
It shouldn't.
Anyone of us could be Zimmerman in the future - so you, specifically, remember what either was like before the incident, etc is meaningless. Then when a thief, druggie, rapists, pedophilia - whatever, and you are charged for their crime, you would have whatever you were before mean nothing. You are now equal and probably worse because you are on trial.
Let’s assume that Zimmerman made a mistake following Martin. How much of a beating was he obligated to take prior to defending himself? If Martin beat him to death was he obligated to just accept that?
The above is a fact?