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.
So what you are saying is that if you are carrying a gun, you should be responsible for your behavior that a reasonable person would think could lead to a physical confrontation?
That actually makes sense.
However, if his claims that he was walking away when Tray attacked him from behind can not be countered, it might damage such a case. That’s the thing about a fight where only one participant survives. And without strong evidence to demonstrate otherwise, a jury really has no choice but to acquit.
And for good reason. If all Zim ever really did was ask the guy what he was doing in the neighborhood, well, a Cop can ask that as well, it is not expected that the guy will then attack you just for asking. I certainly would not, even if I WERE up to no good. I’d want to just leave and hop it was forgotten that I was ever there.