trail wrote:
>I don't like the idea of sending this to a trial just to find out what happened.
I do like that idea. The shooting death of an unarmed kid is serious. I think the 911 transcript and testimony of the girlfriend is enough to warrant moving the decision from the executive decision of the DA to a public forum.
I don't like the murder charge. I think some form of manslaughter is more appropriate, even a misdemeanor.
I see little evidence that Zimmerman is either racist or a killer. I see plenty of evidence that he's a whackjob, and there should be *some* accountability for killing someone when the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I get really tired of hearing the unarmed kid meme casually thrown around. Whether he is armed or not is irrelevant. Now had TM been armed, that would definitely lean in GZ's favor. But I have seen unarmed kids do serious damage to other unarmed and even armed individuals. And by the time the threat presented by an unarmed individual can be absolutely determined, it would likely be too late. If we go by the testimony that GZ was being attacked with TM on top, as supported by eyewitness testimony and trauma to GZ. It was getting close to being too late. In fact, many states have a point where self defense becomes assault. When I was a teenager in Virginia training in boxing, Karate, and kick boxing. We were told that once a man is down, defined by one knee down, he is no longer a threat in the eyes of the law. This assumes no projectiles. So any attacks on a grounded person are no longer defense, but assault. ONce the knees left the ground he was fair game, but until then he was not a threat and could not be struck. I don't even know if that is the law here as I have no intention of getting into a ground fight with somebody nor would I strike somebody on the ground in a fight. But if that is a similar law here, TM was now assaulting GZ if TM was himself defending himself under stand your ground.
Let's also not forget that under testimony, GZ stated that TM made motions that suggested he had a gun. This is not uncommon in the street culture or among trained people. In womens self defense classes, they are tought to signal they have a weapon even if they don't to potential attackers. It would make sense for TM to do such a thing if he perceived a threat. But this is where common sense in the street can have real consequences witht he law. As many justified shooting originated from the dead guy initially hinting they had a weapon when they did or didn't. Usually with a lot of witnesses present. This is just a case where there are no witnesses.
I have no problem with it going to trial. In fact, I'm hoping a lot fo things get cleared up. It just seems to me that the prosecutor has set the bar high and the scenario will play out as Kahuna has stated.
"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden