Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
Absolute proof rarely exists. I predict a quick trial though. It all comes down to Zimmerman's documented injuries at the time of the incident. If Zimmerman lacked injuries then it's not going to matter whatever other scenario was possible. Without the injuries no unbiased person is going to be convinced that Zimmerman was justified in killing the other and without that justification he will be the one held responsible. If he has substantial injuries then the acutal killing will be seen as self defense. If he was injuried but not very badly then he will likely get a lesser sentence but will still serve time due to the death of the other man.
It all hinges on his injuries as it well should. A gun should never be fired with the intention of shooting someone unless all signs point to it being necessary to do so.
|
He wasn't a man.
He was 17.
Had he died some other way, we would be inclined to say that this boy died before he even had a chance to live life, or that this boy died without even knowing what life is even about.
TM wasn't "high" when this incident happened.
As for lying, the defendant and his wife are the ones whose word has been compromised-- "How much money do you have?"
Also, "Neighborhood Watch" is not supposed to be armed when on duty. Their training indicates this and their training is for them to "watch" not confront-- especially when NOTHING is happening right in front of you.
The defendant will have this on his conscience for the rest of his life, if he's any kind of decent human being. He knows that had he not followed that 17 year old, none of this would be happening-- but he did follow him, based on his decision to prejudge TM's intents and to act on his prejudice instead of following the instructions of the dispatch.
I use the word "prejudge" because that is what the defendant did. He decided TM was guilty of doing something or even guilty of about to do something.
The defendant's prejudice led to the death of a 17 year old boy.
Linear Mode
