Zimmerman v. Sharpton

I still think that George Zimmerman should have been held criminally responsible for following Trayvon Martin with a loaded gun, if the law allows such a thing. That said, I could never see a case against him for murder or manslaughter. Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin when the latter was on top of him and his head was hitting the pavement? I don't know. Could a reasonable jury have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's act amounted to a crime?

No, and this jury didn't. They confirmed the original decision of police and prosecutors not to pursue charges against Zimmerman. There was never any real case. This was a show trial. It was generated by irresponsible behavior on the part of the media (Zimmerman was a "white Hispanic"?) and by political blowhards like Al Sharpton. That is precisely the sort of thing that the jury system is supposed to resist. In this case, it did.

Comments

[Ken Laster]

Oh, I get it. Zimmerman had a right to kill an unarmed teen in self defense, but Trayvon doesn't have a right to defend himself against a man pursuing him with a loaded pistol when he feels his life is being threatened. Sounds like a double standard.

[duggersd]

Zimmerman was not pursuing Martin. He was watching and according to his account returning to his car. I am curious as to what you would do. You have a person who is in much better shape than you pounding your head into the pavement and telling you that you are about to die. You have a loaded gun. Would you leave the gun in its holster and let him kill you? Your statement is illogical.
I do not understand how you can be criminally responsible for protecting yourself when you are doing nothing illegal. Martin had no reason for attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman was not chasing him in any way. It is not illegal to watch someone.

[Ken Blanchard]

Ken: I did not say that GZ had a right to kill TM. I said I didn't know whether it was justified and I meant by that "legally justified".

If GZ had pulled his weapon first or otherwise threatened TM with bodily harm, then of course TM would have been justified in defending himself with deadly force. There is no double standard here that I can see.

[Mark Anderson]

If Martin had gotten Zimmerman's gun and shot him, he could have claimed self defense and gotten off under Florida law. The law is so open, you don't want to get into any fight. All the other person has to say is he felt threatened and can kill you. In fact, you can chase the other person and shoot him in the back, it's a poorly written law.

[Ken Blanchard]

Mark: I think you are right that either could have made a self-defense case but I think that this is feature of self-defense rules generally and not just Florida's law specifically.

I would be very skeptical about "shooting someone in the back" unless there is case law to support that interpretation.

[Mark Anderson]

Here's couple of cases, Timothy McTigue shot Michael Palmer apparently in the back of the head, Oscar Delbono shot Shane Huse in the back of his neck and shoulder. This is Florida stand your ground law, which did play a role in the Zimmerman case, according to a juror. "A reasonable fear of imminent peril of death, or great bodily harm to himself or herself", is the writing in the law. I don't know what would work better, but reasonable fear apparently is too open.