I get it. If you decide the wounds were minor, that Zimmerman is a liar, that Martin didn't want to kill Zimmerman and that he couldn't have killed him without using Zimmerman's gun, then Zimmerman was to blame and wrong for using his gun. Unfortunately that means you just have to create a scenario in your head and call it fact without any evidence, witness testimony, etc.
1) The wound on the back of his head, consistent with his head hitting the ground, were very minor. 2) I don't know about him being a liar, but I do know his story was fuzzy and inconsistent. As it should be. Recounting a fight is like trying to describe a multi-car crash that you're involved in. Pretty much impossible to do. Add in the fact that the other party can't offer us a counterbalance, and only a fool would think Zimmerman's account is accurate. 3) I don't think either party wanted to kill anybody. Why the hell would they? They're not psychopaths. 4) Do you think Martin could have killed him barehanded? I can't see how anybody thinks that is anything more than an extremely, extremely unlikely outcome. 5) Once again, based on Zimmerman's testimony, it is unlikely Martin introduced lethal force to the fight. Beyond that, Zimmerman's story of a "struggle" for the gun is also dubious based on the evidence. No DNA on the gun, etc. The fact that Zimmerman was so completely overpowered in the fight, yet was able to wrestle the gun away from Martin also does not compute. Project onto me your assumptions and own actions all you want, but if Zimmerman is to be believed, then Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and if it ever was, it was only by his own doing. Of course, I'm not stating that any of this makes the outcome of the trial incorrect. I hope you realize I'm not implying that.
Someone needs to tell Obama and the DOJ that Jim Crow Era and the Civil Rights Movement is over. There is no need for a Federalism Overlord. We've been in an era of New Federalism where more power was given back to the States and this DOJ behavior violates that spirit.
Minor because the fight ended. Having your head slammed on concrete is life threatening. It doesn't take as much force as people seem to think to cause significant brain damage. His wounds may have been minor, but if Trayvon had not been shot and had been able to continue the assault, the wounds would likely have been more severe. Self defense worked and that is the only reason the wounds were "very minor" in your opinion. I don't think he would have punched him to death no. I agree that is unlikely. Having your head slammed on concrete is a game changer though. Brain damage or death is a very reasonable fear in that scenario. And that all still assumes that Zimmerman was lying about Trayvon going for his gun. Only because you seem to be limiting Trayvon's actions to "barehanded" punching for some reason. Are you saying that if you were armed and your head was being slammed on concrete you would tell yourself "this situation does not warrant me using a weapon."
What are you talking about? I never said anything about Zimmerman being racist, simply that the doctrine of double jeopardy does not bar the DOJ from prosecuting him for murder, which they could. Also to Rocketsjudoka, US v. Lanza and Abbate v. US.
Once again you are buying into the idea that either Zimmerman or Martin is guilty and there is a zero sum game. My argument isn't excusing Martin, although under FL's stand your ground if Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman he could've acted in his own defense, my argument is that both can be in the wrong. Martin is dead but the Zimmerman defense both legally and rhetorically has been focused on essentially trying Martin as the aggressor. That was made possible because the prosecution went for murder instead of focusing on negligence.
This would depend on how Zimmerman died. If we extrapolate from the facts and say that Zimmerman died from repeated blows to the head I would say that Martin should be charged with manslaughter. The reason for this is that even if Martin can make an argument under stand your ground that he felt threatened by Zimmerman and not being compelled to retreat took action in his defense once the immediate threat was stopped further action becomes criminal. Again Martin can be in the wrong but that doesn't mean Zimmerman is in the right. I fully agree which is why I have said all along that I didn't think Zimmerman should be charged with murder. Manslaughter though isn't the same as murder. It is both. That is one reason why one of the rules for being on neighborhood watch is you cannot be armed.
[rquoter]In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.[/rquoter] What should be considered is how much of a mitigating circumstance is following someone you believe to be a threat. While Zimmerman might not have felt rage (although he did express anger in his 9/11 call that these guys always get away) but his fright and terror are a factor in manslaughter. Anyway as noted before Florida has convicted people for manslaughter who were not the initial aggressors.
My understanding was the manslaughter charger in Florida specifically ruled out negligence. I saw some judge (can't remember his name) on Fox talking about how it was a strange manslaughter instruction.
I took a quick look at the US v. Lanza case and that applies to where there are two specific laws with overlapping jurisdictions. My understanding though is that there is no basis for a federal murder charge since this didn't take place across state lines or federal property.
You might be right and I admit to not knowing all of the intricacies of Florida law. That would explain a lot but given that the prosecution asked for a consideration of manslaughter at the last minute I am still mystified why they didn't do that from the beginning.
