"Zimmerman initiated the encounter. Not in dispute. He was armed when this was not customary for a neighborhood watch "captain." Not in dispute. Martin was unarmed. Not in dispute. Martin is dead. Zimmerman shot him. Not in dispute. It could be legally argued that Zimmerman did not INTEND to kill Martin when he confronted him. However, there was no doubt that he did, in fact, ultimately kill him. If you start a fight and begin to lose, then it becomes self-defense for you to use lethal force? If you confront someone with no legal authority and kill them, that is self-defense? Sorry, "justice was served" crowd, but you have to twist yourself into some bizarre pretzel to justify this act. They might not be able to prove murder, but this would seem to have all the culpability of at least manslaughter. This was jury nullification."
Posted on: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:53:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015