The Gorge Zimmerman case was basically whether or not George Zimmerman fought in self-defense. He did not fight in self-defense, If anything he provoked the whole conflict. I commend George on wanting to help his neighborhood but he went about it the wrong way. Neighborhood watch is suppose to observe and report. The stand your ground laws are just to allow you to stand your ground and not have to run away not disobey the police and chase/ assault a suspect. The bottom line is that George Zimmerman killed an innocent person.
From what I understood happened between Martin and Zimmerman he should have been convicted but maybe on a lesser charge. I believe the prosecutors choice to make such a high charge led to him not being convicted. There was an altercation and the result of that altercation was a death. I don't think it was solely the result of self defense.
The question asked here is should a man be convicted of something he not only admitted to doing, but the weapon in question was present, the body was present, and an established motive had been recorded by a 911-Operator; so the answer is an earth-shattering "yes". Whether or not Zimmerman meant to murder his victim, the fact remains that he did, admittedly, kill him. The facts also remain that Zimmerman was in a vehicle while the victim was on foot and was not approaching any dwellings (either doors, windows, or porches). When calling 911, a responsible act on Zimmerman's part, he was ordered to cease following the young man as the operator had already dispatched people to the area. Instead of heeding that advice, Zimmerman confronted the youth; when a person engages someone in a confrontation who has not actually actively attempted any wrong-doing (it would have been understandable for Zimmerman to have confronted him on the doorstep he would enter, but not just simply walking), they are the aggressor and therefore responsible for causing the altercation. Had Zimmerman allowed professionals to handle the situation at hand, or simply continued to follow without leaving his vehicle, there would have been no gunshot fired and no persons killed. In the end, Zimmerman fired his gun into the victim’s chest, killed him, admitted to killing him, all evidence was collected and according to the very letter of the law showed guilt, and Zimmerman has not been punished for taking a life. In the very least, when a person takes the life of another, even in self-defense, counseling should be given as this is the most inhuman thing a human being can do. We are primed to protect ourselves, one another, and especially the young and innocent as mammals; to go against that part of our nature is a serious problem. Facts remain that point out flatly that Zimmerman killed a human being and has yet to show remorse or try to atone for the life taken (a natural response from any person, especially someone defending themselves).
Was he a creep? Yes.
Should he have minded his own business? Yes.
Does he have an inflated ego? Yes.
Did he initiate an assault or battery on Trayvon? No.
I don't like Zimmerman and I don't agree with him trying to be a superhero neighborhood watch creep. But the facts of the case do not support a murder charge.
He was following Trayvon, but Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Someone following you is not a reason to attack them, legally or otherwise. Trayvon then started smashing the back of Zimmerman's head in to the concrete. This could kill someone. Zimmerman feared for his life while this was happening, and fired 1 shot that ended up being fatal.
Zimmerman did not attack Trayvon. Trayvon was not a tiny kid, he was a big boy. While getting his head smashed, Zim fired 1 shot. I think that's reasonable. It would be different if he unloaded the entire gun in to Trayvon because that would show more intent to harm or kill, but Zim had a reasonable fear for his own life or receiving permanent damage to his head and brain from having it smashed.
It is unfortunate that the 1 shot was fatal. This whole thing should have never happened, but Zim did not instigate the violence. Zim was acting in self defense. I think this was improperly promoted as an example of a race war crime.... Zim is a jewish mexican and the actual act of shooting had nothing to do with race.
If I was in Zims position, and I was getting my head smashed into the concrete, I would have shot too. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with self-preservation. Trayvon attacked Zim, not the other way around. Zim was just a creep that followed the wrong kid.
No, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted. Much of the evidence produced by the defense showed that George Zimmerman felt threatened. Under Florida law, Mr. Zimmerman was acting within the bounds of the law, at least according to the evidence. While it is a very said case that Trayvon Martin lost his life, fact is Zimmerman technically didn't break the law.
No, he did not need to be convicted of any crime at all. He was only trying to defend himself, and if he did not shoot his attacker then he would have been probably killed himself, since the man was banging his head in against the concrete and hurting him.
George Zimmerman may have acted inappropriately in the case of Trayvon Martin, but the evidence against him was not overwhelming and it was not possible to convict George Zimmerman as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard of evidence in the U.S. and it was not possible to convict on what evidence was available.