John Lucier posted:
The fact that Martin was apparently winning at the time "John" (the eyewitness) saw them in no way proves that Martin started the fight, nor does the fact that Zimmerman was losing justify his shooting Martin (especially if it was Zimmerman who was the first to lay hands on the other.)"Yet, this older, aggressive, paranoid, and ARMED male, who was told to remain in his car, had the right to kill this young man? That's what you're all saying"Yet this young, physically fit member of a football team had the right to assault a fat 35 year old man, pin him on the ground and beat him bloody for asking him what he was doing?
We don't know what transpired in certain passages of time but I don't think you're clear on the law here.
He created the outcome? There were certain lines crossed, we're not sure by whom. It was wrong for Zimmerman to "stalk" Martin though probably not illegal. It was wrong for him to stop and approach Martin, though probably not illegal. Now we come to the legality part- who assaulted whom first? it's not clear and I don't think we have any witnesses to call on for that. They can be yelling N***** and H**** P********* at each others' faces all day, no laws are broken.
SO if all we have is the eyewitness who claims Zimmerman is getting beat by Martin, substantiated by the reports by police about the grass stains and blood on Zimmerman, everything up to that point is either not illegal (by Zimmerman) OR is complete speculation. THEREFORE for legal purposes we begin with Martin assaulting Zimmerman, Zimmerman legally justified in both carrying concealed weapon, and using it in self defense under Florida law.
Zimmerman shouldn't be charged and if he is he'll be acquitted. (based on the facts we have in front of us now.) That doesn't mean he's not a complete dick BTW who probably should have gotten the beating Martin was giving him long ago. The law won't care about that.
There is little argument that it was Zimmerman who sought out and confronted Martin, and I wouldn't be surprised that Martin would make an awful credible argument that he feared for his life and was defending himself as best as he was able, against some creepy stranger with a gun in his waistband who was following him, were he not dead and unable to tell his side of the story as effectively as Zimmerman was able to tell his...
I don't know for sure what the outcome ought to be, but there's no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman ought to be tried before a jury of his peers for killing Trayvon Martin. Both sides deserve to have their day in court.