The main problems:
- We technically don't know who instigated the fight, so the idea that the use of deadly force was proven to be acceptable is already a joke.
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. Saying "It isn't self defense because we don't know for absolute certain who threw the first punch!" is utterly ludicrous.
Quite frankly, if Zimmerman hadn't been apparently trying to play neighborhood hero and taking the law into his own hands, the encounter never would have happened to begin with. It was established that Zimmerman had called the police about Trayvon's supposedly suspicious actions prior to the confrontation from within his car. That means he had to get out of his car and go confront Trayvon for whatever reason.
And if Trayvon Martin just left and went home, instead of returning to confront Zimmerman, this all would have been avoided. It certainly goes both ways here.
"For whatever reason." - He was the neighborhood watch captain and the community had been hit by a string of robberies and break-ins. Did the guy take his position too seriously? Sure, possibly, but that's certainly not criminal or even suspicious in any way.
Again, Trayvon Martin also had the opportunity to remove himself from the situation and deliberately chose to go back. Again, it goes both ways.
- With that said, if you instigate a confrontation, it is no longer an act of self defense, but rather an act of aggression. By getting out of his car, he put himself in the situation that occurred.
I mean, what constitutes "instigating a conflict" here? If someone takes offense to something I say and they attack me, what, am I the one at fault here? I'm the aggressive one? Just because someone made you mad or upset you with the things they said doesn't give you the justification to retaliate with physical violence. If you throw that punch, you are not in the right - and the person getting punched has every right to defend him-or-herself.
Also, defense law in general doesn't work that way. All that matters here is that, at the moment Zimmerman fired the gun, he believed that he was at risk of great bodily injury. Considering that Zimmerman was getting his head slammed into the concrete, yeah, he did and justifiably so. We could argue about the merits of this part of the law all night long, but the fact of the matter is that the jury can't judge him on the law as you wish it was; they have to work with the law as it actually is.
Plus, again, the power of hindsight. Expecting Zimmerman to know that the situation would turn violent is an absolutely silly standard.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but from a common sense standpoint, Zimmerman was the one that fucked up and ended up apparently having to fatally shoot another person because he wanted to play neighborhood hero. If he provoked the actions of Trayvon in the least, which he had to of given the scenario, he is no longer acting under the stand-your-ground law. If you bring a situation upon yourself, I'm of the belief that our justice system should take some measure to make sure you don't make the same mistake again.
This is a senseless tragedy, and it's a crying shame that a life was cut down so young. However, demonizing Zimmerman here and twisting standards to reach the verdict you want accomplishes nothing. It's more damaging than anything else, festering on the wound rather than moving on and trying to let it heal.
(Also, this isn't even a "Stand Your Ground" case, so I have to wonder why you're mentioning it here.)
To be honest, I could give a damn. I'm sure Martin was looking suspicious, but that doesn't mean he had to be killed. Either way it doesn't affect me, if morons want to sstart a race war let them, natural selection will play its role in the outcome. I like the idea of idiots killing each other off, just means the world will be a better place without these idiots.
It's time to stop posting.