07-14-2013, 01:46 PM
I think the biggest problem you have with this particular case is the shootee was painted by the media as an unarmed teenager. This is what the news media has seemed to focus on. An adult killing a child. While that is true, it is only part of the story.
What may have been the real issue for the jury? The shootee was a 6'2', the shooter 5'8'. That is a fairly significant size difference. If I was facing someone 6" taller than me, I might fear for my life/safety depending on situation. As I understand the Florida statue (not a lawyer or resident of Florida BTW), Zimmerman was in a place he was legally authorized to be, carrying in a lawful manner, so he met the requirements under the law if he felt threatened. In the dark, with an unknown person who was obviously larger than him, how could Zimmerman know he was not dealing with an adult? How could he know he was not dealing with someone who was an expert in close combat?
I am also sure that we (as in those of us not on the jury/in the courtroom) have received only a small percentage of the facts in the case. Those few facts we have received have been edited/presented in a manner to make a story. The jury received all of the facts, and made their decision based on those facts. There was at the very least 'reasonable doubt'.
Hope I didn't get off track.
What may have been the real issue for the jury? The shootee was a 6'2', the shooter 5'8'. That is a fairly significant size difference. If I was facing someone 6" taller than me, I might fear for my life/safety depending on situation. As I understand the Florida statue (not a lawyer or resident of Florida BTW), Zimmerman was in a place he was legally authorized to be, carrying in a lawful manner, so he met the requirements under the law if he felt threatened. In the dark, with an unknown person who was obviously larger than him, how could Zimmerman know he was not dealing with an adult? How could he know he was not dealing with someone who was an expert in close combat?
I am also sure that we (as in those of us not on the jury/in the courtroom) have received only a small percentage of the facts in the case. Those few facts we have received have been edited/presented in a manner to make a story. The jury received all of the facts, and made their decision based on those facts. There was at the very least 'reasonable doubt'.
Hope I didn't get off track.