A news report just after the incident:
And do listen to the end. His parents deserve your respect and sympathy.
The guy in the red sweater was Zimmerman. It’s another instance where the crucial moment wasn’t seen, but still it contradicts the narrative that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood, or Charles Johnson’s misleading statement that:
Zimmerman ... chased the boy down, and shot him in the street.
It seems safe to say that Martin and Zimmerman got into a fight. Which doesn’t justify shooting the kid automatically. Instead that turns on the following questions:
Who struck the first blow?
Did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear that Martin was about to subject him to lethal force?
If Zimmerman struck the first blow, did he have a reasonsable chance to escape? (because contrary to what you heard, there are some circumstances where you are required to retreat in Florida)
If Martin struck the first blow and the answer to the second question is yes, then Zimmerman was justified in shooting. Even if Martin didn't intend to do serious bodily harm to him, even if he had a chance to escape.
If Zimmerman struck the first blow, he did have a reasonable fear, and he did not have a reasonable chance to escape (for instance, if he was still on the ground), again he is innocent.
And the key thing is this. As far as I can tell, the only living witness to those crucial moments is Zimmerman. The only person who can answer those crucial questions, who is alive, is Zimmerman. So barring surprising evidence to the contrary, I don’t see how they can even justify trying him.
---------------------------------------
0 comments:
Post a Comment