Quote:
Originally Posted by bhlloy
And I guess that goes back to my real problem with a law of this kind. Other than in an obvious cold blooded contract style killing, how do you ever prove that somebody wasn't feeling threatened by somebody else? I shoot my wife's lover, well he was threatening to kick my ass so I shot him. How can you prove differently?
I understand the intent but it just seems so open ended that you could drive a truck through. Hence all the politicians hastily backtracking since this happened
|
Ding Ding Ding.
At this point, if I had to guess how it went down, I'd say that the most likely course of events is that Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin notices the guy following him, is pissed about being followed, and an altercation ensues. (I'm not willing to speculate on who threw the first punch. We're never going to hear more than one side of that story.) Martin is winning the fight. Zimmerman kills him. There's never a fight if Zimmerman doesn't follow Martin, making him probably guilty of being a wannabe cop who should have let the real cops get there and deal with Martin, maybe guilty of racial profiling, probably guilty of being a generally creepy loser, but probably not legally guilty of murder because of this law. Yeah, my best guess is that if Zimmerman doesn't play cop, Martin gets back to the house before the real cops arrive and watches the 2nd half of the All-Star game.
In short, I'm starting to think that Zimmerman is "responsible" for Martin's death, but probably not criminally guilty. And if that truly is the case, I very much doubt that the masses will be able to separate themselves from their emotions enough to understand the difference between the two.