Slate: Zimmerman's Not Guilty. But Florida Sure Is.

[OmahaBlueDog]

It feels wrong, this verdict of not guilty for George Zimmerman. It feels wrong to say that Zimmerman is guilty of no crime. If he hadn’t approached 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, if he hadn’t pulled his gun, Martin would be alive.

But that doesn’t mean Zimmerman was guilty of murder, not in the state of Florida. It doesn’t even mean he was guilty of manslaughter, though that was the middle ground I hoped the jury would find its way toward. (And in fact, the jurors asked for a clarification on the manslaughter charge during its 16½ hours of deliberation.) Here’s the problem: To convict Zimmerman of murder, the six women of the jury had to find that he killed Martin out of ill will, hatred, or spite, or with a depraved mind. The law didn’t account Zimmerman’s fear or feeling of being physically threatened.

But the physical evidence suggested that in the heat of the moment, Zimmerman could have felt both of those things. A forensics expert testified that from the angle of his wounds, it appeared that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. The neighbor who came closest to being an eyewitness—there were none—said it looked to him like he saw a fight in which the person on top, straddling the person below, was wearing a red or a light-colored shirt. That, too, suggested Martin was on top. Zimmerman did have injuries: lacerations to the back of his head from the pavement and a swollen bloody nose.

It’s true that there was also evidence on the other side: None of Zimmerman’s DNA was found under Martin’s fingernails. None of Martin’s DNA was found on the gun. These facts contradict key aspects of the account Zimmerman gave police. Why believe him about the rest of his account? And even if you do give him the benefit of that doubt, why did Zimmerman feel so very threatened? Why did he pull his gun and shoot to kill?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_acquittal_blame_florida_for_trayvon_martin_s_death.html

[SugarShack]

1. I've worked with two state senators who are both fiery procecutors, who at the time of the law

being heard in the senate before the vote, they both believed that under this Florida "stand your ground", you would NEVER BE ABLE TO GET A CONVICTION FOR MURDER, without a witness.

Period.

This law must be changed. Florida is run by thugs, trust me.

Great Dem Senators and procecutors who are now gone from our state house:
Sen. Rod Smith (former party chair and gub candidate)
Sen. Dan Gelber (ran for AG and lost to Blondie)

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. +1 Well put.

[Zoeisright]

3. Those weren't "lacerations" on the murderer's head.

Those were tiny little cuts. The only reason they were even visible in that questionable picture is that a little bit of blood was trickling down from them.

[JaneyVee]

4. Wait what? Zimmerman was the one wearing a red jacket.

[jwirr]

5. And that is why I will not be going to Florida or any other state that has this stupid law. I am 72

years old and we had a perfectly good self defense law already but the shooter had to prove that he was indeed using self defense.