Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980
No, he is not culpable as he did nothing illegal and nothing the constitutes provocation.Martin attacked Zimmerman trying to be a bad ass, the thug he seemed to aspire to be based on some recent photos, and he lost his life.I will concede Zimmerman should have been more subtle but it did not given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman.Zimmerman defended himself and is protected under stand your ground.The Police did not arrest him(may have wanted to but did not) because they did not have probable cause and the SAO declined for the same reason.The "special prosecutor" is looking into this and a Grand Jury will, if they follow the law they will also find the same, no cause for arrest.
Decisions have consequences, even unforeseen ones.Martin chose to attack and lost his life.Sad all around, but it boils down to individual responsibility.Zimmerman may have some moral culpability in the sense that had he been more subtle and not left his vehicle ever, the chain of events would most likely not have transpired.However, Zimmerman has no legal culpability here as I stated previously and anyone who looks at this objectively, removing emotion, race etc from the equation and just applies the law to this case,understands that as the Police and SAO did.
|
Bubblehead - we don't know who started the altercation. IF Zimmerman did, then he is culpable since that removes his "stand your ground" defense. Even if Martin DID start the fight, Zimmerman should not have been in that spot to start with. The moment he exited his vehicle to PURSUE a "suspect" - he was no longer "standing ground" - he was ADVANCING. While the shooting may have been justified in the context of the MOMENT - meaning Z in fear for his life during the altercation, his actions and decisions contributed substantially to the situation, were negligent, and resulted in the death of another person. Thus, negligent homocide / negligent manslaughter is an appropriate outcome - and I will get a quarter that is what happens.