There is not one shred of evidence Zimmerman was defending himself

[DirkGently]

163. Kind of. That's not how evidence works. This is not going well for the state.

Full disclaimer: Zimmerman is at fault. He appears to have needlessly initiated a fatal encounter based on idiotic racial profiling and an irresponsible belief he was entitled to "play cop" with a real gun. But for him being an asshole, an innocent young man would be alive. This post is not a covert argument for stupid cop wanna-bes carrying guns and leaping out of their cars to confront people they deem "suspicious," or that a young man deserved death for wearing a hoodie and being black in an idiot's neighborhood.

Zimmerman is stupid and an ass and at the very least racially biased, and he shot an innocent person, and this is not the way things are supposed to be.

Here are the problems with convicting him as I see it.

The "DON'Ts" you're talking about aren't required. Zimmerman doesn't need corroboration. The state has to OVERCOME what he is saying. Casting doubt won't do it. They need a narrative where Zimmerman killed deliberately AND not in self-defense. They don't seem to have one.

EVIDENCE:
The critical thing, at the end of the day, is what happened just before Martin was killed. The rest of it -- the profiling, the stalking, the likely harassment and confrontation, is despicable, idiotic, likely racist, but not illegal, and does not take away the legal theory of self-defense. Zimmerman, whether he testifies or not, will get his version of events in. Sure, the jury could decide it's all baloney, but they need some basis other than the appearance Zimmerman is a racially profiling idiot to do that.

You can't convict on the basis that something other than what Zimmerman says must have happened because he is a terrible person. This is what people did not understand about the Casey Anthony case. The fact that a defendant appears to be despicable, and / or liar, does not create a set of facts on which you can convict them of murder.

All of this about whether Martin circled or Zimmerman zigzagged doesn't come into play. Who chased who first does not matter. This case boils down to who was on top, doing what, to whom, at the very end. The rest is uncertain and largely irrelevant to the murder charge.

Martin's story will not be told. The phone call, the confused statements of a couple of barely-there witnesses, will not carry much weight, because they're not clear. There is no alternative narrative to Zimmerman's story in evidence at this point. At best, the state seems to be implying he unfairly thought of Martin as a "suspect." That's not enough.

Zimmerman's nose was broken. His head was bloody. Sure, a million things other than his story about being pinned and beaten and in fear could have happened. There is no proof of that, though, and the burden is not on Zimmerman to show he isn't lying.

So the jury's going to be left with a man saying he was fighting for this life and shot to save himself. Guessing that Zimmerman is lying because he started things rolling by being an asshole is not evidence that something other than what he says happened in those final crucial moments.


BURDEN OF PROOF:
The state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt, not ONLY that Zimmerman killed Martin, but that he did it with a "depraved mind regardless of human life," AND that he was not in fear of death or great bodily harm when he did it.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. If the state doesn't show beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin with a depraved mind, AND show his claims of self-defense are false, also beyond a reasonable doubt, he wins.

THE CHARGE
Manslaughter would be a lot easier here. That's culpable negligence -- carelessness. The state's not trying for this though. Everything I've seen indicates they've omitted this as a lesser included charge. I think that is a mistake.

It doesn't matter whether the jury thinks Zimmerman is a racist. It doesn't matter if they think his terrible judgment is the ultimate cause of Martin's death. It doesn't matter if they have a some doubt about his story or his wounds or whether he had some other option than lethal force. It matters whether the state can affirmatively show he killed Martin deliberately, and not when defending himself. *Beyond a reasonable doubt.* If the burden went the other way, the state would win, but that's not how the laws are written.

Not calling the case. He could be convicted. But this thing is not slam-dunking its way toward a murder conviction. It is not a "no brainer" for the state. The best evidence of what happened so far is what Zimmerman said to the cops. There is NO clear alternate narrative. Trayvon Martin is not here to tell another story. If he walks, blame the gun laws, blame the self-defense statutes, blame the way the state handled the charge. Bear in mind when you do that a lot of states have similar laws.

But don't pull your hair and claim it's impossible, or the jury were racists, or Florida law is insane. These facts, as egregious as they are, are not providing a great case for the prosecution of a murder charge, and I don't think it's going that well for the prosecution. Maybe they have some great forensic evidence, or a witness we haven't seen.

So far though, they're not making the case.