hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
I don't believe that at all. Zimmerman doesn't have to articulate he prevented or stopped a crime. Thats not how it works... he doesn't have to prove any of that. He saw a stranger in his neighborhood, acting suspicious, that's his whole defense. How can anyone prove any different. With all the recent break ins, he was beige a good neighbor and by his own accounts was jumped by the suspicious person.. and there isn't a witness saying different...
The prosecution is going to try to convince the jury that Zimmerman profiled Martin based on race. By profiling on race, he acted in a way that lead to Martin's death. Yes, it is up to the prosecution to convince the jury of that. If the jury believes it, he may be found guilty.
Again, I don't think he was motivated by race. But if Zimmerman confronted h during the commission of a crime, there'd be evidence to support that and make it that much more difficult to prove a Zimmerman was racially motivated.
Imagine a home invasion. You shoot an intruder inside your house. You tell the police where you were standing and the perp was standing. The bullet holes in your walls corroborate your story and is solid evidence you were in the right. If the perp is laying on his face 50' from your front door with a single gunshot wound entering his back with zero evidence to prove your shot occured while both of you were inside and you were in danger makes you look very bad.
If there is no immenent threat to the safety of yourself or others if the evidence isn't going to be fully on your side. If I'm going to be in the hot seat, the evidence is going to support my actions.