I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. What I have observed is that people who are polarized over this issue in either direction simply choose to focus on one particular moment rather than the entire incident.
One faction states... "Zimmerman was on the ground being pummeled, of course he had the right to shoot Trayvon Martin".
Martin supporters claim that Martin first became fearful because someone was chasing him, possibly Martin's adrenaline kicked in, and he reacted.
Both positions are plausible.
If you were walking down the street, and a complete stranger jogged at you diagonally from across the street, when are you within your rights to defend yourself or take defensive actions?
If Zimmerman wins and is found innocent, your right to react strongly as a stranger approaches you briskly may have been weakened.
If you have ever been robbed, or know someone who has, sometimes the robber casually jogs up to the target, a sort of friendly, non confrontational jog. The first words out of the robber's mouth may even be in a very even, calm tone, such as "I have a gun and I will use it if you don't give me your wallet" (or purse).
My question is, what do you care about more, your right to react to a stranger approaching you in an aggressive fashion before they reach you, or, your right to defend yourself after you have annoyed somebody into attacking you?
I'm more concerned about what my rights are to protect myself when first approached in an aggressive manner by a stranger (which is what it appears Zimmerman did BEFORE he was attacked), moreso than my right to shoot and kill someone that I first pissed off because of my own questionable behavior.
The pro Zimmerman crowd just does not seem to get that.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.