Dan Abrams does an excellent job of explaining why a conviction in the George Zimmerman trial is going to be very difficult to obtain. I’ve talked to a lot of people about this case, as well as engaged many people here in the comments section. The overwhelming sense I get from people on the left is that Zimmerman must be convicted because his actions led to an innocent boy’s death. Justice demands that Zimmerman be held responsible. I know I feel that way, too, but I can’t hold the jurors to that standard. In other words, I hope he is convicted, but I will not argue that the jurors made a mistake or were indifferent if they don’t convict, particularly for the strongest charge of Second Degree murder.
The one area where I differ from Mr. Abrams a bit is on the question of manslaughter. He thinks the defense has raised a reasonable doubt sufficient to grant a self-defense excuse for pulling the trigger. I hope that is not the case. Losing a fight that you initiated doesn’t preclude a self-defense acquittal, but the bar should be very high. The reason the Second Degree murder charge is imperiled is that it requires a finding that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” The prosecution relies on Zimmerman’s words on the non-emergency phone call in which is called Trayvon Martin an “asshole” and a “fucking punk (or coon)” and clearly assumed he was a criminal. To me, that could be sufficient evidence, but the fact that an actual fight occurred and that Zimmerman sustained injuries makes it difficult to argue that he set out to kill. However, the manslaughter charge does not depend on proving Zimmerman’s state of mind. Instead, it merely relies on the finding that Zimmerman did not face the prospect of grave bodily harm or death.
The defense correctly pointed out that you don’t have to wait for a life-threatening blow to exercise your right to prevent one, but this is where Zimmerman’s actions prior to the fight become important. He could have identified himself as the Neighborhood Watch captain and defused the situation. His argument that he did not have the opportunity is contradicted by the earwitness testimony that a conversation preceded the fight. By confronting a stranger in a threatening manner, he invited a fight. And sometimes you just have to take your beating.
Expert witnesses testified that Zimmerman’s injuries were “insignificant.” The jury should exercise some discretion here. While it is defensible to grant a blanket self-defense excuse, the facts of the case only weakly support the idea that Zimmerman was facing the risk of grave bodily harm or death. Balanced against that is the fact that he initiated a confrontation, was losing the fight, and used a gun to correct for his mistake. He knew the police would be there in moments, as they in fact were.
This also assumes many things that may not be true. It is possible that Zimmerman was punched in the face and was initially taking some punishment, but then overpowered Trayvon and pinned him under him. This gets to whose voice it is on the 911 call crying out desperately for help. It sounds like a young voice to me. There is testimony from family members on both sides of the debate. If the jury is convinced that the voice is Trayvon’s, then even a Second Degree murder charge is warranted. Certainly, under those circumstances, a manslaughter charge is warranted. If the jury has doubts, they need to look at the totality of the situation and judge whether Zimmerman faced so much peril that he couldn’t wait another minute for help to arrive.
In my opinion, a total acquittal would be an injustice, although one that could be defended under the existing law. But a manslaughter conviction could also be defended under the law, without it being an injustice. Considering how close of a call this is, I’d err on the side of justice.
And, again, if I were convinced, based on all the relevant evidence, that the voice on the tape was Trayvon’s, I’d have to conclude that he was executed, and a murder conviction would be justified.
