"De la Rionda [the chief prosecutor] also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.
That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference,
his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that
George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he
acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of
anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the
jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury
decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had
committed second-degree murder or manslaughter."
-- William Saletan, SLATE magazine
-- William Saletan, SLATE magazine
Go here for more of Saletan's post on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment