The Zimmerman Trial Is Not About Whether Trayvon Martin “Deserved” to Die; UPDATE: Reports Say Jury Has Reached a Verdict; UPDATE: NOT GUILTY
A reporter named Ben Montgomery cluelessly reports in the Orlando Sentinel:
George Zimmerman shot a 17-year-old through the heart on a rainy night in February 2012. Now, finally, nearly 17 months later, a jury will try to decide whether the dead boy deserved it.
Zimmerman contends he did.
No. A thousand times: no.
It would be really great if Big Media could get this point right, because it’s as important as it is simple.
This trial is not about whether Trayvon Martin “deserved” to die.
It is about whether the prosecution can prove to a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence submitted in court that George Zimmerman did not act in reasonable self defense.
Period, end of story.
I have spoken with a lot of people about this case, and some people don’t buy every aspect of George Zimmerman’s story. They think it’s too perfect; or they think he profiled Martin; or they think George Zimmerman was a coward with a gun.
I don’t buy any of that — but even if you do, none of that relieves the state of the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. Even if you think he’s a lying racist, the prosecution still has to prove he did not act in self-defense. And even cowards with guns have a right to self defense.
And the trial is not about whether Martin “deserved” it. I suspect the whole thing was largely a giant misunderstanding. And if I’m right, Martin didn’t “deserve” to die.
That doesn’t mean Zimmerman is guilty.
I have decided it’s time for a new thread. Comments are open.
UPDATE: Reports say the jury has reached a verdict. Stand by.
UPDATE x2: The jury found Zimmerman not guilty.
That was the right verdict.