I’m no ‘Sharptonite’. And I think my posting history speaks to that.

I am not calling for this guy to be lynched, or invoking race in any of my posts.

However, BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, I am NOT comfortable with the exact opposite position – that Zimmerman is an innocent victim who engaged in justified self defense.

My issue with the situation is quite simple:

To believe this, you have to believe that Mr Zimmerman simply followed the person he shot, possibly exchanged words (you can’t assault someone for what they say, so this doesn’t impact his ability to exercise self defense) was attacked by him in such a manner as to place him in danger of death/great bodily harm, and was thus within his rights to shoot.

If that is the case, then Zimmerman is innocent, full-stop.

However, any of the following can impact the situation:

1) Did Zimmerman display his weapon in a threatening manner, prior to any physical altercation?

2) In the event that (1) did NOT occur, who started the fight?

3) In the event that Zimmerman started the fight, did he attempt to break contact before he fired (a different situation from the SYG victim’s-right one)?

If (1) or (2) is a ‘yes’, then it was the guy who got shot defending himself, not the shooter – unless (2) is a yes, and (3) is a no.

(4) Was Zimmerman actually in a position where the legally-standard ‘reasonable person’ would fear death/great-bodily-harm, in a fistfight?

NOW, like I said, I don’t buy the ‘Sharpton’ position of ‘He’s a racist nut-bag who shot the poor kid walking home from the convenience store, where’s the rope?’ position.

I also don’t buy ‘absolutely innocent’, since it’s equally-if-not-more probable that he did SOMETHING to make the shooting unjustified, than it is that it’s a perfectly clean shoot.

The totality of the circumstances (Zimmerman attempting to become a reserve LEO in the past & being rejected, the text of the 911 call indicating a desire to intervene rather than observe/report, etc) makes me ‘handicap’ this as 50%+ ‘bad shoot’, because I find it quite believable that Zimmerman committed the initial physical assault and/or made the first threat of deadly force by displaying his weapon.

Further, it *usually* takes more than 3″ of height to constitute deadly force in unarmed combat. A bare-handed punch or punches, even to the face, is generally NOT considered deadly force justifying the use of lethal force when defending against such an assault.

HOWEVER, I also find it believable – just less believable – that he acted completely properly, was assaulted, and defended himself accordingly. The alleged use of ‘ground & pound’ tactics by the individual who was shot DOES help Zimmerman in this case, since it prevents him from being able to disengage physically. EG, it gives him an argument that he WAS in danger of death/great bodily harm, and that even if he started the fight he was unable to disengage from it due to being mounted.

Therefore, I’m withholding absolute judgement until the conclusion of the police investigation and/or trial. As we’ve seen in the past, the legal system usually finds the truth in these sorts of matters (even when there’s severe official misconduct, such as the Duke case & prosecutor Nfong, the truth still came out in the end)…

Now, if that makes me a ‘Sharptonite’, I can’t see how.

I see this as an example of what NOT to do when armed – as someone who carries for self defense as a civilian, and who’s been in a few gunfights as a soldier.

Remove the racial bullshit from the left, and you have a scenario that I’ve discussed with other folks who carry (on a website dedicated to firearms & personal defense issues, and in person). It’s usually used as a hypothetical to underscore that as an armed citizen, you have to go out of your way to be polite & um-confrontational, so as to preserve your justification should you have to use your weapon. Each ‘step’ you take towards conflict, is another ‘step’ toward a potentially unjustified shooting – or a justified shooting that will be seen as unjustified in court unless eyewitnesses emerge to cover the entire altercation from start to finish.

I don’t see it as a hate-crime, or an intentional homicide, etc… I’m not calling the man racist.

I see it as a guy who made some critical mistakes in his conduct while armed (mistakes any armed citizen might make, especially if they are only lightly familiar with the applicable law & think they have more legal breathing room than they actually do), that resulted in him being placed in a situation where he has shot someone after having done things that voided his right to self defense.