Dan Abrams gives an interesting analysis of the George Zimmerman case from a legal standpoint.

 It’s worth a read here.

He says, “To be clear, if we were talking about Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting…[however] Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different.”

Abrams believes it will be hard to get a conviction for second-degree murder or manslaughter when fighting self-defense because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove “he had the intent to kill and did so with “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” 

Essentially, says Abrams, “If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.

So essentially, the law allows for a person to be an idiot, stalk them, incite fear of danger, and then kill them legally for protecting themselves and scaring the perpetrator who incited it all.  Then since there are no good witnesses to the crime because it was dark, the perp can lie without worry and get away with it.

I find this very sad.

Thanks, PF, for the story link!