Latest Rasmussen poll shows that 40% think that Zimmerman acted in self defense, and only 24% think he committed murder.
Of course a person’s guilt is judged by a jury and not by public opinion, but given that the real evidence of the case is far more favorable to Zimmerman than what most of the poll respondents heard about from the MSM, this suggests that the prosecution won’t be able to get a jury to unanimously convict.
* * *
If Zimmerman didn’t have a gun on him, I think that Martin (if he had been found) would have been prosecuted for aggravated assault, and he would have been convicted. He just would have become another member of a pretty very large cohort of young black males convicted of aggravated assault. No one would care about the case at all.
People might say that if Martin were alive, he’d tell a different story, but the reality of the vast majority of criminal trials is that the defendants say nothing in their own behalf. If he was stupid enough to say anything to the police, his statement would be more likely be incriminating than of any help to his defense. Nothing you say to the police is every helpful in court, even if you are innocent. (I am sure that Zimmerman will find this out at trial, because he probably embellished the story to make himself look more innocent, and any inconsistencies will be picked apart by prosecutors as an implication of guilt.)
So anyway, if without the gun being fired this would be an open and shut case of aggravated assault, how can it not be self defense that he fired, while on the ground and unable to run away, to prevent a continuing aggravated assault?