I like how DS and other keep mentioning the whole "why did they pursue charges/ why wasn't there a syg hearing" angle as "proof"
First of all, they know a SYG hearing would have failed because this is a politically motivated shitshow
Second, the cops and DA weren't going to charge him, as I recall, until the usual suspects started screaming for blood
Fitz, this is something that needs to be clarified - pursuing charges is never proof of a crime. It is, however, an indicator that a case is not complete bs when the investigating officer, the DA, and two judges see enough evidence to put the question to a jury. It just adds to the point when Zimmerman's own defense didn't ask for a dismissal which, if the facts were so clearly missing to support a conviction, would've been an easy win.
The question of guilt is a jury question now. Based on the facts available, I think it's unrealistic that Zimmerman could present a defense that will refute the case for a conviction.
Jamis, I recognise that you acknowledge Zimmerman's decision to follow wasn't smart. The problem is that behaviour which almost everyone would call dumb, if it results in a death, will nearly always put you in jeopardy. Dumb behaviour that results in death is essentially the legal definition of manslaughter. So if you agree that Zimmerman made a dumb move, that itself is half way to the conviction.
Monkey leg, the investigating officers recommended charging Zimmerman with homicide because he started a confrontation that led to a death. It's simply not true to say that Zimmemran was clear before the media - the politicians who disagreed with the actual investigation were what changed, not the police view of Zimmerman's conduct.
All of this business about the judge dismissing and the jury absolutely not believing the evidence against Zimmerman is straight fantasy - but I'm sure once we have a trial outcome someone will be along to include the jury in the conspiracy, along with the two judges, investigating officers, and DA's.