morgan. said it was pivotal what ben crump said. under florida law anyone can walk through a neighborhood and get chased down. tom, an interesting point, isn t it, taking this case to a natural extension that can happen to anybody and this could all happen again tomorrow. well, piers, the question is where does self-defense begin? if zimmerman chose to follow him and confront him after the police told him not to, if zimmerman chose to come after him with a deadly weapon after the homeowners association specifically forbade that kind of behavior, when does self-defense begin? i think the key to this case as far as the jury is concerned, what value they place on how things started.
i saw two young african american guys ring my doorbell repeatedly. they broke into my house. i heard bangs down stairs. the dispatcher told me to grab any weapon i had. mel, not to put too fine a point in it, this struck me as all right they agreed not to bring race into it. this was overtly making a racial statement. this was saying, look, the reason george zimmerman was right to suspect this young black boy trayvon martin was because this white girl had been at home and two young black youths had intimidated her and reason george zimmerman was right to suspect this young black boy trayvon martin was because this white girl had been at home and two young black youths had intimidated her and broken into her home. you know, actually, piers, you know, this was a risk for the defense because they had her on the stand to actually have
if they blame zimmerman for causing this series of events, he will be convicted of something. the whole defense is that self-defense began when trayvon responded to zimmerman. they say self-defense began when trayvon ended up on top of zimmerman. and i suggested that s not when self-defense began. self-defense began when he chose to confront trayvon and when he didn t, he shot him to death. that s a view many people have and also say to me, look, what about trayvon martin s right to defend himself? wasn t he engaged in a form of self-defense himself and where does his right to do that supersede george zimmerman who has a gun? right, i tell you, tom has just articulated so perfectly. this is a man told to stay in the car. he has a weapon. i believe he confronted him. the question is going to really
undisputed. he got out of a car. he followed a kid on a ryan knee dark night. he had a concealed weapon and didn t identify himself as neighborhood watch. but here is the reason why i was shaking my head. under the law, which you both know, you can even the aggressor in a confrontation regain your innocence and claim self-defense successfully, and i think based on the evidence that s been presented, a jury would have a very hard time okay. let me bring in tom let me bring in tom because what the florida legal people i ve spoken to, tom, told me repeatedly is that that is the crucial thing. it doesn t matter in terms of zimmerman getting out of the car, walking, checking street names, whatever he was doing. none of that is materially important to the law in florida, which is if zimmerman genuinely believed his life was in danger, a lot of medical evidence that he may have been stunned and dazed by having his head banged than he is allowed to defend himself and can use legally his
back and zimmerman unholstered the weapon and moved it to the chest and fired. that s what the prosecution was doing final question, what do you think they will do? i have no idea. i won t i just don t know these jurors and don t know how they will consider the evidence and i don t know what the instructions will be from the judge. i just can t. i think the prosecution has not made the case for second-degree murder. manslaughter or aggravated assault. possibly down and depends on the instructions but they have not made the case beyond a reasonable doubt. the george zimmerman trial at times feeling stranger than fiction. what does a man behind burden of proof think of it all? scoot is next.