Let's try a thought experiment.

[Nine]

Woman who just shot her ex-husband in her living room:
"I had to shoot him in self defense. He had been calling my cell phone for weeks threatening me. I heard a knock at the door but I don't have a peephole, just a chain. I opened the door a crack and he broke his way in and said he was going to kill me. He grabbed a knife out of my kitchen drawer and came at me and that's when I pulled out my gun and shot him."

Person #2:
"Ok, but there are no cell phone records of him calling you, only one of you calling him about an hour before he came to your home. You DO have a peephole, and the chain on your door is not broken in any way. There is no DNA from him on the kitchen drawer knob. However his DNA is on one of the two cups of coffee that were sitting on your coffee table, still warm, when police arrived. Your story is full of holes."

Person #3:
"A self defense claim does not require that the ex-husband had been harassing her before that day. Sometimes people just snap without warning! And regarding the peephole and chain - so what? We're going to decide this woman's fate based on a trivial thing like whether or not she had a peephole? Even if she let him into her home willingly does that mean she gives up her right to self defense? And what does it matter whether he grabbed a knife out of the drawer? He didn't even NEED a knife - he was big and strong enough to have killed her barehanded! No one really knows what happened in that house but if she claims she was in fear for her life, her claim should be given the presumption of truth."

Can you see the problem here? The woman's claim to self defense is based solely on her own word. And yet her version of events simply doesn't add up. Person #3 is pretending that this is irrelevant while simultaneously making general observations about self defense claims that are not false but have little bearing on the woman's very specific claims about what happened.

And, yeah, this is a not-so-subtle reference to Zimmerman. I'm sick and tired of hearing, for example, that a self-defense claim doesn't require the person defending himself to have sustained serious injuries. That may be true in general but it doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman told a very specific tale that is full of holes and contradicted by evidence. There is no logic in assuming that Zimmerman was truthfully and reasonably in fear for his life when so many specific details of his story stink. Zimmerman told a tale and his fate must be tied to the believability of that specific tale.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I have not been following this story as well as many others,

but from the little I have seen, I like your analogy,

[pgr]

2. My thoughts are

Zimmy is white trash scum and should fry for murder - but he'll get off with a slap on the wrist. After all, this is Florida

[madashelltoo]

3. Zimmerman's defense is nothing more than smoke and mirrors

I wrote an Op early this morning about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023166539

[truebluegreen]

4. How about this for a thought experiment:

Where would Trayvon Martin be today if George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car, with a gun, and followed him?

If you start something, and another person ends up dead because of it, how on earth or off of it is it reasonable to claim that it is not your responsibility? Your fault?

If Trayvon Martin had lived and George Zimmerman died, then a claim of self-defense would be justified (crazy ass cracker local politics aside).

[Old Codger]

5. In my opinion

And if they actually can prove anything I think the law is there that you cannot claim self defense if you initiated the confrontation.