Ok, you know what, I started writing a reply, but then I did some more research into the case. The women's jewellery Trayvon had at school in a bag with a screwdriver, plus the history of graffiti, Zimmerman's previous record and the fact that he had his hand stuck in his waistband (which admittedly, is a little iffy, as he seemed to have a hard time identifying what clothes he had on, seeing whether he was reaching for a gun would be pretty much impossible) has swayed me. I think that perhaps he deserved a very light manslaughter charge due to the following with a gun (since Trayvon no longer posed a threat) but I've definitely been swayed, and as you say, 20:20 hindsight.
I applaud you for being open minded enough to change your position on it.
And really I find the specific case irrelevant. But I worry about the precedent that it sets, and also why the hell the media has latched onto it the way that they have.
But I disagree that he should be charged with manslaughter. And I've thought about various ways that it could have played out.
Maybe Zimmerman drew on him and Martin jumped on him in self-defense. But the evidence disproves that theory.
Maybe Zimmerman brandished the weapon. Highly doubtful though, if he was planning on using it he wouldn't let Martin get close enough to get the jump on him. And if someone is implying they'll use a gun unless you comply, very few people are going to attack instead of cooperate.
I've thought about just the fact that he was following him could be considered an act of aggression. But you're allowed to follow people. You're allowed to ask them questions. They don't have to respond, and they can ask to stop following them, but just following someone isn't an aggressive act.
And as Jake said "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"... None of the "what if" stories about Zimmerman add up. His story lines up with the evidence. He said "thank god" when police lied and told him they had it all on camera.
The fact that he was carrying a gun is irrelevant. He had every right to have a gun on him. Until it's pointed at, used to threaten or fired upon someone the gun doesn't matter. Just because you're carrying a gun doesn't mean you intend to use it.
From what I can tell, he was a guy trying to protect his community - because crime was a big problem there - it turned into an unfortunate situation and he was forced to defend himself.
Even a manslaughter charge would be implying that people have no right to defend their lives from those who initiate violence to harm or potentially kill them.
Self-defense is the most important fundamental human right. I personally consider it a moral obligation. If you care about yourself or have people that you love in this world, you can't rely on anybody else to protect you or your loved ones for you. That responsibility falls on every individual.
Self-defense isn't something that people should be punished for. If the police would have protected Zimmerman then Martin would be alive. If Zimmerman had relied on the police to protect him there's a good chance that he'd be the one who died that night.