The more I hear about this case, the more ridiculous it gets. To hell with what’s “permissible by the statute.”
Defense: Innocent by virtue of stupid and feeble!
Prosecution: Look jury, we realize we failed to make an airtight case for what we wanted, so would you just convict him of something? Anything? Please?
Oh, and Jury? We know you simply cannot consider GZ taking the 5th as a damning silence, so please pay no attention to the fact that he and his counsel are obviously gaming the right. Oh, I need to wait and see how this is going before I (we/Counsel) decide(s) if opening my idiot mouth is worse than keeping it closed.
Seriously, I’m convinced that the prosecution isn’t even trying to win. For a real prosecution, this should have been a gimme, especially against the defense raised.
Ideal scenario? Prosecution seeking 1st degree. Defense working from SYG. Argument to be had…can you SYG when you’re clearly unprepared for a physical confrontation, are armed and know you would have to resort to that if things go south, were instructed to back off, and still went so far as to stalk the guy on foot anyway? How far are you allowed to travel before the ground isn’t yours to stand, especially if you’re the one provoking someone with your subjectively creepy behavior?
Case in point…if instead of Trayvon Martin, guilty of walking while black (the only thing we know for sure he was up to before Killerman got twitchy), it were a suspicious looking woman (walking while invaginated?) that GZ followed, especially after being instructed not to, and she were creeped out by GZ, he wouldn’t back off, and she shot GZ?, Who would have been standing ground then?
This trial is a farce.