by Garth Baker
In order for a killing to be considered self-defense, the person who did the killing must have felt as if the danger was so urgent and pressing that in order to save his or her own life, or to prevent the receiving of great bodily harm, the killing was absolutely necessary. In layman’s terms, you have to feel absolutely certain that your life is in grave danger or that severe injury is imminent.
This is why George Zimmerman isn’t in custody. The law enforcement personnel have to take into account all the facts leading up to the death of the assailant. Taking their time will lead to a better overall investigation that will either prove or disprove the facts of the case. These types of cases usually tend to upset either the community or the person who had to defend themselves. Typically speaking, in a self- defense case, the investigating officer has to evaluate what was occurring just prior to the death of the assailant, not the type of life the assailant or the self-defender had lead prior to the incident. The investigating officer needs to evaluate only the facts surrounding the incident and nothing else.
I believe the best course of action is to always seek a grand jury indictment and let the courts decide the outcome unless the case is so blatantly obvious that this course of action would be redundant. Letting the courts decide this will provide everyone with a fair and impartial determination of the case direction.
The Trevon Martin/George Zimmerman case has become such a political and media circus, one can only wonder if this case will be determined by the facts presented or by popular demand. We shall see how it plays out over the next few days, but whichever way the investigation points, someone will not be satisfied.