This hang-up some people seem to have in strictly defining Zimmerman's actions in terms of legality doesn't create a full and honest account of the appropriateness of his behavior.
I mostly agree. The questions of whether a crime was committed, and of whether, even if a crime was committed, a crime can be proved, are certainly distinct from the question of whether Zimmerman bears some degree of moral responsibility even if he did not break the law, and even if he acted throughout with no malicious intent. I think he does, because he should have heeded the advice of the operator to stay in the car. Even though that advice does not constitute a command from a law enforcement officer, and therefore does not preclude a self-defense claim, it is nonetheless damn good advice, and as someone active in neighborhood watch, he should have been well aware of the reasons such advice is given. Had he stayed in the car, there would have been no shooting. Whatever happens from here, Zimmerman has to live with that fact.
That said, it is hardly surprising that the focus is on the law, and on whether Zimmerman's actions broke the law. The practical question facing society is whether, according to the law, Zimmerman should be imprisoned for a very long time. Moral culpability is not the same as legal culpability, and to argue that Zimmerman broke no laws is not to argue that Zimmerman therefore did nothing wrong.
I have the legal right to coat my head in honey and stick it in a fire ant hill. But that doesn't make it a good idea.
The bottom line is that taking a gun and following someone you suspect to be a criminal is a reckless and dangerous idea.
Very true, and I agree that Zimmerman displayed very poor judgment. But again, since the immediate practical question is whether to try Zimmerman and potentially put him in prison, it is not unreasonable at this point to focus on legal, as opposed to moral, culpability. But it certainly is helpful for someone to remind us that the two are not the same.
I have no problem with Zimmerman calling the police, despite whatever implication about racial profiling that might have. Sure, Martin might have been unjustly hassled, but in hindsight, it's definitely the lesser of two evils.
I don't fault Zimmerman for calling 9-1-1 either, and I am not at all sure that it was even about racial profiling. Someone new to the neighborhood who is examining houses looking for the house he is visiting (those houses look very similar) can appear to a stranger to be casing houses. There had been break-ins lately, so burglary might be on Zimmerman's mind quite apart from racial profiling. At that point, neither party had done anything wrong, legally or morally. I don't know Zimmerman, so I don't know if he's a racist. But the fact that he thought Trayvon looked suspicious is not proof that he is.
However, the possibility of such a misunderstanding, and the tragic results such a misunderstanding can have, are one more very good reason to avoid the likelihood of confrontation by remaining in the vehicle and waiting for the police to arrive. So I agree that Zimmerman took a morally unjustifiable risk that someone would be harmed, and someone was in fact harmed as a result. Whether or not that is a crime or a tort, it is something Zimmerman ought to feel very guilty about (from what I have read from those who know him, he does).
. This guy is in desperate need of a high profile attorney like David Boise that knows what to say and what not to say to the press.
