Thesh wrote:However, the outrage and media circus surrounding this is excessive.
I highly doubt his life was in danger when he pulled the gun, but the police need to take their time and build their case, and the local pressure is probably enough to make them take it seriously. However, they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty, and while it may seem to be the case, that's based on assumptions and intuition, not fact.
The problem here is that the police did not arrest Mr. Zimmerman, and were it not for the media circus the police would never have arrested Mr. Zimmerman
. The police decided on the spot that it was self defense, and were not pursuing a trial, were not gathering evidence, were not planning to let a jury of peers decide whether the actions of Mr. Zimmerman constitute murder, self defense, or something else entirely.
Moreover, the “stand your ground” law in Florida allowed the police to do that
. I am in favor of of the “stand your ground” principle—that a person who has a legal right to be in a place, does in fact a legal right to be in that place and is not compelled to flee from criminals—but if you kill a person, there ought to be at least a hearing, and unless there’s something like video evidence proving it was self-defense, there ought to be a trial.
With regard to the police office shooting you reference, I am not familiar with that incident, but police ought to be held to the same standard as everyone else, plus additional internal police punishments for breaches of public trust while on duty. So, if a cop kills someone, that should be prosecuted as murder until proven otherwise. If a cop breaks the speed limit, that should result in the standard legal fine, plus something like temporary suspension of police cruiser driving privileges.