The WSJ seems to have the same feel for this case as I have. Look, Zimmerman was an irresponsible idiot from the get-go, stalking someone in the night. Carrying around two fire-arms and following someone, looking for trouble, even after he’d been told to go home by the neighborhood watch. He was a trouble-maker.

So there’s definitely culpability.

But since there’s so much conflicting testimony about the confrontation and there is credible evidence that he feared for his life, man-slaughter might be the best option.

WSJ

Some states, but not Florida, recognize what’s known as “imperfect self-defense.” It applies when someone kills in self-defense but was overreacting and using excessive force.

So a defendant can try to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter by saying that he acted in self-defense even while conceding that he made a mistake. Alternatively, “imperfect self-defense” can offer prosecutors their best chance at a guilty verdict when a jury seems unlikely to convict a defendant of murder.

Florida law works differently. There’s no slicing and dicing of self-defense. The penal code doesn’t recognize “imperfect self defense.” The law forces juries to either believe that someone had a right to act in self-defense or is a murderer.

There is a loophole, however, as illustrated by Mr. Zimmerman’s trial, which entered into closing arguments Thursday.

In Florida, a judge can choose to give juries a middle-of-the-road option, saying it can convict someone of voluntary  manslaughter if it isn’t convinced that the defendant acted out of “ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent.” Voluntary manslaughter is a catch-all offense that includes a killing caused by “culpable negligence.”