I dont have an opinion as to George Zimmermans guilt or innocence. (The usual method of arriving at such a judgment seems to be to take a look at the party affiliation on ones own voter registration card, but it didnt work for me.) But the latest argument against Zimmerman strikes me as pretty silly.
The claim is that Zimmerman must be a liar because he claimed not to be familiar with the legal concept of stand your ground, despite having once taken a course in which that concept was explained at length in class.
I mean seriously? One thing Ive learned in over two decades of teaching is that explaining something at length is no guarantee that anyone in the class even the best students will remember anything about it.
In college, I took an Econ class, not even 101 or 102, but 100, and I really didn’t pay attention to a word the guy was saying. It was like, even though he was speaking English clearly, it was still like he was speaking in a foreign language. Maybe even “speaking in tongues,” as these Marxist statists are literally religious in their teachings. Zimmerman doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would remember certain concepts taught in a class.
But in my view, Zimmerman started the whole thing by his initial stalking and provoking of Trayvon Martin. At that early point in the situation, I would say that Martin should have exercised “stand your ground.”
The Army prosecutor who taught Zimmerman’s criminal litigation class was a Marxist economist?
Could be, but it’s not clear what Zimmerman actually did.