Replies

This guy is definitely not a lawyer, but he's right about one thing: a conviction will be very, very difficult to get. The charging affidavit does not even lay out any facts to support the elements of the crime.

I'm not going through the whole list of dumb things in this article, but how about one paragraph?

When the 911 operator said to not get involved, Zimmerman disobeyed the operator and confronted Martin. By not obeying the order, this can be grounds for obstruction of justice, an arrestable offense, therefore, satisfying two of three within the laws of second degree murder.

This is incorrect on several counts. First, he did not call 911, it was the police non-emergency line. Second, the operator's suggestion was not a "lawful order" which Zimmerman was in any way bound to obey. Which means, of course, (third) the conclusion about obstruction charges is also incorrect. Finally, we don't actually know that Zimmerman "confronted" Martin. The account of Martin's girlfriend, in which Martin starts the conversation by challenging Zimmerman would seem to suggest the opposite.

As for manslaughter, which the writer seems to think is off the table, it is automatically a lesser included charge under murder two, which will certainly be part of jury instructions.

We don't know that Zimmerman disobeyed the suggestion from the dispatcher--when told that he doesn't need to follow Martin, he says "OK." For all we know, he did stop following him right then but was later confronted by Martin--at Martin's initiative.

The confrontation seems to have occurred because Martin thought Zimmerman "dissed" him by watching what he was doing. Depending on who is on the jury, there may be jurors who think that that justified Martin attacking Zimmerman and telling him that he was going to kill him (as Zimmerman apparently claims happened).