> I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate the situation and a charge of manslaughter or negligent homicide could have been argued for. <
A guy I know is a lawyer. And he’s passionate about the Second Amendment. Very passionate. He’s taken on cases on behalf of the NRA.
And he agrees with you.
Perhaps I should expand on my comments in post #21 a bit.
At a gathering, a lawyer acquaintance of mine was asked about the Zimmerman trial. This guy is very, very pro-2A. Life Member of the NRA.
And I know for a fact that he carries whenever it’s legal to do so.
He said Zimmerman should have been found guilty. I almost fell over when I heard him say that! But then he explained.
He said that by Florida law you can only use lethal force when it’s probable that you will be killed by your assailant, or be badly injured by your assailant.
The old “I was in fear for my life” will not work, at least for civilians. More than just fear is needed. There must be a likelihood of death, or of severe injury.
And the lawyer said that even though Zimmerman was injured, there was no probability of death, or severe injury.
Don’t yell at me over this. I’m not sure I buy everything that the lawyer said. I’m just the messenger here.
> I do believe that Zimmerman did exacerbate the situation and a charge of manslaughter or negligent homicide could have been argued for. <
A guy I know is a lawyer. And he’s passionate about the Second Amendment. Very passionate. He’s taken on cases on behalf of the NRA.
And he agrees with you.
You can argue anything, but you can still be wrong. What convinced me was when Zimmerman physically walked the police through the entire encounter with no inconsistencies or obfuscations. Guilty people can’t do that. They simply had no case for any criminal charge.