> So you’re saying the victim, as he’s being beaten, must accurately determine the probability of death or bad injury, and that his fear of such, as he’s being beaten, doesn’t matter? <
That’s a great question. As he was being beaten, Zimmerman almost certainly felt that it was probable that he would be badly injured, or worse.
But the lawyer says it doesn’t matter what Zimmerman felt. What matters is that Zimmerman would probably NOT have been killed or maimed by Martin. Just beaten up.
So by Florida law, Zimmerman should have been found guilty of at least manslaughter. So said this NRA lawyer.
I’m uncomfortable with that, as you obviously are. But the lawyer was applying the law as he saw it. What I should have asked him is this: Do you agree with that law? Doesn’t it expect too much clarity from the citizen in a time of great stress?
Zimmerman had every right to self defense under the conditions that occurred.
The only question that could garner him a manslaughter charge might have been some of the actions prior to the confrontation.
But, practically speaking, no. Zimmerman engaged in lawful self defense, and he shouldn't have been convicted of anything lesser, including manslaughter. There are centuries of legal precedence which establish the principle: Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life. End of story. Trayvon Martin, in initiating the assault—even if Martin somehow feared for his life—made a fatal error which resulted in his own death.
Ghetto culture killed Trayvon Martin. He assaulted Zimmerman basically because he felt "disrespected", and that's not a legitimate reason to initiate an assault.
Absent Trayvon Martin's testimony that he (Martin) was in fear for his life, the case hinged on Zimmerman's credibility, which was more that adequate...
Never use that lawyer as he is may be book smart but street dumb.
I'll take that back, he is not even book smart.
If he was he would know that the most common murder weapon is... drum roll please... the HAND! :Cymbal crash: