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...
> Florida law—and self-defense legal theory in general—is all about what a reasonable person would think under the same circumstances. <
I certainly agree with that.
>There are centuries of legal precedence which establish the principle: Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life. <
But that’s the point the lawyer was trying to make: A fear is not good enough. There must be a probability of death of severe injury.
The lawyer did not see that probability as being present. A possibility, yes. But not a probability.
Side note:
I knew I was going to catch some (maybe well-deserved) flak for posting that lawyer’s opinion. But the guy is solid 2A, and he volunteers his time to defend folks against bogus gun charges. He could well be wrong here. But I think he has credentials enough that it’s worth the conversation.