[Leaning Right]

> 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.

[867V309]

the lawyer did not see that probability as being present. A possibility, yes. But not a probability.

so getting your head banged on the pavement only represents a possibility of severe injury?

I say again, your "lawyer friend" shouldn't be disbarred, he should be committed.

[Mr Radical]

Only a “lawyer” could try to argue that a possibility something will happen equates to no (i.e. zero) probability it will happen.

[spacejunkie2001]

Your friend doesn’t know Florida law, clearly. In Florida it is up to US to decide if we feel ‘in fear for our lives’. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

Your friend is a dolt.