Before there is any trial there will be a motion to dismiss based on the SYG law providing for IMMUNITY from prosecution for valid self-defense. The same law provides for immunity from civil liability as well.
The depths of idiocy in this article begs for a lawsuit for racial incitement to riot by a writer without a clue.
The arrest affidavit is clinging by a thread - wait til the motion to dismiss. We do have law here in FL that judges must follow.
If Mr. Z can establish he was reasonably in fear of grievous bodily injury or death the judge will dismiss all charges at the hearing.
Motions to dismiss on SYG have been successfully done on paper (exhibits, affidavits, depositions, etc.) or with paper and actual live testimony.
The judge is both the trier of fact and law. Unique for pre-trial motions. Usually if there is question of fact you have to go to trial to establish that.
If the motion to dismiss fails its a toss up as to whether you go to trial or appeal the failure to dismiss. As the Peterson case established on appeal the law provides for an actual IMMUNITY - not just an affirmative defense.
Please note that Zimmerman need only establish his self-defense actions by a preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not (50% + 1) that he feared for his life or serious bodily injury.
That this is unknown to many at this point is truly astounding. Gang bangers having it out with rival gangs have gotten off in late night shoot outs with each other on self-defense grounds.
The only consideration here is to what extent the MSM and race baiters can threaten the area/nation with chaos and rioting if charges are dismissed. That threat is really the only real question here. Trust me. ;-)
Your comments are most interesting in “where we go from here”. These points of law are going to run smack into the face of the “baiters”, LSM, and the left.
Regardless which side writes our history books, Trayvon Martin might be America’s Archduke Ferdinand.
I think the broken nose and wounds to the back of the head would constitute "reasonable" fear of grievous bodily injury. If that is really what the law requires, then this is much ado about nothing, legally speaking.