George Zimmerman to Be Charged With 2nd-Degree Murder in Death of Trayvon Martin, AP Reports

Special prosecutor Angela Corey has decided to bring charges against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the killing of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida, a law enforcement official said Wednesday.

“This AG was just kicking the can on down the road cause she was fearing the race crap.”

The more I think about it the more it seems that’s why she went for 2nd Degree Murder. She must first show the judge adequate proof for such a conviction. If the judge dismisses the case for lack of evidence then, oh, well, she tried.

What evidence would that be?

??? If Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense, Zimmerman can be charged with manslaughter, basically under any circumstances. Are you disputing this?

What I understand the evidence suggest so far is Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense. I read Zimmerman is being charged with 2nd degree "murder" which will not fly based on the accounts I have seen.

what evidence has miraculously appeared to justify a 2nd Degree Murder charge?"

None, I think based on the current account. This may just be an appeasement charge to calm things down a little. A prosecutor can use whatever evidence it wants to TRY to bring a conviction and be totally wrong.

Understand, I'm not saying there's not new evidence we haven't seen yet, I'm am just basing my opinion on what we have seen and heard so far.

If Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense, Zimmerman can be charged with manslaughter, basically under any circumstances.Are you disputing this?

Yes, the statutes seem to say that is not correct, absent some evidence that it was not self defense, or the the person did not reasonably believe such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

From the 2011 Florida Statutes

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
...
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties

So I ask again, what evidence?

absent some evidence that it was not self defense, or the the person did not reasonably believe such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

Ok, that is exactly what I am saying...even though what I wrote is wrong. I didn't mean ...any other circumstances.
I meant, "other evidence we have not seen." So, I can see where your coming from. Sorry for the confusion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.