2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury; I'M SURE HE DID.
"Stand your ground" or "self defense", this will not go to trial.
Yes it will, no judge wants his home picketed by Al Sharpton.
That's a triable fact. That, in fact, is the purpose of a jury.
“he was not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity; HE WAS NOT.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury; I’M SURE HE DID.
“Stand your ground” or “self defense”, this will not go to trial. “
Let us hope outside threats don’t sway the judge.
This is an assertion, not a fact. IF he assaulted Trayvon when they came face to face, that was unlawful assault and possibly aggravated assault and his self-defense claim is no longer valid.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
True.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
This is again an assertion, not a fact. We don't know who attacked whom. It seems likely he was losing the fight when he fired. This does not prove he didn't start the fight.
However, since the prosecution must disprove his story, it seems unlikely they'll be able to do so. Political issues are obviously much more important than the facts of the case.
We DO NOT KNOW what happened in those seconds between Trayvon getting off the phone with his sweetie and the eyewitnesses looking out the window because of the screaming outside. From a legal standpoint what happened in those seconds is the only real issue. Unfortunately, the only evidence for what happened is Z's story.
Assuming he has an honest judge. I hope so, but don't count on it.