Cole Burns wrote:Murder 2 is going to be tough to convict on, but hopefully the jury can see past that and convict on manslaughter. Like I said, though, if the charges were manslaughter, I think you get a plea deal and this quiets down.
I think it'll plea it either way, unless there's some very convincing evidence from the defense we haven't seen. Which could be the case. Now, if there is an eyewitness or such that claims Zimmerman not only confronted Martin face to face but initiated physical contact, I think you can make a case for murder. Whether or not that is the case is for the jury, but the prosecution I think has a duty to put the option on the table for the jury.
To call Zimmerman racist, or to suggest that race played a role in his decision to confront Trayvon, is based on one fuzzy audio recording that is probably NOT a racial comment.
To call him a racist is simple minded and flippant. To suggest race played no role in his decision to confront Trayvon is naive.
Edit - Credit to Zeus. It would appear I'm wrong and Zimmerman will walk under SYG.
Terrible [expletive] law
I wouldn't call it a stupid law, but it is a confusing law. It's true that the person who might have started out as the person being assaulted also has a right to use self-defense, and then at the point where perhaps he's winning - in other words, where he takes physical control and starts to cause injury to the other person - then the other person can then claim, you know, I never expected it to get to this point. Now I need to use deadly force in order to protect myself.
Though he seems to contradict himself later.
Well, under Florida law, like most law, if you are the first aggressor in a confrontation, you forfeit the right to self-defense. So if Zimmerman, if a court or a jury determines that George Zimmerman somehow attacked Trayvon Martin, maybe by grabbing him or some other means, then Zimmerman can't claim the right to stand his ground because he's forfeited his right to defend himself because of his initial aggression.
