Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
Here's part of the relevant statute:
"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; or..."
|
What you post above is probably known and understood by more lay people than you think.
Zimmerman claims to be "that person" and that Martin attacked him.
Had Zimmerman missed Martin and then died from a fractured skull, Martin would be "that person" and would now be on trial, saying that Zimmerman followed and shot at him and that, fearing for his life, he took down Zimmerman, in self defense.
Of course Martin's dead, so it's Zimmerman's word alone.
Martin didn't get out of his car and follow Zimmerman, ending up killing him.
Zimmerman
did get out of his car and he
did follow Martin and ended up shooting the 17 year old to death.
Were I on the jury and we were considering manslaughter, I'd be the juror hanging the jury before I'd agree to acquit Zimmerman.