1. Martin was walking home with ice tea and skittles.
2. Z decided M was a punk who needed to be stopped and followed him first with SUV, then on foot. This despite being explicitly told not to do so.
3. There is a scuffle during which Z might have been over-powered, at which point he shot M.
So M had every reason to believe that he was followed and had no idea why, since he had done nothing wrong. He had every reason to believe that Z was following with evil intent (which he was). Z shot M because the gun was there, which removed the need to fight M physically.
So, basically, Z acted recklessly putting himself and another in danger on the grounds of baseless suspicion. The result was the death of an innocent man. The kindest verdict would have been manslaughter with some serious jail time.
Joanna
----- Original Message ----- Wojtek, citing Florida law about self-defense, notes:
> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter
> is
> not available to a person who:
>
> (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
> unless:
So you have evidence that Z provoked the use of force against himself?
The evidence presented in the case suggests otherwise ...
> So it is clear to me that Martin had all reasons to feel
> threatened when approached by armed Zimmerman ...
Wait, M knew Z had a gun? Under what theory?
Supported by whose testimony?
Hint: actually this is specifically unsupported by testimony ...
/jordan
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk