Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
I really disagree.
They still run into the same problem. They have to prove that:
1) Zimmerman was the aggressor and remained the aggressor; or
2) Zimmerman did not have a reasonable belief that his life was being threatened.
The defence to Murder 2 and manslaughter would have been exactly the same. The difference is only in the intention. With manslaughter or murder 2, the prosecution still has to show that there account of events was correct over Zimmerman's. The evidence of the broken nose, injuries to the back of the head, Martin being on top at the moment of the shooting, etc..is going to get Zimmerman off regardless.
|
Maybe you are right...i have no idea as i am not a lawyer.
Where i think things would differ, and i could be completely wrong, is the fact that Zimmerman confronted the kid first when told he shouldnt and then caused the series of events that occurred...hence the negligence.
Again i have no idea and dont claim too, but GZ was not innocent in all this. There has to be some level at which his complicity in the death of TM falls under the auspices of criminal misconduct.