Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTank77
If Trayvon did infact attack Zimmerman, it was a justified shooting.
|
I think you may want to consider the wording of Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law again:
"2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. 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(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm."
In other words, unless Zimmerman can prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that deadly force was the
only way to protect himself from
imminent death or great bodily harm, he cannot rely upon the statute. Contrary to some of the publicity surrounding it, it isn't a "licence to murder" law.
Anyway, while the second degree murder charge does seem odd at first, looking at the circumstances of the death in the public domain thus far it doesn't appear that manslaughter would be applicable. Shooting someone at very close range would be considered by most people
as being "imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" as set out for second-degree murder in chapter 782.04 of the Florida Statutes - admittedly the last bit is very strongly-worded, but in effect it's not the act of someone particularly concerned with the survival of their target. Manslaughter as typically defined requires that one does not know one's actions are likely to kill the other person, and given the role and training of the defendant this would seem unlikely. Indeed, the fact he claimed self-defence in interview would suggest he knew what the outcome was likely to be. On those grounds, I can see why the second-degree charge was made. That being said, it could drop to manslaughter once the trial is underway - my understanding is that it can only go down, though, not up, so that may explain their choice as well.