re: #27 Obdicut

It really, really isn’t. At no point, at all, have you stated why you think exiting the truck put Zimmerman outside the bounds of the law. You’ve asserted it, but not with reference to the actual law itself. Apparently, you’re referencing something that’s not ‘explicit in the language’.

The problem is that the bill is quite specific in it’s language; the law protects Zimmerman as long as he was allowed to be in the place where he was, and, pursuant to what the Phantom Flea above posted, his pursuit ‘provoked’ the ‘attack’ by Trayvon. If that was judged to be so, then that would be semi-absurd— anyone would then be allowed to attack anyone that followed them. And, again, if you are armed, you can make a reasonable case that someone trying to disarm you had deadly intentions.

The answers you ask for are not found merely in the text of the law. We do have an implicit principle of who approaches who well established as a definition of self defense, we have a dramatic gap in the available force to use, we have a real lack of evidence for important facts, we have a difference in the application and intent of the law.

I’ll ask you this again, for the readers of this Page
If I was a Florida State Prosecutor, would I not be well within my rights to charge Zimmerman? Would that be overzealous prosecution? I don’t think so. Neither does the screaming multitudes that say in fact Zimmerman should be charged.