Summations Only

I haven't read the follow up remarks so maybe this has already been covered. But I wanted to make this point before the thread went into summation.You are wrong. This is not all that is required for a legitimate self defense claim. You must also show that your belief that you were being threatened was objectively reasonable. Otherwise, it would be simplicity itself to avoid any murder charge. Since we know that people are convicted of murder every day, obviously it's not that easy to beat.Although I haven't looked in depth at the Martin case, the question is going to come down to whether what Zimmerman knew at the time was enough to justify a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. I don't know what he claims to have known, so I can't evaluate the merits. But it's quite impossible to accurately evaluate any claim unless you begin with the correct standard. The standard you describe is simply not accurate.{AbE}Having read the rest of the comments, I note that Catholic Scientist provided what is apparently the actual text of the law. You will note that it talks about "reasonable fear." Simply stating you were afraid is not enough if your fear is not reasonable. In the law, when the word "reasonable" is used, overwhelmingly what is meant is objectively using a reasonable person standard.Zimmerman could testify on a stack of bibles that he was afraid. But if the objective facts that he describes are not sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for that fear, a jury could very easily believe that he was actually afraid but still convict him.Edited by subbie, : As noted