The thing about all the comments and responses, though, is that hardly anyone ever gets to the real issue in the case from a legal standpoint. There is no doubt that George Zimmerman killed Treyvon Martin. He admitted it to the authorities. The issue from a legal standpoint is then was this a justifiable homicide? In other words, did George Zimmerman have the legal right to kill Treyvon Martin.
To put it in more concrete legal terms, was Zimmerman justified in using deadly force in the struggle against Martin? The answer will vary in each of the 50 states of the country so we must look at the applicable law in Florida. The media has no doubt alerted you that the statute in question here in Florida is the so-called "Stand Your Ground" law. But in reality they are misleading you with that label.
The Florida Statute and paragraph in question is titled "Justifiable Use of Force" and it is Title XLVI Chapter 776(3). It reads:
(3) A
person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked
in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to
retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with
force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or
herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In this case, both Zimmerman and Martin had a legal right to be where the incident took place. Neither was presumably engaged in an unlawful activity. As the statute says, there is "no duty to retreat". What this means is that in the face of an attack against you, you do not have to run away if you can safely do so, as it is the case in many states. This Florida provision is what is known as "stand your ground". You can stay and meet force with force as long as it is proportionally equal. In other words, you cannot stab someone if they slap you in the face and claim that you have met force with force.
But the real key to this statute is not the "stand your ground" part, as the media would have you believe. The real key is the part that says "who is attacked". What that means is that you can only respond with force if you are attacked. If you are the first attacker and provoke the confrontation, you cannot take refuge under this statute and the killing cannot be justified. So you see the real issue here is who attacked first? All the evidence released showing bruises, cuts, black eyes, etc. is irrelevant. We know there was a fight. The real issue is who started it. And the physical evidence does nothing to establish that. In fact, all the witness accounts do not help establish that either. All we have is circumstantial evidence, such as the 911 call showing Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, and then there is the claim by Zimmerman that he was attacked first.
In light of this issue, other evidence released is much more important. For example, the fact that Zimmerman was on prescription drugs likely to cause side effects including propensity to do violence, the past injunction against him, the charge of battery on a law enforcement officer. The prosecution is going to have to refute the claim by Zimmerman that he was attacked first. Not an easy task with no relevant physical evidence and no contradictory testimony because your witness is dead.
