I think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman.

[onenote]

71. The law doesn't care who was "more" of a threat. It cares whether the defendant reasonably

felt threatened, viewing the situation through the eyes of the defendant. Zimmerman had a gun. That doesn't impact the legal issue of whether he felt threatened at all. In any situation where someone is asserting self-defense they had the means to take the action that forms the basis of the prosecution. Or put another way, the fact that a person has the means available to them to defend themselves does not disqualify them from asserting that they were acting in self-defense.

Ultimately, under Florida law (and this is crystal clear), the jury's duty is decide whether, based on the evidence, the state has rebutted beyond any reasonable doubt the assertion that Zimmerman's defense has made that he had a reasonable fear for his life.

While you or I, as jurors, might conclude the state had proved the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, I certainly am in no position to predict, given the conflicting evidence provided and the importance of the juror's assessment of the credibility of various witnesses (such as the witnesses claiming variously that it was Martin screaming or Zimmerman screaming) what the outcome will be.