Here's Florida’s Next Trayvon Martin Case

[onenote]

42. And what is your point?

Case A: person claims that he used deadly force because he thought the victim was a vampire about to suck his blood. Jury doesn't have to buy the story and in all likelihood concludes eithter that the defendant is lying or that a reasonable person wouldn't have thought the victim was a vampire and thus the defendant has no claim for self defense (although he might have a case for an insanity defense).

Case B: person claims that they feared for their life because victim was on top of him and was in a position to cause him great bodily harm by smashing his head into sidewalk. Jury doesn't have to buy story -- could conclude that defendant is lying about victim being on top of him, can conclude that no reasonable person would fear having their head smashed into sidewalk, etc etc. On the other hand, if there is evidence from another witness that the victim was on top, the jury can choose to believe or not believe that testimony or consider it as creating doubt as to whether the prosecution's claim that the defendant was on top is true or not. The jury also could conclude based on the minimal nature of the injury that the defendant is lying when he says he was in fear for his life/body or that a reasonable person would have had such fear. By the same token, the jury could reach the conclusion that the minimal nature of the injuries sustained does not negate the truthfulness or reasonableness of the defendant's fear that they were about to suffer a much more significant blow.

Got it yet?