Not true. If there is probable cause for an arrest that's all that is required. Same is true for charging: probable cause.<quoted text>
But first, here in Florida, they must rule out self defence before they can even arrest him, much less charge and try him.
What this trial is about is not the racism of George Zimmerman but the racism of Trayvon and you Libtards.
That is the standard.
However, Rougie Scatterbrain is free to write a letter to Attorney O'Mara offering to tutor him in the fine points of Florida criminal law. Hee hee.
Mr. Scatterbrain is at it again. It is his mission in life to ramble off-point. The example of Connecticut law is perfectly on-point as it illustrates how states apply the doctrine of lesser included offenses, insofar as state courts apply the doctrine according to judicial standards. That is true for CT and FL and just about every other state in this country.
The rest of Mr. Scatterbrain's comment, "to CHARGE someone, in a self defence [sic] case, they most prove that the preponderance ...", has nothing to do with the doctrine of lesser included offenses.