The Trial of George Zimmerman

[ironbite]

And seeing as how they're gonna probably try a Stand Your Ground defense, that might go out the window for them as Zimmerman wasn't the one standing his ground.

Ironbite-Martin was.

[kefkaownsall]

We'll. Grace kind of pushed the trial to begin prematurely

[Jack Mann]

It come down to who (That is who the jury believes) started the physical confrontation.  Zimmerman was not breaking any law by following Martin or even asking him what he was doing.  So if the jury believes Martin started the physical fight Zimmerman will get off.

Not if they follow Florida law. Zimmerman was not in his house, so there he cannot use the Castle Doctrine. And even if Martin did start the fight, he could not have used deadly force (since he had no weapon), meaning Zimmerman cannot rely on a self-defense claim. (If arguing self-defense, you cannot use more force than was used against you. Which means Zimmerman could not use deadly force.)

According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force).  Again, I don't believe his story.  I don't find him credible.  But in his version of events, he was legally justified.

[m52nickerson]

Not if they follow Florida law. Zimmerman was not in his house, so there he cannot use the Castle Doctrine. And even if Martin did start the fight, he could not have used deadly force (since he had no weapon), meaning Zimmerman cannot rely on a self-defense claim. (If arguing self-defense, you cannot use more force than was used against you. Which means Zimmerman could not use deadly force.)

Florida has a Stand Your Ground law in which a person does not have to be in their home to use lethal force if they feel their life is in danger.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

"(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."

[ironbite]

Yes we know this.  This has been stated several times by Eric.

Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.

[m52nickerson]

Yes we know this.  This has been stated several times by Eric.

Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.

Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.

[chitoryu12]

Yes we know this.  This has been stated several times by Eric.

Ironbite-might wanna pay attention there buddy.

Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.

Zimmerman's already on thin ice for a self-defense claim because he essentially stalked an innocent person and acted aggressively toward him, meaning that it's extremely reasonable to suggest that Martin attacked out of fear of his own life. But even if it was twisted into a valid self-defense claim, Zimmerman escalated the fight by using deadly force against an unarmed combatant.

According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force).  Again, I don't believe his story.  I don't find him credible.  But in his version of events, he was legally justified.

That's a sketchy claim to use regarding deadly force. Some people punch harder than others could ever knock your head into the ground. It depends on the individual, and Zimmerman's injuries are not coincident with someone performing lethal blows on him.

[mellenORL]

When the defense pounds away for weeks on the minutiae, they parse each second of events as barely seen by witnesses. The jury is bombarded by information overload.  It's all one sided and speculative and dependent on the far sides of the envelope of evidence interpretation.

Martin is dead and silenced.

The chances of conviction under the bizarre aspects of FL code - SYG, and the mightily stringent qualifications for second degree murder - means that Zimmerman may very well go free.

So keep that in mind, teens, that you can be stalked and shot for walking home.

[m52nickerson]

Zimmerman's already on thin ice for a self-defense claim because he essentially stalked an innocent person and acted aggressively toward him, meaning that it's extremely reasonable to suggest that Martin attacked out of fear of his own life. But even if it was twisted into a valid self-defense claim, Zimmerman escalated the fight by using deadly force against an unarmed combatant.

In Florida you can use deadly force against an unarmed person if you feel your life is in danger so long as you where not engaged in a criminal act.  So unless the prosecution can prove to the jury that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin first or he intended to shoot Martin before hand he will be acquitted.

[ironbite]

Nice to see that Martin had no right to defend himself with any type of force

Ironbite-i mean he's already guilty of being black so I guess its not legal for him to defend himself

[erictheblue]

According to Zimmerman's story, Martin was using deadly force against him (slamming his head into the pavement is deadly force). 

Deadly force requires a weapon. Using hands is not considered deadly force. This was an interesting topic of discussion in my Criminal Law class, but it applies in all the states I am familiar with (which includes Florida).

Eric is saying that Zimmerman can't use a self defense claim.

Because he cannot. (I'll re-address why below.)

In Florida you can use deadly force against an unarmed person if you feel your life is in danger so long as you where not engaged in a criminal act.

No, you can't. Self-defense claims require use of equal force. I am going to repeat what I said two pages ago...

(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.

The initial aggressor has no right to self defense. All this law says is "if someone is attacking you (or someone else), you can fight back." Also, if the initial aggressor does not use deadly force, you cannot fight back with deadly force.

For example, say I walk up and punch you. I'm the initial aggressor, so you can defend yourself. However, your defense must be in proportion to my initial aggression. You can hit me back, but you cannot pull out a gun and shoot me. If you do pull a gun, you lose all claim of self-defense. If I then turn around, pull a gun, and shoot you, I can claim self-defense, since you are the one who escalated to deadly force.

[Canadian Mojo]

Does it become deadly force if you are bouncing my head off of a concrete curb?

You know that is what the the defense claim is going to be; Zimmerman was down, on his back, and his attacker was slamming his head off the ground repeatedly. "Shooting the ni Martin was justified because he escalated it beyond being a mere fist fight and into a dangerous assault (with the ground constituting a weapon)."

[mellenORL]

Eric, you are correct in that this is the way the law was intended to be applied when it was written as a bill and debated in the legislature originally. However, please refer to case law specifics as to application and interpretation in FL courts. Defendants have prevailed over and over, using deadly force against unarmed victims. When you read the law coding in it's entirety, you can see where the wording leaves open some very unintended interpretations. One judge even offered an exasperated comment, amounting to; "Well, as the confrontation continued, both sides can claim SYG, so both can either walk, or go to prison."

That link to a Tampa news article analyzing these problems is worth a look through;
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

[erictheblue]

Does it become deadly force if you are bouncing my head off of a concrete curb?

Not legally. Because there are ways to reasonably fight back without pulling a gun.

[chitoryu12]

If bouncing your head off the curb was deadly force in the eyes of the law, any street fight could justifiably end with one of the guys shooting the other.