Zimmerman's Attorney Won't Use Stand Your Ground Defense.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Something seems a bit off here since the entire case was built on SYG Defense from the start. The SYG law provides substantially more protection if it applies.

 

'Zimmerman's attorneys had said last week that they would use Florida's controverial "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force - rather than retreat - if they believe their lives are in danger."

 

 

"The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said."

 

A traditional self defense argument might be hard to make if Zimmerman is shown to be the initial agressor. In addition, a traditional self defense case would not invoke the civil suit immunity contained in the statute.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57492488/george-zimmermans-attorneys-wont-use-stand-your-ground-defense/

 

I wonder if they are looking at a plea deal.

[TomServo92]

Why did you edit this paragraph out?

 

Mark O'Mara, who is defending George Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge in the fatal February shooting, said the traditional self-defense approach is appropriate because the facts suggest his client couldn't retreat from a beating Martin was giving him.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Why did you edit this paragraph out?

 

No particular reason. I thought the interesting part was that they switched strategy and abandoned the protections provided under SYG. I also didn't want to copy the entire article.

 

Since you've mentioned that quote, The traditional self defense claim may not protect Zimmerman if he was the aggressor. Unlike SYG, the entire burden of proving that the use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances is on Zimmerman.

 

Florida Statutes:

 

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(B) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[TomServo92]

No particular reason. I thought the interesting part was that they switched strategy and abandoned the protections provided under SYG. I also didn't want to copy the entire article.

 

Since you've mentioned that quote, The traditional self defense claim may not protect Zimmerman if he was the aggressor. Unlike SYG, the entire burden of proving that the use of daedly force was reasonable under the circumstances is on Zimmerman.

 

 

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

( B) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

 

But doesn't the DA have to prove he was the initial aggressor?

[akirby]

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

 

I'm pretty sure that someone sitting on top of you ramming your head into the pavement fits that exception to being the aggressor.

Edited August 15, 2012 by akirby

[grbeck]

If I recall correctly, it was the CRITICS of the "Stand Your Ground Law" who claimed that it applied in this case, with the goal of having it repealed. (Ignoring, of course, that since it was enacted in Florida, crime in general has declined dramatically, as has the murder rate.) The defense, of course, will initially claim all possible defenses, so that they are available at the trial if needed.

 

Several conservative pundits and gun-rights activists noted from day one that it did NOT apply to the facts of this case. Turns out they were right.

 

I'm also not seeing how Zimmerman could possibly be cast as the aggressor, especially as more facts about the case have been revealed.

 

One, tracking someone as part of a Neighborhood Watch group is not an act of aggression.

 

Two, ignoring the advice of a 911 dispatcher to stop tracking a person engaged in suspicious activity is not a felony or a misdemeanor, nor does it make Zimmerman an aggressor. (Although this would come into play if there is a CIVIL case as a result of what happened.)

 

Three, there is no evidence that Zimmerman did, in fact, ignore the advice of the 911 dispatcher.

 

Four, if someone is on top of you, slamming your head on to the pavement, you are allowed to use the force necessary to stop him or her - including deadly force, and even if the one doing the slamming is an African-American youth who will get the usual race-baiters all lathered up and ready to protest.

Edited August 15, 2012 by grbeck

[akirby]

Four, if someone is on top of you, slamming your head on to the pavement, you are allowed to use the force necessary to stop him or her - including deadly force, and even if the one doing the slamming is an African-American youth who will get the usual race-baiters all lathered up and ready to protest.

 

The only time this would not apply is if YOU were the aggressor, instigating the fight. You can't go up to someone and start a fight, then resort to deadly force and claim self defense.

 

There is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated any violence or physical confrontation. Martin could have easily outrun him i he wanted to get away from him. I think Martin came back and confronted him for following him and that turned into a fight. Who started the fight will never be proven as there are no witnesses (at least not that I've heard so far).

 

Please note that I'm not condoning anything Zimmerman did - just trying to clarify the facts of the case as it would apply to a defense strategy and ultimately to a jury finding.

[Langston Hughes]

The only time this would not apply is if YOU were the aggressor, instigating the fight. You can't go up to someone and start a fight, then resort to deadly force and claim self defense.

 

There is no evidence that Zimmerman initiated any violence or physical confrontation. Martin could have easily outrun him i he wanted to get away from him. I think Martin came back and confronted him for following him and that turned into a fight. Who started the fight will never be proven as there are no witnesses (at least not that I've heard so far).

 

Please note that I'm not condoning anything Zimmerman did - just trying to clarify the facts of the case as it would apply to a defense strategy and ultimately to a jury finding.

 

This is the sticky/interesting point. If Martin did confront Zimmerman at what point does Martin have a right to confront him. All indications from both Zimmerman and the girl Martin was on the phone with indicate he ran from Zimmerman at some point. and given that the altercation occurred between buildings it's possible that Martin hid near a building and then when Zimmerman came through he felt trapped and made a bad decision.

 

How would you define instigator, as i don't believe Martin came back, i believe that Zimmerman never stopped following Martin and that he came between Martin and the path to where he was staying. It's my feeling and only a feeling that Martin like most kids came around the corner and hide. When Zimmerman passed but turned around its my feeling that they came into sight of each other.

 

That would fit the story of both of Zimmerman and the girl supposedly on the phone with Martin. Zimmerman gave up and thought he was returning to his truck, Martin thinking he failed to lose him reacted to Zimmerman moving towards him. In that scenario who would be the instigator, the person running away from someone they don't know or the one chasing the person?

[akirby]

How would you define instigator, as i don't believe Martin came back, i believe that Zimmerman never stopped following Martin and that he came between Martin and the path to where he was staying.

 

Typically it's whoever put their hands on the other person first. If they ran into each other and that's what started the fight then it's probably neither.

 

The point is that following someone suspicious while calling 911 does not qualify you as the instigator of the ensuing fight.

[sprinter]

It's my feeling and only a feeling that Martin like most kids came around the corner and hide.

 

Let's cut the media BS here. Martin was not the "kid" portrayed in the picture widely circulated within the liberal press.

And just where is the liberal outrage with this story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-black-panther-woman-who-put-dead-or-alive-bounty-on-george-zimmerman-now-vows-to-keep-her-foot-on-motherfuing-necks-of-whites/ Funny I couldn't find any comment about it on ABC news.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Let's cut the media BS here. Martin was not the "kid" portrayed in the picture widely circulated within the liberal press.

 

And just where is the liberal outrage with this story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-black-panther-woman-who-put-dead-or-alive-bounty-on-george-zimmerman-now-vows-to-keep-her-foot-on-motherfuing-necks-of-whites/ Funny I couldn't find any comment about it on ABC news.

 

The New Black Panthers are to Liberals what the Westboro Baptist church is to Conservative Christians. They are not part of the group and nothing they do reflects on the group. Both Liberals and Conservatives wish the NBP and WBC would just go away.

[grbeck]

Typically it's whoever put their hands on the other person first. If they ran into each other and that's what started the fight then it's probably neither.

 

The point is that following someone suspicious while calling 911 does not qualify you as the instigator of the ensuing fight.

 

At this point, we'll all just have to wait and see what evidence comes out in the trial. I would imagine that Zimmerman will take the stand. Granted, that opens him up to a cross-examination by the prosecution, but staying silent would make the jury wonder why he isn't telling them HIS side of the events of that fateful night.

Edited August 15, 2012 by grbeck

[Langston Hughes]

The New Black Panthers are to Liberals what the Westboro Baptist church is to Conservative Christians. They are not part of the group and nothing they do reflects on the group. Both Liberals and Conservatives wish the NBP and WBC would just go away.

 

The NBPP is more the lefts version of the Aryan nation, Stormfront, and all the other conservative white supremist groups that Sprinter isn't outraged over. Us liberal think the panthers are idiots. They suck and act stupid.

[sprinter]

Listen to the Jesse Lee Peterson show clip. Great clip.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/black-commentators-sound-off-on-racial-violence/