Zimmerman's Pointless Trial

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

How did GZ chase down a younger and lighter man?

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

There are some common misunderstandings about the self-defense aspect of the case. Unless the jurors are convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was acting in self defense, they must find Zimmerman not guilty. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, even on self defense issue, and the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no equal force standard.

Here's the pertinent language from the Florida pattern jury instruction on self defense using deadly force:

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another,

So, the State carries the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

There is another section that deals with a defendant who provokes a confrontation that results in use of deadly force, but I don't know whether the judge gave that instruction.

[_beastie]

How did GZ chase down a younger and lighter man?

- Doc

We know nothing about TM's fitness. He was a skinny kid who was not involved in sports. Maybe he could run faster than George, who had been involved in fitness training three times a week for a year, maybe not. But GZ didn't necessarily have to outrun TM. If TM decided that leading GZ to his home wasn't a good idea, he could have hidden from George. I believe Rachel Jeantel's testimony, and she said the last words TM said were "get off, get off", which leads me to believe that GZ grabbed a hold of TM in some way. That's believable, given the fact that GZ was determined this particular effing punk asshole wasn't going to get away.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wait.

So if GZ grabbed TM simply to detain him then did TM have a right to beat the crap out of GZ? In other words, did TM have SYG rights?

- Doc

[_DarkHelmet]

Wait.

So if GZ grabbed TM simply to detain him then did TM have a right to beat the s*** out of GZ? In other words, did TM have SYG rights?

- Doc

It seems to me the florida self defense laws will need to be looked at after this case. If we go on the assumption that GZ grabbed TM, then TM punched GZ, then GZ shot TM, you could argue self defense at each step. If TM had beaten GZ to death, he could claim he feared for his life. Based on the law, and the reasonable doubt, I think GZ is going to walk. Even the legal requirement for manslaughter is hard to prove in this case.

[_beastie]

Wait.

So if GZ grabbed TM simply to detain him then did TM have a right to beat the s*** out of GZ? In other words, did TM have SYG rights?

- Doc

My impression is that grabbing someone against their will is a form of assault. So is pushing, which we know GZ did to a cop in the past.

You keep saying TM beat the crap out of GZ, when even the defense admitted in their final statements that GZ exaggerated the beating. The only thing there is strong evidence for, in my opinion, is that TM probably punched GZ in the nose. I would say that if someone had been following you in a suspicious manner, and then they grabbed you, you probably have a legal right to punch them in the nose. Perhaps I'm wrong and one of our lawyers will correct me.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Beastie,

Are you advocating violence if someone simply grabs you?

- Doc

[_DarkHelmet]

Wait.

So if GZ grabbed TM simply to detain him then did TM have a right to beat the s*** out of GZ? In other words, did TM have SYG rights?

- Doc

My impression is that grabbing someone against their will is a form of assault. So is pushing, which we know GZ did to a cop in the past.

You keep saying TM beat the s*** out of GZ, when even the defense admitted in their final statements that GZ exaggerated the beating. The only thing there is strong evidence for, in my opinion, is that TM probably punched GZ in the nose. I would say that if someone had been following you in a suspicious manner, and then they grabbed you, you probably have a legal right to punch them in the nose. Perhaps I'm wrong and one of our lawyers will correct me.

I think it was more than a punch in the nose. GZ may have exaggerated the beating, but I think the prosecution is downplaying it. It was probably somewhere between the 2 extremes. It seems all witnesses agree they were on the ground. TM had bruises on his hands, not on a hand, but on both hands. He had no other injuries oher than the fatal gunshot wound. GZ had a broken nose, 2 black eyes, bruised lip, and head injuries. That is more than a single punch to the nose. So then you have to ask if someone grabs you to ask you a question, is an appropriate response to take them to the ground and inflict that kind of damage using both hands? That's what appears to have happened. I think it is a losing argument to say GZ deserved to get beat down. That plays right into the "thug" image that some people are trying to hang on TM.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here's the judge's instruction on Justifiable Use of Deadly Force

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justifythe use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that thedanger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, GeorgeZimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it wasnecessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physicalabilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty

[_beastie]

Beastie,

Are you advocating violence if someone simply grabs you?

- Doc

I think if someone has been following you in a suspicious way, and they grab you with the intent to detain you, then you can use appropriate violence to get away. I would. Perhaps one of our lawyers can chime in. But it certainly seems within the realm of self-defense.