Posted on 07/01/2013 5:17:35 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 1st, is DAY #16 (of 4th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Last week the prosecution feebly presented the first series of witnesses against George Zimmerman. However, as most observers would note, the witnesses called by the state have so far been more beneficial for the Zimmerman Self-Defense position.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
don’t respond to me and I am.
PS...bet cha that O’mara continues to counter that interrogation tape tomorrow trying to rehabilitate Zimmerman’s responses on it INCLUDING ISSUES ABOUT GETTING OUT OF THE CAR
Given that the Skittles were on the doorstep...it appears he went back out...but the jury has to be told about those Skittles.
You do NOT lose the right to self-defense if you started the fight.
“Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
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.”
If the other person escalates the fight beyond normal assault and you have reason to believe you may die, then YES, you can use lethal force to defend yourself - even if you were the aggressor.
Goiter-neck testified Martin reached his home prior to the confrontation. The confrontation was some distance from his home, so either Zimmerman picked Martin up and carried him, or Martin went back after Zimmerman on his own.
OK...bedtime bookmark.
Don’t confuse her with the facts.
I would like for you to read that carefully.
You ***DO *** lose that right when you provoke it.
UNLESS
and it sets forth how you gain it back.
So again, how when and WHY he got out of that car could be an issue.
Remember, the jury supposedly doesn’t know about Martin’s background.
Think about this...what if the jury believes Diamond Eugene???
Does the burden of proof essentially shift????
The skittles was in his jacket pocket.
First of all, HOW did she know he reached his home.
Did he SAY that to her???? I couldn’t understand most of what she said.
Could have been a lie from him.
But assume it is true.
Then yes, it means he went back out there.
That is just as important as the question of why GZ got out of the car.
But to pretend one is important and the other is not is ridiculous.
I think O’mara can overcome but it is absolutely ridiculous to think O’mara should just let it go because it isn’t important.
Someone said the Dad’s girlfriend said skittles were on the front porch or someplace by the house. Can’t remember.
Is that not true?
Maybe it was loose skittles.
NO. Please learn to read.
“The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who...Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless...Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm”
If someone escalates the intensity of the fight from a shove or punch into something that could kill or seriously injure you, then the justification IS available to you. You don’t gain it back. You never lose the right to defend yourself from deadly force.
Going to come back and apologize when O’mara tries to rehabilitate GZ responses about getting out of the car tomorrow???
Because according to you that isn’t important and he can forget it.
The unopened bag of skittles was recovered from TM’s sweatshirt(hoodie).
Sounds like a fatal error in judgment to me.
Have you noticed how little she knows about the facts of this case?
If I wanted to be sexist, I would label her as being hysterical. So I won’t do that.
“That is just as important as the question of why GZ got out of the car.”
Why did he get out? To see where Martin went.
What do you find complex or amazing about that?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/
The principle of Innocence refers to the notion that a person who initiates a conflict should not later be permitted to justify his use of force as self defense. It is this principle that is captured in Florida statute 776.041. It is, however, possible for the initial aggressor of a conflict to regain his “innocence” under certain circumstances., and thereby regain his right to justifiably use force in self defense
What I expect we will see at trial with regard to the principle of Innocence is the State arguing that Zimmerman engaged in conduct of a nature sufficient to qualify as “aggression”. The defense will respond that nothing Zimmerman did could reasonably qualify as an act of “aggression,” and at the same time that even if he did engage in such conduct he nevertheless “regained his innocence” afterwards.
Are you done?
RC have you been listening to actual testimony or are you listening to the talking heads? I personally do not think getting out of his vehicle is of any substance. I would put that on the back burner for now untill more testimony comes out. Sometimes you gotta know when to sit down.
Jury instructions include a common sense instruction. (you do not lose common sense)
Look at the cell phone tracking map. GZ went to get the adderess from a nearby street. He also followed the “we don’t need you to do that” instruction of the police.
He more than reclaimed the self defense option.
Remember the actual burden of proof, thanks to a recent 5th circuit court of appeals decision, clearly states the government has the burden to PROVE beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense. ONE and only ONE reasonable doubt that it might be self defense. ONE reasonable possiblity of self defense and the government case collapses.
that is the jury instructions, the law, and the appellate court rulings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.