Lessons Learned From Mr. Zimmerman.

[BluesStringer]

while you are correct you've offered an overstatement of the law here in FLA, in FLA under the castle/SYG laws an assumption is made that an assault, like the one at issue here, is always a threat to one's life. so if the evidence show's he was under attack from the dead person then the jury would be forced to vote not guilty.

Read it for yourself: FL Code Section On Use Of Force

You will find that the "reasonable person" standard applies throughout.

This case has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine (inside one's home, in some jurisdictions one's property and/or vehicle), and the defense declined the opportunity to force a SYG hearing before trial. This is a straight self defense case, and all the laws covering the justifiable use of force are covered in the link above, including the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" sections BTW. If you can find a code sub-section that says that all assaults are assumed to be deadly irrespective of all other details and circumstances of the encounter, post it up and I'll cede the point that I "overstated" FL law. Good luck with that.

Blues

 

[BC1]

Read it for yourself: FL Code Section On Use Of Force

You will find that the "reasonable person" standard applies throughout.

This case has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine (inside one's home, in some jurisdictions one's property and/or vehicle), and the defense declined the opportunity to force a SYG hearing before trial. This is a straight self defense case, and all the laws covering the justifiable use of force are covered in the link above, including the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" sections BTW. If you can find a code sub-section that says that all assaults are assumed to be deadly irrespective of all other details and circumstances of the encounter, post it up and I'll cede the point that I "overstated" FL law. Good luck with that.

Blues

Correct. Not a SYG case. GZ is not claiming SYG. If he had done so the issue would have been decided in a pre-trial hearing. If the SYG provision applied the charges would be dismissed. No jury would rule. Then the press would have gone wild an the locals would have torn-up their own neighborhoods as is customary.

 

[the dark]

all irrelevant, the question of the trial is was zimmerman's life in danger when he pulled the trigger? if his life was deemed to be in danger then he is found to be not guilty if it is determined that his life was not in danger he will be convicted.
everything else is irrelevant BS.

I am not debating the case or evidence or their merit or saying I agree with it - I know that there is controversy over whether Zimmerman initiated or attempted to withdraw from any conflict. But it seems to me that the prosecution's case is also trying to include Florida law with regard to use of force by an initial aggressor (section 2), so jeopardy is not the only relevant element (it also seems this could apply in either direction):

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.

 

[BluesStringer]

Correct. Not a SYG case. GZ is not claiming SYG. If he had done so the issue would have been decided in a pre-trial hearing. If the SYG provision applied the charges would be dismissed. No jury would rule. Then the press would have gone wild an the locals would have torn-up their own neighborhoods as is customary.

And even if SYG was a part of this case, the "reasonable belief" standard still applies. apvbguy says that it is assumed (by the law) that any assault is deadly. In a hypothetical using the two people in this case, let's say that instead of punching Zimmerman in the nose, Martin simply pushed him a time or two while cussing and telling him to back off from following him. The pushes are assaults, but not reasonably seen as having the potential to cause great bodily harm or death. Zimmerman would not have had the right of self defense available to him no matter how gifted his attorney might be at twisting the law to fit their defense strategy in such a scenario.

"Reasonable person" or "reasonable belief" is necessary in every self defense case, and in every jurisdiction in this country, that I've ever heard of. Under no circumstance does simple assault (a slap, a push etc.) constitute justification for use of deadly force in response to it.

Blues

 

[kerb]

Be very familiar with your State's laws regarding use of deadly force. Indiana's "Castle Doctrine" (not named that), does NOT authorize pursuit. While the whole situation is tragic, in my opinion, Zimmerman became the aggressor when he initiated pursuit of Martin, and if memory serves, the 911 dispatcher told him that police would rather he didn't pursue. Just my two cents.

Your opinion is worth a fart in a windstorm, especially since the law doesn't back it up. Following someone does not justify a physical attack. If someone is following you, a better option might be to dial 911, right?

And if your memory served you better, you might recall that gz complied when told not to follow. AFTER which the confrontation occurred.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[gejoslin]

Be very familiar with your State's laws regarding use of deadly force. Indiana's "Castle Doctrine" (not named that), does NOT authorize pursuit. While the whole situation is tragic, in my opinion, Zimmerman became the aggressor when he initiated pursuit of Martin, and if memory serves, the 911 dispatcher told him that police would rather he didn't pursue. Just my two cents.

I don't know of any "SYG" or "Castle Doctrine" that authorizes pursuit. If they're moving away from you they are no longer a "threat". In Arkansas anyway, maybe different in other states but I don't think so. Now, if moving away from you takes them toward your family or another innocent party, with intent to do harm, that would be totally different. Then you could use deadly force in order to protect them. ymmv

 

[XD40scinNC]

REALLY??? Care to cite a code, constitutional passage or amendment that states that? Cops may be the ones who get away with offensive carry, but it is no more authorized for them than it is for the general public.

Uhhh just applying a rare commodity, common sense.

You and I do not have the right to pursue someone and use our weapon to stop or detain them, only to use it only for defense.

It is the job/duty of LEO's to go looking for bad guys, that's why we have a sheriff's department, a city police dept, state police, etc.. That is why they have the authority of arrest. They are the ones to pursue the bg, stop his vehicle, detain them on the street, or enter their home to take them to jail, they are on the offense, and carry a firearm as part of those duties. They carry because they are on the offense against the bg, I carry to be on the defense because there are bg's.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Your opinion is worth a fart in a windstorm, especially since the law doesn't back it up. Following someone does not justify a physical attack. If someone is following you, a better option might be to dial 911, right?

And if your memory served you better, you might recall that gz complied when told not to follow. AFTER which the confrontation occurred.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

He should not have followed TM at all, ever, nor should he have challenged TM at all. Think TM is up to no good, call 911, give all the factual information you have, and go home.

 

[Treo]

What have we learned?
A.MYOB

B.If you are involved in a shooting do not make any statement to the police before consulting with an attorney


C.Right wrong or indifferent you are very likely going to trial and it is going to cost you a boat load of money


D.If Z had learned the first lesson we wouldn’t be having this discussion now

E. no matter how it turns out, every dumbass with a computer will spend the rest of yur life second guessing you

 

[Rhino]

...And if your memory served you better, you might recall that gz complied when told not to follow...

Zimmerman was never told not to follow Martin. All the dispatcher said was that they didn't NEED him to follow, not that he shouldn't.

..You and I do not have the right to pursue someone and use our weapon to stop or detain them, only to use it only for defense.....

Actually yo do have that right in some states. But luckily for George, he wasn't doing any of those things so it makes no difference. Maintaining visual contact for the purposes of observation and reporting isn't pursuit. It is in fact the primary duty of a neighborhood watch.

....nor should he have challenged TM at all.

You're right, so it's a good thing he didn't, isn't it?
.
For as long as the evidence has been publicly available in this case, you'd think people would actually bother to look at it before coming here and attempting to discuss the topic.

 

[Rhino]

...B.If you are involved in a shooting do not make any statement to the police before consulting with an attorney...

I don't disagree with that statement itself but I'm curious why people apply it to Zimmerman specifically. What statement(s) did he make that ended up being used to his detriment?

 

[maybejim]

Uhhh just applying a rare commodity, common sense.

You and I do not have the right to pursue someone and use our weapon to stop or detain them, only to use it only for defense.

It is the job/duty of LEO's to go looking for bad guys, that's why we have a sheriff's department, a city police dept, state police, etc.. That is why they have the authority of arrest. They are the ones to pursue the bg, stop his vehicle, detain them on the street, or enter their home to take them to jail, they are on the offense, and carry a firearm as part of those duties. They carry because they are on the offense against the bg, I carry to be on the defense because there are bg's.

There is no indication that Zimmerman was following Martin at the time of the confrontation. It is not against the law to follow someone to see where they are going. Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin until Martin confronted him.

 

[maybejim]

What have we learned?
A.MYOB

B.If you are involved in a shooting do not make any statement to the police before consulting with an attorney


C.Right wrong or indifferent you are very likely going to trial and it is going to cost you a boat load of money


D.If Z had learned the first lesson we wouldn’t be having this discussion now

E. no matter how it turns out, every dumbass with a computer will spend the rest of yur life second guessing you

"MYOB" is not really what the best of this country is about. The best of the country is about looking out for others as well as ourselves.

 

[apvbguy]

Read it for yourself: FL Code Section On Use Of Force

You will find that the "reasonable person" standard applies throughout.

This case has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine (inside one's home, in some jurisdictions one's property and/or vehicle),

in fla the castle doctrine extends to wherever it is that you are. this isn't worth a fight, but you do not know as much about the law here as you think you may

 

[apvbguy]

I don't disagree with that statement itself but I'm curious why people apply it to Zimmerman specifically. What statement(s) did he make that ended up being used to his detriment?

I guess you missed the whole reenactment video he made with the cops.

 

[apvbguy]

Correct. Not a SYG case. GZ is not claiming SYG. If he had done so the issue would have been decided in a pre-trial hearing. If the SYG provision applied the charges would be dismissed. No jury would rule. Then the press would have gone wild an the locals would have torn-up their own neighborhoods as is customary.

of course SYG is part of this case.
if there was a pre-trial hearing what you say is correct but zimmerman and his lawyers chose to forego the pretrial hearing and go right to trial. why? because he would have had to prove his case in the SYG hearing and different rules of evidence would apply and the hearing in the politically charged atmosphere probably would not have had a favorable outcome.

 

[apvbguy]

And even if SYG was a part of this case, the "reasonable belief" standard still applies. apvbguy says that it is assumed (by the law) that any assault is deadly. In a hypothetical using the two people in this case, let's say that instead of punching Zimmerman in the nose, Martin simply pushed him a time or two while cussing and telling him to back off from following him. The pushes are assaults, but not reasonably seen as having the potential to cause great bodily harm or death. Zimmerman would not have had the right of self defense available to him no matter how gifted his attorney might be at twisting the law to fit their defense strategy in such a scenario.

"Reasonable person" or "reasonable belief" is necessary in every self defense case, and in every jurisdiction in this country, that I've ever heard of. Under no circumstance does simple assault (a slap, a push etc.) constitute justification for use of deadly force in response to it.

Blues

not quite right, how about if you add the verbiage that is claimed to have been used by the dead person? pushing and saying you are going to inflict bodily harm brings even your scenario into the realm of putting someone in fear for their life.

 

[apvbguy]

He should not have followed TM at all, ever, nor should he have challenged TM at all. Think TM is up to no good, call 911, give all the factual information you have, and go home.

and you know that zimmerman wan't attempting to go home, how? are you an eyewitness that hasn't come forward?

 

[XD40scinNC]

and you know that zimmerman wan't attempting to go home, how? are you an eyewitness that hasn't come forward?

That is not what I said, I said "he should have GONE home" Lost in his own neighborhood he followed TM so far?

 

[Bigcarlover]

That is not what I said, I said "he should have GONE home" Lost in his own neighborhood he followed TM so far?

He wasn't "lost in his own neighborhood" he was on the sidewalk in between buildings where there were no numbers to identify. Why can't people get this straight?