I don’t think this document is everything. There were references to other documents that were supposed to be released today. The interviews with Tracy Martin,Trayvon’s cousin, Brandy Green and her son and Dectective Serino clarified several matters for me. Much of the reports were just repetition of data from the SPD reports.
(pgs 32, 39, 40 and 124)
I was bummed that the crime scene diagram redacted the number of the house used as a reference point, rendering the diagram useless.
Can you provide us the link to the full instructions, as I have with Connecticut’s? Because it find rather fantastical to believe the only eligibility criteria for self-defense are limited to the two things you’ve posted.
Connecticut is a completely different state with completely different law. You may well be correct to say that in Connecticut, the prosecution could show that the accused forfeited their claim to self-defense by initiating the conflict or failing to retreat. But that is not the law in Florida.
Well, if the State shows that Zimmerman broke the law during his encounter w/ Martin, this would disqualify from the no duty to retreat provision. For instance, if they showed he committed assault by trying to detain the kid, he was legally bound to retreat as soon as he was able.
Why aren’t you posting a link to the instructions?
No, there is much more; I posted what was applicable to this case. The complete set includes the business about how the defense is not available in the same way when a law enforcement officer is involved, when the defendant was in a dwelling (unless the taregt of the defensive force has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is no an injunction for protection involved, etc etc etc.
But sure. The complete text of Florida Standard Jury Instructions 3.6(f), Justifiable Use of Deadly Force, starts on page 62 of this PDF file.
Don’t you think this is also applicable? Of course you did. That’s why you didn’t post it.
If the State proves Zimmerman tried to detain Martin at any time during the conflict, and they show that his injuries don’t come anywhere close to “imminent danger of death” that was so great he needed to shoot his way out of it (TM had zero defensive wounds on his body so that won’t be a stretch), then the State succeeds in disproving self-defense.
In other words, you’re wrong about them having to prove anything about whether his fear is reasonable. They can win by proving his ineligibility for self-defense.
What independent forcible felony is Zimmerman charged with?
None. Zimmerman is only charged with one count of second degree murder. There’s no other independent charge that would allow the bolded instruction to be given. Did you read Giles v. State?
Both (1) and (2) are instructions that are only available if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. In other words, to get the benefit of that instruction, the state would have to charge Zimmerman with the forcible felony of attempted kidnapping (his attempt to detain Martin) or some other felony on the list.
They don’t get that instruction unless they charge the provocation as a felony.
And of course, they have to prove that attempt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And of course, they can’t prove it by mere inference, as I have cited before.
Why wouldn’t attempted murder be considered a forcible felony?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if you’re right, it’s illogical. Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd degree murder. He was allegedly in the process of committing that crime in the last few minutes of Martin’s life. But because he succeeded at it and therefore charged with murder rather than attempted murder, that means his lack of retreat means nothing even if it was found he was more than capable of walking away?
Actually, I do say that you’re wrong. Not about the definitition of independent forcible felony, but about provocation disclaimer only applying to forcible felonies.
There would no need for them say the part in bold if both paragraphs only applied to forcible felonies. Provoking the use of force is not the same thing as a forcible felony anyway.
A bit of good news for Z and his family. The FBI report didn’t turn up anything sinister on Z.
Probably won’t have any impact on the state trial. But the possibility of Fed charges was equally serious. Hopefully this report will prevent any Federal Hate Crime charges. But, that decision is still up in the air.
I like the part about how he locked his favorite chair to his desk where he worked. Then he complained when IT cut the lock off to get to his computer. He complained until he was reimbursed $6.00 for the cost of the lock.
Not relevant to the trial, but he is a strange dick.
Bricker and I had a long discussion about whether The the federal government could charge Zimmerman with a hate crime and lose, and still send Zimmerman to prison for five years for perjury. Nothing would probably happen until after the election.
Ywtf (sorry phone acronym), please just trust Bricker and me on this issue. It would take hours to do a basic jury charge on this. You’re a vet, and I bet you would have difficulty getting through to a very intelligent Joe Schmoe about how, why, and when certain diseases are caused and the best way to fix them. The more intelligent such a Joe is the more difficult a task it is (but I wiki’d it and read several journal articles Dr. ywtf, you’re wrong).
It’s what always drove me nuts with Stoid. Sometimes a legal concept is so obvious to someone trained to do this, and statutes and caselaw so clear any court would rule for the proponent, but a layperson doesn’t understand it-especially not an intelligent layperson. It’s no one’s fault. Bricker’s broken it down to first-year law territory, but as smart as you are ywtf, you’re not buying it. So please, just please, trust us on this one subject and deal with the plethora of other arguments you’re making.
No, i don’t think I am. It is stated explicitly in Johnson v State, 65 So.3d 1147 (2011), that the aggressor instruction is only given when the defendant has been charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self-defense.
And when I say explicitly:
Not the forcible felony instruction. The aggressor instruction, too.
This is why the jury instructions refer to Giles v. State.