Trayvon probably tried to rip Zimmerman’s ear off.
What about it? In Florida, you can get immunity by arguing “regular self defense” just as you can by arguing SYG.
His phone may have been over his ear. Not really weird imho. People put phones on their ears all the time afaict.
It’s possible that the phone is pushing his ear out of view. Just a guess.
There does appear to be a sliver of something between his hair and the phone.
A flash is something that might do that istm.
I believe you. It doesn’t look off to me though.
You can?
I know in Florida FSA § 776.032 provides immunity under SYG (that is, under force as defined in s. 776.012)
Where is the grant of civil immunity for “regular self defense?”
Maybe you could define what you mean by “regular self defense”. When I say that, I’m talking about what SD has traditionally meant in society, and that is that people have a duty to at least try to retreat before using deadly force.
In Florida, “regular self defense” falls under SYG so they’d still be eligible for immunity. How could they not? It would be penalizing people for having the audacity to be trapped by their attacker.
The FLA law pertaining to SYG specifically mentions civil immunity. The laws pertaining to self-defense do not mention civil immunity.
I could imagine Zimmerman texting that, but I can’t imagine O’Mara lying about something when the lie would be revealed a few weeks later.
They don’t have to present any theory, in a manner convincing or otherwise. They have to state that Zimmerman was acting in justified self defence. That is all. The prosecution then have to disprove that, beyond reasonable doubt, as well as proving the other elements of the murder charge. Honestly, this has been explained to you countless times, why the hell are you still repeating nonsense?
He was on his back with a man on top of him. How exactly was he meant to retreat? Burrow underground with his sphincter? Do you even know what the word “retreat” means?
Seriously. He took a beating for a couple of minutes, screaming for help, and presumably waiting for the police to arrive, before he took the perfectly reasonable step of shooting Martin to prevent further serious injury. I’d love to know what further attempt at escape you expect him to have made, further to what he already did.
Okay, show that then. Clearly you think there are two Florida laws on the books, one for SYG and one for “regular self-defense”. You have my permission to show these two laws exist to the class.
But before you do that, read this.
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html
I believe you with the face, at this point, thinks that Zimmerman’s only justified course of action would have been to let Martin beat his head in.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
And the idea that it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat merely because a 158-lbs teenager was on top of him is not convincing. In fact, it’s so unconvincing, they’d be better off leaving that completely out of his narrative.
[/QUOTE]
Only if the jury is clinically insane.
LA found twelve jurors who apparently couldn’t spell DNA, so I suppose it’s possible, but hopefully Florida will be able to seat a jury with at least a nodding acquaintance with reality.
Regards,
Shodan
If you really think that’s all they’re planning on doing, and you think this strategy has gold written all over it, I will not waste my time arguing with you.
So what, pray tell, do you think O’Mara means when he says he’s going to try this as a “regular self-defense” case if all he’s planning on doing is state that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin and then sitting down? What would that even look like in practice?
Why do you think him retreating is even relevant? Why focus on how this issue with such dramatic hyperbole? This is a sincere question.
You don’t seem to realize it, but your insistence on how he couldn’t retreat is a tacit admission that he should have retreated before killing Martin. And this is exactly why I think O’Mara erred when he let his lips fly at that press conference. Legally, Zimmerman was under no obligation to retreat (unless he was the aggressor). It would have been perfectly within his in rights to just lay there and let the boy clobber him in the face and then shoot him dead (whether a jury would find that “reasonable” is another story). Yes, that is a hard truth to swallow, but it’s true. That’s what the horror of SYG when taken to its logical conclusion.
You have yet to grasp what I’m telling you, so I’ll italicize it this time:
*Zimmerman did not have to retreat. If Martin attacked him exactly as he said he was attacked, he was lawfully allowed to kill the boy. *
All along, my reasoning for saying that Zimmerman guilty is not because he failed to retreat. It’s because I believe the evidence suggests his victim had done everything in his power to get away from the man who provoked an attack against him. In other words, I’ve been focusing on the evidence that Martin retreated, not Zimmerman. Because legally, under SYG, that is what matters. Zimmerman did not have a duty to retreat, but he did have a duty not to escalate.
Now here comes O’Mara clouding things by drawing distinctions between SYG and “regular self defense”, and the pro-Zimmerman brigade just eats up the new party line without scrutiny, completely failing to grasp why making this about Zimmerman’s ability to retreat needlessly undermines his own case.
And poor doorhinge is looking for a law that doesn’t even exist, just so he go on believing there is real thing in Florida called “regular self defense” and that O’Mara knows what the hell he’s doing.
That’s the minimum they are required to do, not the total they will necessarily do. But, really, all they have to do is state that Zimmerman was acting in a way he had a perfect right to do when Martin attacked him, and refute the prosecution’s claims otherwise - which, given the evidence we’ve seen, should be easy. Remember, all they have to do is introduce any reasonable doubt.
The burden isn’t on him. He will refute the state’s case.
Because you keep wittering on about it, claiming that he could and should have retreated, and that SYG comes into play because he chose not to retreat. None of which is remotely true.
That’s not a horror, that’s common sense. If he’s being punched repeatedly in the face, I don’t expect him to have to do anything before he’s allowed to defend himself. He couldn’t retreat. Whether he should have done or not is utterly irrelevant. That’s why SYG won’t come into play at the trial.
Er, yes. That’s what people have been telling you all along, and you keep ignoring it.
The evidence shows that Martin punched Zimmerman, and shows nothing Zimmerman did to provoke it. As you well know, if Martin had wanted to retreat, he would have been home before Zimmerman found him. He chose to remain, to confront Zimmerman, and attack him
Not at all. By showing Zimmerman couldn’t retreat, the question of who started the fight becomes irrelevant. So, even in the event they have evidence Zimmerman started it (which I doubt), he will still be not guilty.
I strongly suspect O’Mara knows a little bit more about Florida law than you, and also about how to present a case both to the court and to the media.
This what is meant by failure to read for comprehension, boys and girls.
I’ve been saying over and over again, that his ability to retreat is irrelevant to his guilt assuming he wasn’t the aggressor.
Naw, what yall have been doing is insisting that Zimmerman couldn’t have retreated, as an attempt to justify his actions. That suggests you think his supposed inability to retreat is anything but irrelevant. If you thought it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t be trying to pull at heartstrings with imagery of poor Zimmerman burrowing into the ground on his back.
How are they gonna show that Zimmerman couldn’t retreat without presenting some evidence? You know, that stuff you said they were under zero obligation to provide.
That’s correct. Even if he started the confrontation, he was justified in his actions, as Martin left him no other choice.
Now, there’s very little evidence about who started the fight. It’s certainly more plausible that it was Martin, but to get to that point requires making inferences that won’t be admissible at trial. So simply saying we don’t know, and it doesn’t matter, is the obvious option.
It will, of course be different at the pre trial hearing, where Zimmerman does have to do more than assert his right to self defence.
They say “Zimmerman couldn’t retreat”, and rely on the fact that the prosecution can’t disprove that. They may choose to bring in additional evidence, but they don’t have to, and are unlikely to need to in this case. I expect they will, simply because it would be unwise to ignore exculpatory evidence.
They don’t have to. If they claim he couldn’t, it will be the prosecutions burden to show that he could have. And if I have followed this correctly they will have to show it beyond a reasonable doubt. So appeals to localized null gravity fields or pictures of Martin at age 12 won’t be enough.
I still think Zimmerman provoked and escalated the whole mess. Unfortunately I just don’t see enough evidence (barring a big surprise at trial) for the prosecution to get a conviction. I’m still hoping there will be some sort of plea deal, but even that isn’t looking too good.
The circumstantial evidence alone is enough to disprove that. You’re talking about two guys, ones significantly smaller than the other and also unarmed, fighting in an open area. This, after the larger guy hopped out of the safety of his truck to run the previously unsuspecting smaller guy down in the dark. This is all the State has to point out to destroy “he couldn’t retreat!” argument. There’s nothing the defense has as a rebuttal that compares.
And just so you know, “If he could have escaped, he would have done so when his nose was punched!” is an exercise in rationalization. It’s not a logical argument. It’s something so lacking in critical thought that it has no business being put to text.
This would be a tactic that needlessly gives the prosecution an easy pin to knock down in front of the jury. If the State is smart they will concentrate on proving that not only was Zimmerman was the aggressor, but that also that Martin was posing no danger to him because he wasn’t trying to kill him. He was only trying to protect himself from his murderer.
I do not expect the State to make a deal about Zimmerman being able to retreat, because they know SYG very well. The circumstantial evidence speaks for itself, anyway. I do expect them to make a big deal about Martin lacking defensive wounds, but mainly as a way of impeaching Zimmerman’s credibility and establish their theory that the kid was shot at a safe distance by his attacker, and thus no threat.
I can’t imagine the prosecution spending energy on proving that Zimmerman could have retreated. That is, unless the defense goes hard on this claim. Then they will throw all kinds of evidence at them.
Thank you for describing most of your own argumentation so succinctly.
This would be* legally* irrelevant, yes, but it is very relevant to the public. Many of whom are under the mistaken impression that this ‘awful’ “Stand Your Ground” law gave Zimmerman a right to shoot Martin that he otherwise would not have had. Some people are under the mistaken impression that Zimmerman shot Martin when Zimmerman could have just retreated. O’Mara wants the media to understand that this was not the case, and that he will be arguing that Zimmerman had no choice but to shoot TM.
GZ’s argued inability to retreat is relevant in two ways:
- It makes his actions appear more acceptable to some.
- It makes whoever provoked the altercation irrelevant.
That was funny.
The same public who is bothered by the idea of someone killing a kid dead rather than try their damnedest to retreat first is the same public who believes Zimmerman should have retreated the minute he got out of his truck, and lost all claim to self defense as soon as he did that. Appealing to this public is a lost cause for O’Mara.