Yes, the above applies to Zimmerman even if (and that’s a big if) the prosecution somehow manages to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the confrontation. There is no ambiguity here, and no need for “interpretation”. If Zimmerman had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger, and since he obviously could not retreat (seeing how his assailant was sitting on top of him), he was entitled to use of lethal force in defending himself.
If the prosecution (as is very likely) has no way of proving that Zimmerman was the aggressor, then the question of being able to retreat doesn’t come up.
Just because I have a differing opinion than you does not mean I didn’t look up the law.
I have read the laws a number of times.
And this is why I am frustrated.
Section 1 ALONE might screw Zimmerman. People keep on saying: “Oh ,there’s no evidence Zimmerman did x, y or z”, however, even as Serino said, what the hell would have caused Martin to respond the way he did (if that actually happened?)
Maybe Zimmerman DID SOMETHING for Martin to respond, perhaps?
What would any rational juror think? My goodness…
So someone WHO WAS RETREATING “doubled back” and went crazy. Yeah, sure–according to the word of someone with Zimmerman’s past run-ins and psychological profile. Sure buddy.
Section 2b is hard to swallow…Zimmerman has SEVERAL opportunities to end it. Several. This isn’t just me saying this, THE POLICE DID TOO.
2a is also hard to swallow…Zimmerman even said during the interview he had no bruises.
I have come out of sparring in worse shape than Zimmerman.
You do realize, don’t you, that the law you think fits the situation says that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin?
There is no evidence that Zimmerman was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after committing, a forcible felony.
Asking someone on the street what they are up to does not constitute provoking force against oneself. You are not legally entitled to punch people in the face and bash their heads against the ground if they ask you what you are up to.
Even if it were - it isn’t, but even if it were - Zimmerman reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from the use of force by Martin, and he couldn’t escape because Martin was sitting on him bashing his head on the ground.
I want to be sure I am absolutely clear here - there is no real evidence that Zimmerman provoked the assault. And -
If he had - there is no evidence that he did, but if he had- he was justified in using deadly force because he couldn’t retreat.
So, whether Zimmerman was doing anything wrong or not, he was justified either way. Even though there is no evidence he was doing anything wrong.
What evidence do you think the prosecution will present to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor?
Stopping someone on the street does not constitute aggression. It’s legal - it does not justify assault.
If you are going to claim that Zimmerman’s history proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the aggressor, you are going to have to deal with the fact that Martin’s history makes it at least as likely that he started the fight. Zimmerman pushed his girlfriend once, and was acquitted of assaulting a police officer. (Acquitted means he was found not guilty. Good luck arguing in court that being acquitted shows that you are a bad guy.)
Martin was suspended from school three times for drugs and thievery and vandalism. It is at least as likely that Mr. “No Limit Nigga” was the one with the hair-trigga.
Depends exactly what you mean. If you mean fighting off someone who is attacking her, and attempting to rape her, then no, she would not be charged with assault, she would be defending herself.
If it’s someone she believes to be a rapist, but who has not threatened or attacked her, then if she hits him, she should be charged with assault.
Your “big issue” is irrelevant unless you have proof he was doing something wrong. If you do, you should get off this message board and contact the DA in Florida, as no-one else has this proof.
It’s assault, it’s illegal, and if the threat was severe and convincing enough, one could use lethal force to defend oneself.
Being creepy is entirely, unambiguously legal, and you are not allowed to attack someone on the grounds that they are creepy. In any circumstances, in any jurisdiction.
It works precisely that way. That is why there’s a list of elements that must be satisfied to convict someone of a crime, and every element must be in place to do so.
Both of those statements are false before you even put them together. Just one example, it’s illegal to drive if you’re too tired to drive safely, even if you’re stone cold sober.
As for combining them, the criminal act is driving while drunk. Not driving. Not being drunk. The specific, well-defined act of driving while drunk.
It’s clear you don’t understand how the law works in general, let alone in the highly unusual circumstances of this case
What “forcible felony” did Zimmerman commit, prior to the incident, in your opinion?
Unless it was some kind of forcible felony BEFORE the incident, it has no relevance to this law.
Ask Bricker again. This section doesn’t talk about things that happened before the shooting. This section is talking about what happened immediately prior to the shooting.
Medical evidence, documented, begs to differ, and note that the law has no mention of bruises. It talks about reasonable belief in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
Once again, I will type slowly, so maybe you will understand. The prosecution has no way of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the confrontation (in fact, IMO, they have no way of proving it at all).
Not according to the prosecution’s witness, Deedee, who was supposedly on the phone with Martin at the time and says that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first. Where are you getting the “screamed at him” part?
What is the crime in getting out of the car and “pursuing” someone? Please cite the relevant law.
But anyway, her statement is that Zimmerman approached Martin and spoke to him. Nothing about pursuing or screaming. Perhaps you should look at the actual evidence here, as you seem as unfamiliar with it as you do the law.
No, you can’t just brandish a weapon or scream at them threateningly. What does that have to do with the case?
OK. That’s an emotional response without any legal backing. This is IMHO so you can have any feeling you want.
using your logic Martin should have gone home and called the police on big scary Hispanic guy. All the indications are that Zimmerman never left the sidewalk and was walking back to his car to meet the police who were minutes away.
He was entitled to drive and walk around the area. He was entitled to watch a suspected burglar do the same.
you’re the one insisting Martin was afraid. I simply pointed out the fallacy of that argument. If he was afraid he should have gone home. He didn’t. The implication is that he had other intentions. Since we know he confronted Zimmerman and beat the crap out of him it suggests he wasn’t afraid of him.
Yes, everything needs to be seen continuously. And it will in court. As I said before, the jury will hear the screaming while shown the photos of Zimmerman covered in blood. Prior to that Zimmerman and Martin did nothing wrong. That’s easily tested by separating out the assault from what happened prior. Can Zimmerman or Martin be charged with anything? The answer is no. You can say Martin acted suspiciously looking around at houses in the rain and you can say Zimmerman acted suspicious watching him. But neither of them can act on their suspicions.
Zimmerman called the police and reported his suspicions. Martin did not chose to call the police. He chose to engage Zimmerman in conversation and then assaulted him.
It is legal everywhere in the US. There is no evidence that Zimmerman stopped Martin at all, let alone forcibly. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever put his hands on Martin that I am aware of. Do you have any?
What it’s about is that Martin was suspended 3 times from school and called himself NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. He also wore grilz (fake gold teeth in the front like a car grill). He was caught with other people’s jewelry in his position.
We don’t bring up the fact that Martin was a punk-ass loser because it’s perfectly legal to be a punk-ass loser. It doesn’t matter that he might be a creepy little turd who thinks of himself in terms of race. He may very well have hated Hispanics. He may also have enjoyed street fights based on the videos that surface. It doesn’t matter in court but when you mention you find Zimmerman creepy this is what you’re going to hear in response.
