# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 84
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1661 "2013-07-12T11:04:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > the standards for self defence are _either_ imminent use of unlawful force _or_ imminent death or great bodily harm. > > Being in fear of imminent harm is, per the statute _you_ cite, insufficient to trigger legitimate self defence. Ummm… What the hell is the distinction you _think_ you are making? Because the words you have written are nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1662 "2013-07-12T11:07:33Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Zimmerman will walk, but I hope the guy that said he ‘didn’t regret’ anything and ‘wouldn’t do anything differently’ gets his ass thrown in front of a civil trial and faces a massive fine that he has to spend the rest of his life working to pay off. If he’s acquitted of all criminal charges, it’s hard to imagine him not being able to win the Stand-Your-Ground immunity hearing and thus face no civil trial. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1663 "2013-07-12T11:10:48Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > If you still think that someone may use violence against someone simply following them, please read the cite **Stoid** so helpfully provided a couple of posts ago. Then realise that following someone is not an _imminent threat_ of anything, no matter how terrifying it is, and then admit you’re wrong. The argument you made to _me_was that _battery_ didn’t even qualify! Following and attempting to detain (battery) without any explanation ＝ reasonable fear of imminent threat of harm. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1664 "2013-07-12T11:22:23Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Ummm… What the hell is the distinction you _think_ you are making? Because the words you have written are nonsensical. Nope. There must be a reasonable fear of either imminent unlawful force or imminent death or great bodily harm. A fear (of unspecified reasonableness) of harm (of unspecified greatness) won’t cut it. Read your own fucking cite. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1665 "2013-07-12T11:27:54Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Following and attempting to detain (battery) without any explanation ＝ reasonable fear of imminent threat of harm. Only if the detention is unlawful - which is, I admit, pretty likely. However, if one batters and then stops, there is no reason to fear imminent harm or illegal force. Self defence does not exist to allow revenge. The standard is, and _only_ is, reasonable fear of imminent illegal force, death, or serious injury. It is _not_ a generalised fear, and it is _not_ having suffered previous harm or previous force. If someone has illegally grabbed you (and not all grabs are battery), then you may use non-lethal force to make them release you. If they then retreat, you may not use further force, they need to remain a threat. So, in your hypothetical, Martin may have been justified in punching Zimmerman to the ground. When he’s on the ground, where is the imminent threat that allowed Martin to mount him and continue with his use of force? Don’t forget, at this point, Zimmerman has neither caused nor threatened harm to Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1666 "2013-07-12T11:29:37Z")
Can Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter or some lesser included charge if the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1667 "2013-07-12T11:34:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Nope. There must be a reasonable fear of either imminent unlawful force or imminent death or great bodily harm. A fear (of unspecified reasonableness) of harm (of unspecified greatness) won’t cut it. Read your own fucking cite. I have. “Greatness”? “Unspecified reasonableness” ? Won’t cut _what_? You are just making things up. Here’s the simple sentence you are claiming demands modifiers specifying reasonableness in some way and specifying “greatness” in some way. Where are you seeing all this? _ **A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force** _. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1668 "2013-07-12T11:42:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Can Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter or some lesser included charge if the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense? Well, sure, why not? Can’t the jury conclude that Zimmerman’s ‘fear of death or great bodily harm’ was not imminent/reasonable, and thus - while he can defend himself, just as Martin has the right to defend himself - the situation was not up to the level of justified lethal force? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1669 "2013-07-12T11:44:38Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I have. “Greatness”? “Unspecified reasonableness” ? Won’t cut _what_? You are just making things up. Here’s the simple sentence you are claiming demands modifiers specifying reasonableness in some way and specifying “greatness” in some way. Where are you seeing all this? > > _ **A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force** _. In that half of your cite, we see that the fear must be reasonable, and the illegal force must be imminent. So, as the circumstances in which force may be used in self defence are strictly controlled, we see that, if the fear isn’t reasonable, if the use of force isn’t imminent, or isn’t illegal, one may not defend onesself. So, basically, one may not use force against someone for following, as that doesn’t fit _any_ of the criteria. Neither does using force in revenge, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. It is the second half of your cite, that you’ve conveniently ignored here, that concerns the greatness of the force. One may defend against imminent great bodily harm without concern for whether the force used to inflict it would be illegal. Which is extremely important, as it allows for defence in the case where someone is legitimately using force against you, as some of the hypotheticals concerning this case involve. Read your own cite. Read all the words, not just those that jump out at you, and then examine how they fit together. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1670 "2013-07-12T11:47:19Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Well, sure, why not? Can’t the jury conclude that Zimmerman’s ‘fear of death or great bodily harm’ was not imminent/reasonable, and thus - while he can defend himself, just as Martin has the right to defend himself - the situation was not up to the level of justified lethal force? That would require the prosecution disproving self defence, though. The question **Shodan** is asking is if the jury can convict of manslaughter based on Zimmerman’s actions prior to the fight, even if the actual killing was legitimate self defence. Or at least, that’s how I interpret it, I’m sure he’ll correct me if necessary. My opinion is that any such conviction would be invalid, as Zimmerman is entitled to immunity from prosecution if he acted in self defence. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1671 "2013-07-12T12:17:12Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The argument you made to _me_was that _battery_ didn’t even qualify! But he is correct. Battery alone does not qualify. The issue in the case of battery is a reasonable fear of “great bodily harm”. The term “great bodily harm” is not clearly defined in Florida statue. But there is precedent for what _does not_ count as “great bodily harm.” In a case involving aggravated battery " the trial judge advised the jury that great bodily harm in the context of aggravated battery means 'great [harm] as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm and as such, does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery." The appeals court [upheld this definition](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1260171.html). Using that standard, a reasonable fear that someone might commit a battery upon you by putting his hand on you, grabbing your arm, spitting on you, or slapping you in the face would not rise to the level of fear of a “great bodily harm,” and thus not justify use of deadly force in the state of Florida. In the Zimmerman case this gives us just a little guidance. In the end it may be up to the jury to decide if Zimmerman’s injuries constitute “great bodily harm” _or_ that given his injuries was he in reasonable fear of “great bodily harm.” They may have to use the standard that SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart once applied in an [infamous obscenity case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio), “I know it when I see it.” ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1672 "2013-07-12T12:22:06Z")
**Bricker** has already cited caselaw that shows the jury are allowed to consider a broken nose to be great bodily harm. However, Zimmerman’s claim is that Martin was attempting to get his gun. If the jury believe that claim, it follows that they should believe that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of being shot, which is undoubtedly great bodily harm. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1673 "2013-07-12T12:33:34Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > However, Zimmerman’s claim is that Martin was attempting to get his gun. If the jury believe that claim, it follows that they should believe that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of being shot, which is undoubtedly great bodily harm. Not necessarily, if the jury thinks that Martin was trying (and failing) to prevent George from getting the gun (i.e., Martin was defending himself from what he perceived to be a real imminent threat of death or great bodily harm from an armed stalker). I’m not saying the jury will think that or that they necessarily should think that. Just saying I don’t think it automatically follows. Zimmerman was the one that started out with the gun. The jury ‘can’ - but isn’t necessarily forced to - to consider a broken nose to be great bodily harm. Personally I think that’s a ridiculously low standard to allow someone to be shot to death, but maybe that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1674 "2013-07-12T12:56:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Can Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter or some lesser included charge if the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense? > > Regards, > Shodan I’m not sure if I understand the question. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1675 "2013-07-12T13:06:53Z")
The jury instructions are online. I think it makes things very clear. If the jury feels they have a reasonable doubt with the issue of self defense they must acquit. The standard is not if they 100% believe he acted in self defense. I wish I could quote the instructions but my phone won’t let me. It’s on page 12. > **[George Zimmerman Trial: Final Jury Instructions | PDF | Manslaughter | Murder](https://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions)** > > The instructions to be read to jurors. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1676 "2013-07-12T13:17:55Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That would require the prosecution disproving self defence, though. The question **Shodan** is asking is if the jury can convict of manslaughter based on Zimmerman’s actions prior to the fight, even if the actual killing was legitimate self defence. I am asking, in general, if the Florida law requires the prosecution to disprove self-defense for crimes like manslaughter or assault. Or does that requirement only apply to murder? Under Florida law, as **Bricker** has explained, once the defense claims self-defense, and produces a “scintilla” (great word) of evidence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was **not** self-defense. Would that be true if Zimmerman had been charged with manslaughter, or reckless endangerment? **Bricker** has also said that the judge will include manslaughter in his instructions to the jury. This is because the defense has worked just as diligently to disprove\* the elements of manslaughter as it has to disprove\* the elements of second-degree murder. Does that apply to the prosecution establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that it was **not** self-defense? Thus, suppose Zimmerman had been charged with manslaughter, and claimed self-defense. Does the prosecution then have the same obligation to disprove self-defense as they do with charges of murder? Regards, Shodan \*Yes, yes - I know. Call it “raise reasonable doubt”, then. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1677 "2013-07-12T13:23:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am asking, in general, if the Florida law requires the prosecution to disprove self-defense for crimes like manslaughter or assault. Or does that requirement only apply to murder? > > Under Florida law, as **Bricker** has explained, once the defense claims self-defense, and produces a “scintilla” (great word) of evidence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was **not** self-defense. Would that be true if Zimmerman had been charged with manslaughter, or reckless endangerment? > > **Bricker** has also said that the judge will include manslaughter in his instructions to the jury. This is because the defense has worked just as diligently to disprove\* the elements of manslaughter as it has to disprove\* the elements of second-degree murder. Does that apply to the prosecution establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that it was **not** self-defense? > > Thus, suppose Zimmerman had been charged with manslaughter, and claimed self-defense. Does the prosecution then have the same obligation to disprove self-defense as they do with charges of murder? > > Regards, > Shodan > \*Yes, yes - I know. Call it “raise reasonable doubt”, then. Yes it’s the same. If my link doesn’t work google the jury instructions. It’s pretty clear. ETA I don’t know about reckless endangerment I just looked for manslaughter. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1678 "2013-07-12T13:26:23Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Yes it’s the same. If my link doesn’t work google the jury instructions. It’s pretty clear. Your link works fine, and I was just reading thru the instructions. Thanks. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1679 "2013-07-12T13:28:55Z")
**Attention everyone** : please direct your attention to the law of Florida regarding the justifiable use of force. Please take note that _ **force** _ and _ **lethal force** _ are _ **different** _ and the rules are different. When your questions and arguments reflect that you understand the difference and are correctly applying your comments and questions with that understanding in mind I would be happy to engage. Until then… ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/1680 "2013-07-12T13:35:56Z")
There is one thing I can say about you, you are consistent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=83) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=85)