Ummm… What the hell is the distinction you think you are making? Because the words you have written are nonsensical.
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.
The argument you made to mewas that battery didn’t even qualify!
Following and attempting to detain (battery) without any explanation ＝ reasonable fear of imminent threat of harm.
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.
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.
Can Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter or some lesser included charge if the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense?
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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, “I know it when I see it.”
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.
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.
I’m not sure if I understand the question.
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.
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.
Your link works fine, and I was just reading thru the instructions. Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
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…
There is one thing I can say about you, you are consistent.