Boredalt wrote:
"only because"? No. Trayvon Martin died. I think, without eyewitnesses, a trial is fair and legitimate. I think the delay stemmed from a realization from prosecution that the case is likely a loser.
That's never stopped prosecutors in the past. Unless the Sanford Prosecutor's Office is staffed by a bunch of pussies (seems obvious, considering how much pressure it took for them to act), they'd have had Zimmerman taking a plea bargain for manslaughter with 15 years within days of the incident. The delay can also be attributed to the "bungling" by the police who initially stopped Zimmerman.
Boredalt wrote:
He will get a fair trial that hinges on a questionable law. People can hate this law, but can't blame Zimmerman's defense for applying it here.
Two things. First off, it's impossible for him to get a fair trial. Everyone knows the background of this case. He can't get an impartial jury. It will be packed with angry people who want whitey's blood, and with angry people think that uppity nigger got what was coming to him. Not a one of them will reach a decision based on the facts presented. With any luck, the jury selection process will screen enough of the people who are really bad at pretending to be impartial, so at least it won't
look like a farce.
The Zimmerman defense team can apply the Stand Your Ground law all it wants. I'd certainly use it if I were his lawyer. Problem is, it's not nearly as airtight as you seem to think. You're allowed to use deadly force when:
776.013
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person
That's the first hitch. Martin had a right to be in the area, so the presumption of imminent peril is lost. The statute does not mention state of mind; that Zimmerman thought Martin was there illegally is irrelevant. Martin was legally on the premises, so Zimmerman is precluded from asserting imminent peril. Additionally, but perhaps
however:
776.032
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless [etc etc, not relevant to this particular section of discussion].
776.041
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
If Martin did in fact assault Zimmerman (I don't try the facts, a jury does that), Zimmerman provoked the use of force against him. I am not a doctor, and I've never been in a fight. I'd venture, however, that a broken nose isn't "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" and that Zimmerman did not pursue any other reasonable means of breaking off the contact. The reasonable person standard (despite how it sounds) is objective, not subjective. Getting your ass kicked sucks, I'd wager, but it's not enough to make the "reasonable person" think
I need to shoot this kid right now or I'm a dead man.Boredalt wrote:
After following this case for a while, my beliefs are that we have a wanna-be cop thug patrolling the neighborhood with his gun like some sort of Charles Bronson vigilante who came across a young, tough, volatile thug who wasn't going to put up with any shit. When Zimmerman got out of the car to follow Martin between the units, Martin started beating his ass. Zimmerman went from thinking he was tough to scared shitless and shot Martin. Zimmerman will hide behind the no-retreat law, and get out of this, but I still think he is to blame for the outcome. This law might not protect him in civil court, though. Tuhl might be able to address this. Just my opinion.
Like I said above, he'll hide behind the Stand Your Ground, but it won't be enough. And the family can, of course, pursue him in civil court. The outcome of the criminal case, whatever it may be, will not affect a wrongful death suit. Just look at
Hattori v. Peairs. Guy was acquitted (wrongfully, as much of the lawyering world likes to point out) in criminal court, but lost in civil court because no matter how "innocent" he was per the criminal code,
the kid he shot was still dead.