excellent read - New Yorker, "...Stand Whose Ground?"

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

First witness for the state said travon was by his fathers home.according to what he told her. The fathers home is at one end of the street. There is no evidence that a struggle started by this home,(flashlights on the ground ect.) The struggle started a long ways from where the fathers home was. George said to 911 operator he did not know where travon was. Why did travon go back .. To do a beat down on George...

This jury will believe that it was travon that wanted conflict....Enter the house ,shut the door and call the police. None of which was done,Travon went back to do this beat down, He tried to kill George with the cement sidewalk. George feared grave bodily harm and shot travon. NOTHING the state has put forward to change this during this trial. ..

So by this logic, why did George get out of his car and follow TM if he didn't want a confrontation? He could have followed in the car until he lost him in the alleyways, told the police he went thataway and kept it moving.

Does that mean that GZ wanted conflict as well?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

There were reportedly conflicting witness accounts but certainly the physical injury evidence failed to satisfy claims of a savage attack. Nobody but GZ is going to be able to say who threw the first punch and his word is obviously suspect.

The trial wrapped up today and I understand that the pillar of the community didn't take the stand. His police interviews and demeanor certainly seems to indicate that GZ could care less about shooting TM, even moments after the killing.

TM being on top, my understanding was that the testimony only indicated TM was close when shot but I work so can't speak directly to what the ME said on that, when shot still fails to provide proof of who started the fight. Actually documented actions of GZ getting out of his vehicle means to me that GZ is at least somewhat at fault for enabling the alleged assault by TM.

I think that GZ contributed to the situation. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't in fear of severe bodily harm when TM got the better of him. Was he justified in using lethal force to defend himself?

[decocker 7,198]

no

[spookyturtle 9,466]

no

You're not impartial and would not have qualified to be on the jury. Jurors aren't supposed to decide until the trial is over, not a year ahead of time.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is the standard jury instruction in Florida.

Read in all cases.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

It;s under 3.6

Regardless of Maryland or California law the bar in Florida is set pretty low for the denfense

You left out all the rest that goes with these instructions - namely the parts that talk about what justified use of deadly force in self-defense is. You will notice the reasonable standard popping up at every turn. The question before the jury will be whether they believe the defendant had a reasonable fear for his life or great bodily harm. If they find that he did, then he will be acquitted. If they find he did not or if they find that he had not exhausted every reasonable means then he will be found guilty. Because without a finding that the use of deadly force was reasonable based on the evidence, the self-defense claim is out the window.

Here's what the jury will be read ahead of the two paragraphs you quoted.

Read in all cases.

An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

Definition.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.

Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or

Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

Read in all cases.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[decocker 7,198]

You're not impartial and would not have qualified to be on the jury. Jurors aren't supposed to decide until the trial is over, not a year ahead of time.

well, i have never commented as if i were on the jury or deciding the case. and you're right, i've been fairly certain of gz's mall-copiness from the get go.

but for the record, the correct answer to your question is still no. i can't be convinced otherwise. and i'm the alpha.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

So it has nothing to do with what a reasonable person would do. It is what the defendant reasonably believes. Still doubt there. The prosecution did not prove otherwise. I, neutral juror vote to acquit.

[decocker 7,198]

nihilist.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

well, i have never commented as if i were on the jury or deciding the case. and you're right, i've been fairly certain of gz's mall-copiness from the get go.

but for the record, the correct answer to your question is still no. i can't be convinced otherwise. and i'm the alpha.

You're not impartial, so you have no place on the jury. The legal system tries to keep people with preconceived notions of guilt or innocence from serving on a jury and it is done with good reason.

[decocker 7,198]

You're not impartial, so you have no place on the jury. The legal system tries to keep people with preconceived notions of guilt or innocence from serving on a jury and it is done with good reason.

i know..

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I think that GZ contributed to the situation. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't in fear of severe bodily harm when TM got the better of him. Was he justified in using lethal force to defend himself?

Problem is, TM 'got the better of him' is pure speculation and the hope of those who have bought GZ's obviously fishy story about what actually happened that night.

GZ didn't take the stand. GZ was not only cool, calm, and collected immediately following the event, he didn't seek or desire medical attention. Definitive proof he had every intention of shooting TM? Speculation. But the facts don't add up to GZ doing nothing wrong. More than a few facts clearly indicate that GZ did a number of wrong things which led to the death of TM.

Edited July 11, 2013 by ready4ONE

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As for the case itself, Georgetown Law professor Paul Butler said on Tell Me More that:

"It's a kind of lousy murder case because for murder the prosecution will have to prove what's going on in Zimmerman's mind. That he was malicious. That he hated Trayvon. That he had all this ill will. And I'm not sure we've seen a lot of evidence of that.

"On the other hand, it's a pretty good manslaughter case. And the jury will have the option, almost certainly, of convicting him of that. Because for manslaughter, all that has to be proved is that Mr. Zimmerman was reckless, that he's kind of a loose canon. And I think we've seen plenty of evidence of that."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/10/200775001/as-zimmerman-trial-nears-end-race-permeates-the-case

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

that he's kind of a loose canon.

[himher 634]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/10/200775001/as-zimmerman-trial-nears-end-race-permeates-the-case

Is there some factual evidence besides articles in the New Yorker and on NPR that support your views of this case?

[Karee 4,190]

Is there some factual evidence besides articles in the New Yorker and on NPR that support your views of this case?