The state has the problem of convincing the jury that GZ did not fear "great bodily harm (with a busted nose) and/or for his life (getting his head pounded), so, going with where Bernie has taken us a couple times already, we should anticipate arguments about the extent of GZ's injuries.

Bernie has also indicated he'll be trying to show the attack was provoked by GZ - TM had fear of GZ. The word commonly accepted (so much so that it's used by O'Mara - dipstick!) is "pursue …pursued …pursuit." He may work to show that GZ's scoping, following, tracking down, and reaching for ____, entailed TM reacting in the self defense mode.

I would not be surprised if Bernie tries to infer that TM saw the gun when GZ said he was reaching for his cell phone …FEAR …SELF DEFENSE.

So, that "undecided voter" could be questioning whether the adult with the gun, the one that was PURSUING the teenager, might have stepped over the line to create the situation he faced and has doubts about how severe the injuries were that were not immediately attended by a doctor.

Of course that does not alter any fear GZ surely should have had in his mind at the critical moment just before the gun was fired, however it gives them that 'yeah, but…' opportunity and, even though it is irrelevant to all but the jurors, to question what thoughts could have or should have been present in GZ's mind.

Is there a way to find the rest of the 5th DCA opinions on Nelson?

Nelson, failing to give a self-defense jury instruction, and re-defining statutes out of whole cloth? She really IS a prosecutor's judge.

No wonder she's been moved to civil court - though the correct action would be to disrobe her (symbolically, that is).

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Chip, I think I just vomited a little.

Indeed. Nelson's rulings are worse than her hairstyle.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Please Rumpole, we don't need any pictures of Judge Fudge getting disrobed.

You know Rumpole so well, mung!


Good one about Judge Nelson's hair, Chip!

You've given me a ray of hope, John Galt! Hope the GZ case goes this way, too.

Of course, the CrumpCon of collecting millions in settlement money from the State really infuriates me, but the big picture is that GZ will be acquitted by the jury. It's his only hope.

OK, one more time cause at this point I'm so confused I need cooler heads to prevail to explain to me cause I've VERY frustrated on this point.

Today, Sundance has a thread The Zimmerman Trial Draws near. In that thread Sundance posted a video of a media interview with MOM. In that video MOM begins says it will be up to the jury to decide who was the aggressor - who started the fight.

Recently as you know Dershowitz was on Piers Morgan and explained that even if George was the aggressor, and then Trayvon defended himself and in the process got the better of George, George, at this point if he believes he is in fear of great bodily harm can meet that aggression with deadly force. THIS is what Dershowitz says is Florida law on self-defense.

MOM, however, is giving the impression to the listener that the jury will have to decide who STARTED it. According to Dershowitz ... it doesn't matter who started it.

If a car blows a stop sign and hits my car crossing. I get out of my car and go over to driver and in a heated exchange he gets out of his car. He pee's me off in the argument and I take a swing at him. I hit him, but now he comes at me, gets me on the ground and begins to pound away. I fear for my life so I take reach for my legal firearm and shoot and kill him.

I was the agressor. I got out of my car .. I approached, I engaged him in a heated argument and when he got out of his car .. I hit him. He defends by hitting me, gets me on the ground, and has me in a situation where the beating I am taking could result in the loss of my life. I am allowed to meet his deadly force with deadly force.

Where am I wrong. Let's get all this clear before the trial starts cause quite frankly that video with MOM upset me. He was making it sound like the jury has to decided who confronted who as the lynch pin and to my knowledge this IS NOT the law.

The May 13 ruling is a clear indication DCA 5 has Nelson on their mind, along side thoughts about her tendency to rule in error for the prosecution. The topics of rewriting statutes and self defense are handy also, just as the short comings in how she classified the security guard as an employee of a hospital resemble the 'sort of co-counsel' issue.

Bernie could not have been too happy when he saw thisruling.

If there is a reasonable assumption that George tried to remove himself from the altercation, it makes Trayvon the aggressor no matter what happened before that time. That is what Dersh is trying to say.

I think Omara traded something for the favor of getting caught in a mistake. Omara has been way to careful, him and West to have two slip's back to back .....I don't think so. Bernie looked like he was freaking out after the last hearing.... I think he worked something out with Omara to save his sorry lying a-- in exchange for something Omara wonted to help clear George.

There's some guys that are into chicks like that. Sick I know, but takes all kinds. It reminds me of the ole George Carlin routine on Marilyn Quayle.

"Have you taken a good look at that Marilyn Quayle? Where did he get her, at a Halloween party or something? She looks like Prince Charles for Christ sake! Let me ask you something, does he actually have to fk that woman! Huh? God help him, I wouldn't fk her with a stolen dk! That's my political humor. People like it when you're topical."

I was watching the live stream that was still running after the hearing. Bernie was all over Omara talking to him and following him around. I think he was freaked out too. He should have been telling Omara he would drop the charges.

Bernie did much more than just lying in court. He concealed discovery from the defense.

No, I don't think so. I think you are thinking about SYG. SYG has the element of "retreat". With self-defense there is no element to retreat, and this case is not SYG ... it is self-defense.

Start to listen at 3:23:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWl8fCNBqAs

There's also the element of use of deadly force in self-defense by an initial physical aggressor, which is also part of the statutes - and it sounds to me like "use of force by initial aggressor" is the statute being alluded to here. The point is: even if the State has evidence that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor, both the obvious escalation by Martin (i.e. the disparity of force gained by taking Zimmerman to ground and mounting him, then continuing to beat him while on the ground) and the obvious expression of intent to exit the altercation (40 seconds of screaming for help) justify Zimmerman's use of deadly force in self-defense (though in that scenario he would not be eligible for 776.032 immunity).

That basically means that, even if the State can (wrongly) assert that Zimmerman's "pursuit" et al constitute initial physical aggression (an assertion utterly refuted by the Statutes and relevant case law), then Zimmerman is *still* justified in using deadly force in self-defense.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Dersh is saying it doesn't matter who started the altercation. It George is in fear for his life when TM was beating him and slamming his head into cement, he can protect himself. George can't retreat even if he wanted to. It becomes self defense at that point. There is also the issue of Trayvon seeing the gun and reaching for it. George could not allow Trayvon to get that gun.

Exactly Chip.