Rumpole wrote:
Daily Daft Posts From Justarse QuestTeeto wrote:
...maybe the prosecution doesn't care that Trayvon confronted GZ - since by that point, Trayvon had good reason to be frightened out of his mind when he realizes that GZ has exited his truck and is now looking for him, so he decides to stand his ground.
I don't think Teeto understands the statutory meaning of "stand your ground." Perhaps, at some point prior to the one-year anniversary of the incident, these folks will actually read the statutes. To that end,
let's have a look, shall we?
776.012 - Use of force in defense of a person wrote:
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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 applies to home invasions; so we ignore it here. So let's move on to the money quote:
Quote:
a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if...He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
Conditions under which the use of deadly force is legally justified:
1. A person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death to himself or another
2. A person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself or another
3. To prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
It is important here to note that the "stand your ground" clause ("and does not have a duty to retreat") applies explicitly to the use of lethal force in self-defense. Contrast these two clauses:
Quote:
Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when...
...and...
Quote:
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if...
Back to Teeto:
Teeto wrote:
...Trayvon had good reason to be frightened out of his mind when he realizes that GZ has exited his truck and is now looking for him...
There isn't an honest police department, prosecutor, judge, or jury that would say that Zimmerman exiting his truck and "looking for" Martin would result in Martin *reasonably* believing that Zimmerman's actions constituted imminent death or great bodily harm to, or the imminent commission of a forcible felony against, Martin.
Zimmerman getting out of his truck and "looking for" Martin simply does not meet the legal standard necessary to justify the forcible felony that Martin committed against Zimmerman.
Note, this would be a good time to bring up
the statutory definition of "forcible felony":
776.08 Forcible felony wrote:
“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
And here is
the statutory definition of "aggravated battery":
784.045 Aggravated battery wrote:
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
And
the statutory definition of "battery":
784.03 Battery; felony battery wrote:
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.
So, Cliff's notes version: if you strike someone, you have committed battery. If you strike someone with the intent to cause great bodily harm, you have committed felony aggravated battery.
A reasonable person would conclude that the beating Martin administered to Zimmerman that night constituted the latter: felony aggravated battery.
Back to Teeto:
Teeto wrote:
...maybe the prosecution doesn't care that Trayvon confronted GZ...
But the prosecution very much *should* care whether or not Martin was the initial aggressor. Why? Roll tape on the statutes:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor wrote:
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.
Under the assumption that Martin was the initial aggressor, Martin cannot claim to have "stood his ground" - i.e. used lethal force in lieu of retreating - unless one of the following conditions apply:
1. In response to Martin's provocation, Zimmerman used such force against Martin that Martin reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, AND:
2. Martin exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force; OR
3. Martin withdrew in good faith from physical contact, and indicated clearly that he desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force
In order to prove the first condition, the prosecution would have to prove that Zimmerman used sufficient force against Martin that Martin would have reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Unfortunately for the prosecution, Martin evinced absolutely no signs whatsoever that Zimmerman so much as *touched* Martin.
In order to prove the second condition, the prosecution would have to prove that Martin made a good-faith effort to withdraw from physical contact and to terminate the use of force. Unfortunately for the prosecution, at least one witness testified that, with Zimmerman on the ground and screaming for help, Martin continued to beat Zimmerman, even after the witness told him to stop. Not only did Martin not make any effort to withdraw from the conflict, but he defiantly *continued* the conflict, even in the presence of eye-witnesses.
The bottom line is this: had the police arrived 90 seconds earlier, Martin would be alive, and would have been arrested for felony aggravated battery against Zimmerman. And Martin would have absolutely no grounds to claim that his use of force, including lethal force, was justified as self-defense.