More Teeto being Teeto. H/T Rumpole
Teeto uses a lot of legalese here, but gets so much wrong.
Quote:
Teeto
The case of State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73,76 (Fla. 1973) holds that an accidental shooting when coupled with malice toward the victim constitutes second-degree murder. Thus, the intentional and forceful striking of the deceased in anger with a loaded pistol which accidentally discharged killing him constitutes an act "imminently dangerous to another" and "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life." 287 So.2d at 76.
I don't see how this case will have any bearing on the Zimmerman-Martin case, unless Teeto has some evidence that Zimmerman struck Martin with his firearm, thereby causing an accidental discharge?
Quote:
The use of deadly force only becomes justified when “[h]e or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” No matter how subjectively real the belief is, an unreasonable belief does not provide any right of self-defense. The fear of imminent death must be based on objective facts “such as would induce a reasonably prudent or cautious man to believe that the danger was actual and the necessity for taking life real.” Ammons v. State, 88 Fla. 444, 454, 102 So. 642, 645 (1924).
If GZ was not actually being beaten into diaperdom by having his head bashed repeatedly into concrete -- then GZ was not justified in using force against Trayvon, no matter what his actual beliefs were. GZ may have had the adrenaline rushing through his veins, may have perceived his opponent as a murderous thug rather than a skinny teenager because of the presence of a hoody; it’s possible GZ really did think that a wrestling match on the grass with a skinny teenager somehow put his life in mortal danger. But his subjective hyperactive threat perception system does not excuse him.
[Insert here the photo of Zimmerman, beaten and bloody]
First, a reasonable person very well could conclude that Zimmerman faced imminent risk of death or bodily harm if he continued to be subjected to the beating he was receiving.
Second, the State cannot refute Zimmerman's claim that Martin told him that he was "going to die", once Martin realized that Zimmerman was armed.
Third, the beating - including the broken nose and head-bashing - Martin put on Zimmerman would constitute a forcible felony, as an aggravated battery, as previously discussed.
Quote:
An individual’s right to life is not contingent upon maintaining a constant impression of harmless frailty, “men do not hold their lives at Ammons, the mercy of excessive caution or unreasoning fear of others.” 88 Fla. 444 (1924).
Even if GZ truly believed he was somehow in danger for his life, he was not thereby granted permission to kill Trayvon if his fears were the product of an unreasonable mind. And there is plenty to suggest GZ was in fact acting out of excessive caution and unreasoning fear that night. His hyperactive vigilance...
Objection: speculation.
Quote:
...his willingness to see a boy returning home from a candy run to the store...
Objection: arguing facts not in evidence
Quote:
...as a grave threat to his neighborhood...
Objection: speculation
Quote:
...his professed fear for his life...
Objection: begging the question
Quote:
...due to a tussle...
Objection: arguing facts not in evidence
Quote:
...with an unarmed boy that he outweighed...
Martin was a half-foot taller than Zimmerman, was an experienced fighter, and was in prime physical condition. Zimmerman was 10 years older, overweight, and had a back problem.
Quote:
...if the jury finds from GZ’s behavior that his fears were unreasonable, and that his fear for his life due to a couple scratches on the head was not practical, then the killing is not justifiable as self-defense.
Broken nose (see: medical record)
Blood over 45% of his face/head (see: EMT eye-witness report)
Face battered and head swollen (see: crime-scene photo, police witness report)
Quote:
The SYG law imposes a duty to retreat in instances where the defendant has caused the fight, even if he later finds himself on the losing end of it:
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 776.041. Use of force by aggressor—
The justification described is not available to a person who… [i]nitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless [s]uch 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[.]
And the evidence that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor is... where, exactly?
Quote:
During the course of his video taped statements and the reenactment, GZ states that he managed to pull his gun from its holster, "aimed" and shot Trayvon. He rationalizes in his written statement that he pulled his gun because Trayvon said, "Your [sic] gonna die tonight Mother Fucker." So in actuality, GZ did not shoot Trayvon because his head was being beaten into the concrete, but because of what Trayvon supposedly said to him. GZ also describes how he contemplated the angle that he needed to point the gun in order to avoid shooting his own hand. If GZ had the time to contemplate the angle he would fire his gun, he had the time to forewarn Trayvon that he intended to fire his weapon.
[Citation needed for statutory requirement for Zimmerman to "forewarn" Martin that he was going to use lethal force]
Quote:
Even LE is required to make this announcement before shooting someone, unless they are coming under direct gun fire themselves. By GZ's own statements, he clearly did not exhaust every reasonable means to escape danger other than use deadly force.
Unless the State can prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, then Zimmerman was under no statutory obligation to exhaust every reasonable means to escape.
Quote:
If you believe that GZ instigated the encounter...
Belief is irrelevant. The State is already on record, in court, stating that they have no evidence to refute Zimmerman's testimony about who initiated the confrontation, or to prove who was the initial aggressor.
Quote:
...then, even assuming he could somehow prove that Trayvon was in fact trying to wrestle GZ’s gun away from him, this still won’t necessarily provide an absolute defense to the killing. GZ was the one who chose to arm himself...
A perfectly legal decision. Zimmerman had the necessary concealed-carry permit.
Quote:
...while pursuing a teenager...
Objection: arguing facts not in evidence
Quote:
...who was rightfully in the neighborhood and doing nothing wrong...
Irrelevant. Also: objection: arguing facts not in evidence
Quote:
...GZ was the one who chose to exit his vehicle looking for the teen...
Exiting his vehicle was perfectly legal. Attempting to maintain visual contact with Martin was also perfectly legal.
Quote:
...even when he was told not to do so by police dispatch...
Whoops; wrong! The police dispatch (sic: actually, the NEN operator) never told Zimmerman not to get out of his vehicle, and never told Zimmerman not to look for Martin.
The NEN operator *did* say, "let us know if he does anything else", *before* Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. Only *after* Zimmerman exited his vehicle, did the NEN operator say, "Are you following him? ...we don't actually need you to do that."
That statement is not an instruction. It is not an order. The NEN operator had no legal authority to issue any commands to Zimmerman. And most importantly: Zimmerman said, "okay" in response, and claims to have stopped. The State has no evidence to refute that claim, or to prove that Zimmerman did anything other than stop at that point.
Quote:
...GZ was the one who created a situation where, if a shoving match occurred...
"Shoving match"? What "shoving match"? We have a one-sided, physical beat-down, with no evidence of reciprocation.
Quote:
...he could then argue that the fact he was armed, made an unarmed teen a potentially lethal threat that put GZ in fear of his life, because GZ knew he had a gun that the boy could theoretically steal. “A killing is not justifiable or excusable if the defendant brought about the necessity therefor through his own wrongful act or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking the difficulty in which the killing occurred.” Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 11 So. 550, 17 L. R. A. 705; Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865; Padgett v. State, 40 Fla. 451, 24 So. 145.
Key phrase: "brought about the necessity therefor through his own wrongful act or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking..."
Zimmerman committed no wrongful (i.e. illegal) act. The State has no evidence that Zimmerman provoked anything. And "menacing" or even "fighting words" do not legally justify the felony aggravated battery that Martin committed against Zimmerman; therefore, in order to prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, it must prove that Zimmerman *physically* initiated the confrontation.
Quote:
Even if Trayvon threw the first punch, the fact that GZ provoked the confrontation by, while armed with a gun, recklessly hunting down an innocent teen who was a guest in the neighborhood makes him the aggressor...
"Recklessly hunting down"? Objection: speculation; arguing facts not in evidence.
Zimmerman being "armed with a gun" is utterly irrelevant, unless the State can prove that Zimmerman brandished the gun, or that Martin otherwise knew that Zimmerman was armed.
And absent any proven brandishing, even if the State can prove that Zimmerman pursued Martin, mere pursuit does not legally justify Martin's use of force against Zimmerman.
And then, there are the pesky details, such as both Zimmerman and Dee Dee claiming that Martin successfully eluded visual contact of Zimmerman, that Dee Dee stated that Martin claimed that he had reached the vicinity of Brandi Green's home, that Dee Dee stated that not only was Martin *not* scared, but that Martin defiantly refused to run, and that both Zimmerman and Dee Dee stated that Martin was the one who initiated the verbal confrontation.
Quote:
...GZ could have easily avoided any confrontation with Trayvon. GZ himself admits that Trayvon ran away from him when he first saw GZ, trying to escape...
It is especially problematic for the State that Martin was successful in eluding Zimmerman. Martin rounded the side of the building before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle. According to Dee Dee, Martin made it to the vicinity of Brandi Green's house, some 70 yards south of the sidewalk "T". And yet, the fight debris and Martin's body were found back at the vicinity of the "T". How did Zimmerman, not knowing where Martin went once he lost visual contact, "hunt down" Martin, some 70 yards away in the dark, and then Martin end up dead, back near the sidewalk "T"?
The preponderance of the evidence is that Martin circled back to confront Zimmerman, NOT that Zimmerman reacquired Martin, and then chased him round-trip back up to the sidewalk "T".
Quote:
GZ did not have to shoot Trayvon. Once he pulled his gun, instead of pulling the trigger, he could have announced to Trayvon that he had a gun and planned on using it if he did not stop. He aimed for the kill shot instead...
The stupidity inherent in this statement forces me to conclude that Teeto has watched far too many movies. This assertion deserves no further comment.
Quote:
...Most importantly, if GZ had not pursued Trayvon, and if GZ had not brought a gun, thereby inserting the possibility of deadly force into the equation where previously there had been none, then Trayvon would be alive today, regardless of who shoved who first...
Zimmerman was fully within his legal rights to be armed that night. Being armed did not deprive him of his right to be where he had every right to be, doing something he had every right to be doing.
Quote:
...“A defendant may, as a reasonable man, have believed that he was in danger of losing his life, or of incurring great bodily harm, and yet the killing may not, under some circumstances, be justifiable or One instance is where he has brought about the necessity excusable. Again, the circumstances of a without being reasonably free from fault. case may at least make it a question for the jury whether a killing was not in pursuance of a previously formed design to kill, instead of having been the result of a mere purpose of self-defense, although at the time of the altercation the first overt act may have come from the Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865. person slain.”
Yes, in many homicides, the State is able to prove mens rea, and some form of premeditation.
What does that have to do with this case?