Replies

Is Mark O'Mara or Jonathan Capeheart right or wrong on his interpretation of the SYG law here???

Since Mark O'Mara is not defending his client under the "SYG" law, but under traditional self defense, then how can he be filing for an immunity hearing prior to trial???

Capehart is a numbskull, and is blowing smoke.

He and his media buddies have conflated a number of separate principles under the moniker of "stand your ground." They use the phrase "stand your ground" to include statutory immunity, but statutory immunity could exist even if the law had a duty to retreat before resorting to force.

O'Mara is just saying that the phrase "and has no duty to retreat" has no play in the Zimmerman case.

“I define ‘stand your ground’ as having an opportunity to retreat and you affirmatively decide not to,”

I don't find O'Mara's interpretation in the words of the Florida SYG law at all.

Opportunity to retreat or no opportunity to retreat, the Florida law gives one the right to use deadly force followed by immunity from prosecution.

AFAIK traditional self defense does not however provide immunity from prosecution.

Who's right and who's wrong here???

Capehart is correct. FL SYG law does not require retreat or backing away

As some on THC website have mentioned.....O’Mara is doing a horrible job defending Zimmerman. GZ is innocent.....but it seems the only one who does not think so is his own attorney

As for the SYG hearing.....O’Mara better do one or he should be disbarred . Even if he feels he cannot win on SYG .....the state will be forced to reveal their case.....which helps in the crim trial

GZ is being lynched....and his own attorney is bringing the rope

this is the law needs to be considered: 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27. ===law==== Heller is meaningless if a fundamental individual right is acknowledge but sleazy legislators prohibit exercise of the fundamental individual right. (ie cars legal but use of roads is illegal) Also lets not forget the JURY INSTRUCTIONS. opening and closing statements ARE NOT WHERE TRIALS ARE WON/LOST. trials are won on pretial motions and selection of jury instructions.