Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Zimmerman: Self-defense hearing could dismiss death charge(FL)
orlandosentinel.com ^ | 11 April, 2012 | Henry Pierson Curtis

Posted on 04/13/2012 6:47:55 AM PDT by marktwain

George Zimmerman can ask to have the second-degree-murder charge against him dropped without having to stand trial in the death of Trayvon Martin.

Two years ago, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that anyone claiming "stand your ground" immunity in a death, battery or assault case can request a hearing on the evidence.

The hearing allows the prosecution and defense to argue all the elements of self-defense in the case evidence. To get charges dismissed, the accused must convince the judge that a reasonable person would believe that using deadly force or the threat of deadly force was the only way to protect his or her life, court records show.

The state's "stand your ground" law passed in 2005 says:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

----------------------cut----------------------

Berman said he thinks Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's lawyer, will request an evidentiary hearing as part of his defense of Zimmerman's "stand your ground" claim.

(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; fl; martin; trayvonmartin; zimmerman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last
To: kevcol

And yet it happens over and over again as if the Lynch Mob Media oracles on high have some spell-casting power over their minds. I am also amazed!


101 posted on 04/13/2012 1:52:28 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Which personally I think may not be entirely a good thing.

I think I agree.

When you are in your home, it is a reasonable presumption that a stranger there uninvited is an aggressor, and then, I believe, you have the right to act accordingly.

When people get into scraps on the street, or in a bar, it's much harder to PRESUME who is in the right. It can't be the law that, if you get into a fight you didn't NEED to get into that, once the fight goes against you such that you are in fear of serious bodily injury (i.e., you are getting your ass kicked) that you can then use deadly force to stop the fight.

If THAT is what the FL SYG law says, then I think it's a bad law.

102 posted on 04/13/2012 1:58:13 PM PDT by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

I was quoting someone else’s post. Scroll up from my post to verify and then go to the Romper room website where nobody else knows what quotation marks mean either. Duuuuuuuh


103 posted on 04/13/2012 2:05:48 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Hopefully the defense lawyer will this still unnamed girlfriend why she didn’t call anybody else, after hearing the confrontation start. I would love to hear her answer.


104 posted on 04/13/2012 2:19:40 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I've got another question, now. She heard the earpiece fall from Martin's ear. How? How could she tell that what she heard must have been the earpiece falling out...as opposed to somebody bumping it (and I'm making the assumption that this earpiece also has a microphone). Its almost as if she imagined the earpiece falling out.
105 posted on 04/13/2012 2:32:18 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
...the accused must convince the judge...

How does Zimmerman manage to get a judge that hasn't been either coerced or bought by the Obama administration? Sounds like an impossible task.

106 posted on 04/13/2012 2:34:58 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
I stand corrected.

When quoting someone else upthread I put the quote in italics and with a horizontal rule underneath to highlight the fact that it is someone else's opinion, not mine. I found quotation marks don't stand out. To each his own.

107 posted on 04/13/2012 2:36:18 PM PDT by Cheburashka (It's legal to be out at night in spacesuits, even carrying a rag dolly. Cops hauled us in anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
I am not familiar with those ear-piece type phones but I think the microphone is integral to it. That said; how could she know it "fell" by any noise she heard on it? A bumping noise on the plastic could happen while it's on the ear or it could be a noise from another source.

I think it's going to be an interesting trial. If the judge doesn't dismiss it at this pre-trial hearing.

108 posted on 04/13/2012 2:38:11 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The law addresses your scenario.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —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.

109 posted on 04/13/2012 2:44:37 PM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody; All

This is an interesting point. I have wondered about the phone myself. I do not know who has it or who had it.

I know that much earlier, there was some claim by the Martin side that the Sanford PD had not found the phone at the scene.

It will be interesting to see who had the phone and did what with it as the evidence comes out.


110 posted on 04/13/2012 2:49:00 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
Per wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a source now? I thought anyone could upload anything to Wikipedia. Sometimes they even upload the truth.

As for her statement in the charging affidavit, has that been made public yet? If it has I admit to being behind the curve on that piece of news.

111 posted on 04/13/2012 2:53:43 PM PDT by Cheburashka (It's legal to be out at night in spacesuits, even carrying a rag dolly. Cops hauled us in anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I'm supposed to believe what some lawyer says? Lawyers are mouthpieces - for their clients, and she's not the client. Lawyers make up stuff all the time. They're paid to lie for their clients. I haven't seen a story where she was interviewed. The story says she does not want to be identified - how convenient for the lawyer.

Yeah, she may have said it to the lawyer. And she may not. I don't believe or disbelieve she said anything until she says it to someone who can be trusted.

112 posted on 04/13/2012 2:57:57 PM PDT by Cheburashka (It's legal to be out at night in spacesuits, even carrying a rag dolly. Cops hauled us in anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ironman

has anyone verified the picture ALLEGEDLY showing where the death happened and where the vehicle was located? Is that real or just a msm wish propaganda.


113 posted on 04/13/2012 3:00:38 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
The evidentiary standard is clear and convincing (eg 90% sure) vs beyond a reasonable doubt (eg 99% sure).

Can you source this? The articles I have read say that the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" - that is 50%+1.

114 posted on 04/13/2012 3:03:31 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE

The key is going to be what was or was not done and what records / tests were preserved. If potentially exculpatory evidence was destroyed then there is a BIG problem for the state.


115 posted on 04/13/2012 3:19:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

I don’t know that it’s necessarily an improvement, but the FL Supreme Court now has only 3 of 7 Justices who were on the court in 2000. That WAS 12 years ago! The Chief Justice is the only Jeb Bush appointee now sitting on the court; the other 3 were appointed by Crist.


116 posted on 04/13/2012 3:22:12 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wtc911
Yep, we do know that Martin ran but there has been absolutely no testimony or evidense that he came back and attacked.

If you have proof of your statement of what you "know", please provide it.

Well, we do know that Zimmerman stopped pursuing Martin and lost track of him. (Read the transcript of the call with the dispatcher).

We do know that Zimmerman had a broken nose, abrasions on the back of his head, and wet grass on the back of his jacket (police report).

What I don't know from the details I have been able to find is where the altercation took place in relation to Zimmerman's truck. We know Zimmerman began to follow Martin on foot. After the dispatcher tells him "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman apparently stops following Martin, because the subsequent conversation with the dispatcher indicates that Zimmerman has lost sight of Martin.

Now, if Martin was found dead near Zimmerman's truck, it seems likely that Martin did double back and confront Zimmerman. If the body was found further away from the truck and well past the mailboxes mentioned in the transcript, then it is possible that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after hanging up with the dispatcher, and that could cause him problems, at least at the immunity hearing.

117 posted on 04/13/2012 3:25:01 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

all police calls 911 etc, go to the same operator dispatch.

If a gun was being displayed, how did an attacking person have the ability to jump on top of that person? logic would indicate if a gun was being brandished/displayed a person would move away from the displayer.


118 posted on 04/13/2012 3:32:24 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alice in Wonderland

I have a feeling you could be selling a lot of bridges these days. I’m sorely disappointed in the majority of FReepers in this case. I’ve lost count of the racially charged comments, attempts to paint a kid carrying Skittles as John Dillenger, etc. Hell, we even have one full blown nutbar who now refers to Zimmerman as Captain Zimmerman the law enforcement hero.

I for one hope that justice prevails and Zimmerman serves a lengthy sentence.


119 posted on 04/13/2012 3:55:45 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
has anyone verified the picture ALLEGEDLY showing where the death happened and where the vehicle was located? Is that real or just a msm wish propaganda.

I just looked up the police report. It states that Martin was found in an area between two buildings, so he was not close to the street. So it does not appear that Zimmerman was at his truck when the incident took place. He may have been on his way back to the truck at the time, but it is hard to tell from the call transcript and the map. Based on where he described his truck being parked in the call and where the police report listed the body as being located, it looks like the shooting took place about 75-100 yards from his truck. A possible scenario, from looking at the map and reading the call transcript, is that Martin saw Zimmerman following him and took off running between the buildings. Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed him down between the buildings. After losing sight of Martin, Zimmerman may have been walking back toward his truck when the final confrontation occurred. If he had been following Martin on foot the entire time between the end of the call with the dispatcher and the time the shots were heard, he certainly should have covered more ground!

120 posted on 04/13/2012 4:08:25 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

I used wikipedia, but dozens of sources say the same thing. This is what the Martin attorney is telling the press that she told him. The next step was she talked to Angela Corey (also widely reported), and the final step is her story was mentioned in the affidavit, which was released yesterday. Honestly, there is no contention whatysoever over this - her statements have been widely reported, and repeated often by the Martin attorney. THe wikipedia bit is a direct quote from the Martin attorney.


121 posted on 04/13/2012 4:33:27 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Thanks.

You’re just about the first support I’ve gotten on this position.

If we were to take the Stand Your Ground absolutists literally, duelists would be covered. Hey, they’re in a place where they have a legal right to be and someone is trying to kill them! So whoever wins, he’s just defending himself.

A more reasonable interpretation, IMO. Each duelist is guilty of attempted murder. The loser can’t be prosecuted because he’s dead. The survivor should be charged and convicted of murder.

In a great many confrontations there is no obvious and inarguable perpetrator and victim. There are two guys both being Mr. Tough Guy, neither backs down and one winds up dead. Should the survivor, whoever he is, automatically be allowed to plead self-defense? Not in my book.

The cases the SYG law was really intended to address are probably less common than the one outlined above. Centuries of common law added a duty to retreat for a reason. It made clear who was the aggressor and who was the defender.


122 posted on 04/13/2012 4:39:46 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; Alice in Wonderland; All
Okay, guilty of lumping all George Zimmerman supporters into a monolithic group. On the other hand, the admin moderator at Trayvon's facebook page thanked me for my feedback and they are hvg problems there with that Michelle Williams from the black panthers. If she doesn't shut her mouth over at Trayvon's fb page, she's going to get zotted from there. They are admonishing and warning race baiters to cut it out of they will get the zot.

If it was really ugly in there, I wouldn't drop by. Their thank you to me was not solicited. They are not disliking conservatives or republicans in there thanks to me and other freepers who drop by there. Someone needs to be diplomatic and besides, this is going to be a long slog. I was on drugs for a toothache so you caught me again, TigersEye.

123 posted on 04/13/2012 4:48:13 PM PDT by floriduh voter (If you conduct your Crime Watch, don't be a George Z.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Police Chief “temporarily stepped down”.


124 posted on 04/13/2012 4:52:00 PM PDT by floriduh voter (If you conduct your Crime Watch, don't be a George Z.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka; lacrew
I don't care what you believe. If you don't believe that then why believe any report? About anything?

lacrew said "And her statement is mentioned in the charging affidavit." I guess you won't believe the charging affidavit either.

125 posted on 04/13/2012 6:03:12 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter

I am not on Facebook, have no intention of ever being on Facebook and had no intention of going to Trayvon’s Facebook page. I see no purpose in doing that.


126 posted on 04/13/2012 6:07:44 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative; montanajoe

You’re right, he’s wrong. ;-)

Another little item rarely reported is that the Stand Your Ground law provides that a person acting in self-defense is accorded immunity from arrest, prosecution or civil liability. That’s immunity not just a presumption at trial.

Thus its the state that has the burden of preponderance of the evidence at a motion to dismiss and at trial “beyond a reasonable doubt” to overcome the defendant’s immunity.

To arrest however all they need is probable cause to believe that self-defense aspects do not apply eg bad guy was the aggressor, had no fear for life or limb, etc.

There will be a motion to dismiss because its a free “shot” at dismissal - worst case you go to trial maybe after an appeal or two and the news has long moved on to the next “outrage”.

Just so you know. ;-)


127 posted on 04/13/2012 7:04:08 PM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Melas
I for one hope that justice prevails and Zimmerman serves a lengthy sentence.

It's pretty disappointing that you pretend to know the facts of the case before they have been made public and have pre-judged Zimmerman.

128 posted on 04/13/2012 7:13:22 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; All
Sherman Logan posted:

Centuries of common law added a duty to retreat for a reason. It made clear who was the aggressor and who was the defender.

marktwain replies:

I think that the above statement is incorrect. I believe that the “duty to retreat” is a relatively recent addition, probably in the last 75 years. Certainly in Brown v. United States in 1921 the Supreme Court held that there was not a duty to retreat. The decision was made in part based on Beard v. United States in 1895.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/550/case.html

129 posted on 04/13/2012 7:19:17 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

You are right, that never even occurred to me that they would be different judges...good point!


130 posted on 04/13/2012 8:21:36 PM PDT by Friendofgeorge (SARAH PALIN 2012 OR FLIPPIN BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

My point was that he did not dial 911, therefore, did not tie up that line. He had access to the dispatcher because he was a volunteer at the community he lived in.


131 posted on 04/13/2012 10:25:49 PM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
The Florida stand your ground statute in and of itself does not spell out the burden of proof. The immunity motion to dismiss will therefore argue the appropriate burden. I have no inclination to argue the cases supporting my position in a public forum let the other guys get the big bucks :).
The State has undoubtedly anticipated this challenge and will prevail. Don't forget an average state prosecutor has a conviction rate of 80+ percent. I have no doubt the homicide prosecutors assigned to this case have a 95%+ conviction rate.

A common misperception of the public and unfortunately many conservatives in particular is that there is a black and white statute someplace that covers everything. That is wrong.

The Florida trial court will accept the clear and convincing burden and deny the motion.

On the other hand should the court go for a preponderance standard the motion will still be denied but it will telegraph the courts predisposition to yield to public pressure in this matter.

132 posted on 04/13/2012 10:27:10 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:

“The doctrine of “retreat to the wall” had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[4]”

As I have said, I do not claim the doctrine has always been appropriately applied, only that the principle is a wise one to consider when deciding when a person should be allowed to claim self-defense.

We’ve all seen the old westerns where the gunslinger bullies the farmer into “going for his gun” and then kills him. Should he then be allowed to claim self-defense? Not in my book.


133 posted on 04/14/2012 6:09:57 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Just to be clear, I am not opposed to the actual Florida SYG law, just the way some have portrayed it.

I think SYG is unlikely to apply in the Zimmerman case. It is likely one or the other of the parties, probably though not certainly Martin, precipitated the fight by a felonious assault. That party, whichever it was, cannot under Florida SYG, claim self-defense if he kills the other person during the fight. Which is as it should be.

If Martin attacked Zimmerman, the most likely explanation for the “known” facts, then SYG doesn’t apply because Zimmerman would have had no chance to retreat safely anyway. His actions would have been self-defense before SYG was passed, thus SYG isn’t relevant to the case.

There are alternative scenarios under which SYG might apply, but they don’t appear to be very likely.


134 posted on 04/14/2012 6:30:42 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka; TigersEye

Cheburashka,

This youtube video is of an ABC news segment, with actual audio from the girlfriend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuQ3VeSkTs&feature=related

I hope it passes muster.


135 posted on 04/15/2012 5:26:18 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka; TigersEye

Cheburashka,

This youtube video is of an ABC news segment, with actual audio from the girlfriend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuQ3VeSkTs&feature=related

I hope it passes muster.


136 posted on 04/15/2012 5:27:42 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: lacrew; Cheburashka
Here is the charging affidavit. This website published it April 12th the day after it was issued.

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Charge Affidavit of Second Degree Murder

It doesn't say much about what Trayvon's girlfriend has said.

"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."

That is all regarding her testimony in the affidavit. One thing that is glaringly clear is that there is nothing whatsoever in the charging affidavit to establish probable cause for arrest on any charge.

137 posted on 04/15/2012 6:16:08 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

if a fatal show is fired. Assiming it went upwards from lower front to out of upper back, where does the body go? is the person still alive enough to stagger away?


138 posted on 04/17/2012 12:56:55 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
Cheburashka,

This youtube video is of an ABC news segment, with actual audio from the girlfriend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuQ3VeSkTs&feature=related

I hope it passes muster.


No it doesn't pass muster. There is no interaction in the short quotes with anyone but her lawyer - or rather the Martin's lawyer. Why can't she talk to ABC except through this lawyer? Perhaps she doesn't exist? Perhaps she exists but there is something "wrong" with her, at least as far as the "St. Trayvon narrative" is concerned? Perhaps she's twelve years old? There's no proof that that's her voice - perhaps the lawyer's secretary is reading a transcript?

I want to see what she says outside of situations controlled by some lawyer who works for the Martins, and I want her cross-examined too. Until then, as far as I'm concerned she's not really talking, and I haven't heard what she has to say.

139 posted on 04/21/2012 9:16:22 AM PDT by Cheburashka (It's legal to be out at night in spacesuits, even carrying a rag dolly. Cops hauled us in anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson