Posted on 04/15/2012 1:01:36 PM PDT by ironman
Now that prosecutors have brought charges against George Zimmerman, you probably think that a jury is going to hear the facts and decide the case. Think again. Under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, if George Zimmerman can convince a judge that he acted justifiably, he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. That means no jury; no conviction; no jail. Think of it as a big "Get Out of Jail Free" card. It is worth repeating: Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law does not just provide an affirmative defense; it provides immunity. The distinction is extremely significant...
Thus, when looking at the elements that Zimmerman must establish to prove he acted justifiably, it seems reasonably certain that Zimmerman can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1) he was not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity; 2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; 3) he was attacked; and 4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury. The State has never alleged--nor could they--that Zimmerman's following of Trayvon Martin was an unlawful activity; or that it placed Zimmerman at a location where Zimmerman had no right to be. Similarly, as already stated, the State does not seem to have an eye-witness to the initial physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. Therefore, it will be extremely difficult for the State to contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him and bashed his head into the concrete, creating for Zimmerman a well-founded fear of great bodily injury.....
Make no mistake: George Zimmerman has a real chance of avoiding a jury. All he has to do is convince a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he acted in justifiable self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at southfloridacriminallawyersblog.com ...
The prosecution will have to show cards at the Arthur hearing if they contest efforts to bond GZ out.
“Unfortunately, the only evidence for what happened is Z’s story. “
I’d say; “Fortunately, the only evidence for what happened is Z’s story.” Me. . .I’d take the word of Zimmerman over some disgusting, gold-teeth wearing, tatted-up (at 17?) misogynist, vile-speaking, burglar, thief, illegal drug using, supended-from-school-for-10-days (!!!) thug gansta wanna-be.
Others may choose otherwise.
“it is surely legal to pound his head on the concrete, something which while damaging is a whole lot less likely to be lethal.”
Right. . .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY
Yup. . .much less lethal. . .so much better.
Once you have your head bashed in we all know the thug will quietly walk away. After all, we can trust him not to kill you.
You may bet your life that the thug won’t kill you once you have scrambled brains with permanent brain damage. . . I’d rather not.
I don't know, in a case like this I would assume there would be jury anonymity...but you know what they say about assuming...
“What concerns me the most is how much Zimmerman has been talking to the authorities with no attorney present”
It was not smart to give a statement the night of the incident with out attorney present. I have not been able to verify whether he had a legal advisor with him the next day when he reenacted what happened at the scene.
No, it was not smart to speak to the police without counsel. However, if his extemporaneously given statement and physical condition are not contradicted by any credible evidence, I think the fact that he could not yet have been coached actually lends more credibility to his account. We all know that, often, in the immediate aftermath of an auto accident, for example, a person who caused the accident will say something very truthfully such as, “I’m really sorry, I didn’t see you”, or something to that effect, only later to change up their story a bit after speaking with friends or legal counsel.
Zimmerman selling "Trayvon was hunted down and murdered like a dog" T-Shirts for profit? That's funny right there.
I remember Rush a few days after the Kind riots. (from memory)
"And I'd to welcome all the new listeners tuning in on their brand new radios!"
If Martin has a reasonable belief that Zimmerman is threatening him, and attempting to draw a firearm while going so, then it is indeed lawful for Martin to bash Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk.
It does appear from a map that has been posted on FR, that Martin could easily have gotten to the safety of his father's home after he noticed Zimmerman. He told his girlfriend that he wouldn't run--would he say that if he thought his life was threatened? Anyway he has no reason to suspect that Zimmerman has a gun at this point.
If, from what we have heard of the case so far, Martin had a lawful basis for bashing Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk, then Zimmerman has totally misrepresented what happened...or the rules for lawful self-defense are much different in Australia than they are in the US.
Maybe Martin was trying to get Zimmerman’s gun. I would love to see the crime scene report.
Am I mistaken but I thought there was an eye-witness to Martin pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.Similarly, as already stated, the State does not seem to have an eye-witness to the initial physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin.
. . . but what exactly precipitated that? Martin stalking and surprising Zimmerman with an attack? Or Zimmerman drawing his weapon? If there were witnesses to the first contact between the two, Zimmerman would have to be concerned that his own testimony might be disputed. But absent a witness who claims to have seen it, it’s Zimmerman’s word vs. the prosecutors’ - and the prosecutor wasn’t there at the time of the confrontation.One thing if Zimmerman tells various conflicting stories which don’t all match up with other testimony/evidence. But if Zimmerman tells a single story and it matches up with what is known of the case from other sources, what basis would the judge have for rejecting his testimony? Inconvenience?
I am speaking statistically. Fights with no weapon involved are much less lethal, statistically, than fights where a knife is present, which are less lethal than fights with a gun involved.
Why do people do concealed carry? Because a gun is more lethal than not having a gun. This doesn’t mean one cannot kill someone with his bare hands, it’s just that for most people it’s quite difficult to accomplish.
I quite agree that it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove something happened other than Zimmerman’s story, since there probably is no other witness for the start of the fight, the relevant issue.
They will have to not only cast doubt on his story, but will have to come up with some alternate scenario with Z as the aggressor, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Which I don’t think they can do.
I think I’ve just figured out the ideal scenario for Obama.
The judge rules the case to be justifiable homicide under Florida law and dismisses all state charges.
The feds then arrest him and charge him for violating Trayvon’s civil rights. This allows Obama to pose as the savior of blacks against the evil white vigilante state justice system.
It also allows the Obama administration to control the pace of the trial for political timing purposes. Releasing “new evidence” at critical points, etc.
That's why the immunity provision is so important. If you were in the right, defending yourself or another you don't have to go to court much less lose your house and savings to a criminal or his family. ;-)
The police may have already known him from earlier times when he had reported suspicious activity and had a sense of whether he was telling the truth.
According to Zimmerman, the thug saw Zimmermans gun and was trying to grab it. . .some Freepers here are gun experts and explain the single shot and the empty casing still in the weapon (not ejected) because the thug had the gun slide in his grip.
If Martin's prints are on the slide ....
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.