Quote:
|
Well, I'll agree that the prosecution failed to prove 2nd degree murder. Zimmerman didn't go looking to shoot the kid. But I don't see him getting off (unless no other option is given to the jury). Every state is different, and I'm certainly no lawyer, but in the Ohio CCW training, there is a specific caution that getting the worst of a fist fight does not justify lethal force.
|
We are dealing with Florida Law. IANAL but in Florida:
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.
One solid witness has testified that GZ was on the bottom with TM straddling him on top. Getting your head bashed off the sidewalk can reasonable put someone in fear of great bodily injury. Even IF GZ initiated the encounter AND was the aggressor (ie threw the first blow / made the first physical contact) from the testimony given thus far and the documented injuries, and condition of GZ after the encounter (including grass stained and wet back of shirt) one could conclude that he has relief in F.S. 776.041 (2)(a) and (2)(b) as it appears that he meets BOTH tests (he only needs to meet one).
The Use of force is covered here:
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;
It is irrelevant if TM was in fear or not. When he was on top of GZ beating him senseless, the question is: was GZ in REASONABLE FEAR of great bodily injury. Unless the prosecution can undermine GZ's presumption of fear enough for the jury to believe that this was a school yard fight; GZ will most likely walk. It is not necessarily relevant that TM was under 18....enough "Minors" have been convicted as adults.