05-29-2012, 05:58 PM
Since I was in kind of a Google state of mind and people keep throwing the term "self defense" around, I thought that this might be of interest:
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 (Deals with defense of the home - not really relevant here - Disciple)
Note that Martin's use of force has to be unlawful for self defense using non-deadly force to attach. I wonder if the standard for deadly force is lower?
The kicker here is that it doesn't matter if Zimmerman says that he thought the use of force was necessary.
What matters is whether or not the jury thinks that Zimmerman had the belief that deadly force was necessary AND THAT THE BELIEF WAS REASONABLE.
One ponders the question: On top of everything else he has to try to explain away, what is Zimmerman going to say when he's asked whether or not he told Martin before or during the fight that he was a member of the Nieghborhood Watch and that he just wanted to know what Martin was doing in the community. Probably yes, I think.
Next question: Is a jury going to believe that Martin, after having been told this, continued to wail on Zimmerman? Just for fun?
Hmmmmmm.
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 (Deals with defense of the home - not really relevant here - Disciple)
Note that Martin's use of force has to be unlawful for self defense using non-deadly force to attach. I wonder if the standard for deadly force is lower?
The kicker here is that it doesn't matter if Zimmerman says that he thought the use of force was necessary.
What matters is whether or not the jury thinks that Zimmerman had the belief that deadly force was necessary AND THAT THE BELIEF WAS REASONABLE.
One ponders the question: On top of everything else he has to try to explain away, what is Zimmerman going to say when he's asked whether or not he told Martin before or during the fight that he was a member of the Nieghborhood Watch and that he just wanted to know what Martin was doing in the community. Probably yes, I think.
Next question: Is a jury going to believe that Martin, after having been told this, continued to wail on Zimmerman? Just for fun?
Hmmmmmm.