Zimmerman will seek second-degree murder charges dismissed under 'stand your ground' law. Will he go free?

Simply put,NO! Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by leaving his truck and pursuing Martin, if anyone could have claimed SYG it would have been Trayvon Martin only Zimmerman made sure this would never happen.also, he will need to take the stand at his SYG hearing and since he has already told 3 versions of the altercation, IMO, the DA will have no problem exposing him for the liar he is.

Um he's not using Stand Your Ground.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-2...

"The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said.

O'Mara said that he would not have to invoke any part of the "stand your ground" statute under the strategy he plans to use.

"I don't' like 'stand your ground' because I'm not sure it's a 'stand your ground' case," O'Mara said.

I'm struggling with the logic being applied to the case and the SYG law. Let's see if this is right

In Florida you can 1) provoke a confrontation with a minor, 2) shoot and kill the unarmed minor, then 3) hide behind a law. Where's the justice for minors in florida?

He's not using that law because it specifically states you aren't protected if you provoke the confrontation.

The attorney for the man who shot and killed unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin said Monday he'll seek to get the case dismissed using a traditional self-defense argument and not the state's "stand your ground" statute.

"The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-2...

Boom goes the dynamite. don't know how i missed that headline.

For some reason this wasn't reported widely.

I'm hoping it's not because the major media spent so much time blaming Stand Your Ground for this shooting.

He might, but he shouldn't. He was following Martin and the confrontation took place when Martin actually stood HIS ground.

he went after martin,purposely and admitted it. that does not come under stand your ground defense.

Anything is possible, tho I think you're confused by the stand your ground law. IF its true and Zimmerman got out of the car when he was told NOT to and engaged with the teenager, Martin would be the one standing his ground by fighting back, not Zimmerman. You can't potentially start a fight then kill the guy because you're getting your a$$ kicked without having consequences.

This case has nothing to do with stand your ground. Even Zimmerman's Lawyer now admits that it doesn't.

"You can't potentially start a fight then kill the guy because you're getting your a$$ kicked without having consequences."

It all depends on the ass kicking you're receiving.

If you believe it's bad enough your life is in danger, or that you are risking serious injury because of it, you can use deadly force.

If you're the idiot who started the fight and you end up killing someone because of the fight YOU started, there should be consequences so you won't do that again....

So if someone picks a fight with you, you should be free to beat them to death?

The law only allows you to defend yourself until the threat to you is gone.

If you continue to attack after that point you have become the attacker in a new conflict, and the person you are beating is legally justified to defend themselves.

By law the person that started the fight can legally defend themselves in two situations.

If they have clearly attempted to back off and end the fight but the other person continues to attack anyway.

Or if their response to your actions goes far beyond what is an appropriate action.

For example if you shove or slap someone and they respond by pulling a knife or gun.

You could be charged with a lesser offense but I do believe there should be consequences. If not people can go around starting fights and claiming their life is in danger and kill someone. That's nonsense...

Besides, you skipped a key point, Zimmerman was told to retreat, he didn't and someone ended up dead. Consequences!

You have charges for the initial assault, but if you are legally justified to shoot, the death doesn't result in charges.

In the situations I listed the death isn't the shooter's fault.

They started a fist fight, and the other person turned it into a lethal encounter, and died because of it.

I fail to see why you should be charged with killing someone that was trying to kill you.

If the system works and he is innocent he will go free or if he is guilty he will be convicted. I think the bigger question is will the system be allowed to work and do it's job

Manslaughter was their only hope for conviction IMO.

Manslaughter WAS a more realistic charge if they wanted a conviction

i don't think so. 2nd degree is killing with malice. zimmerman had malice.

" I don't think so"

The verdict will be based on how believable he is. Ha.

Oh wow, this won't end well for him then.

Probably not, it will go to trial. Motions to dismiss are rarely granted in such situations. However, the prosecution in this case is overreaching to seek murder 2 (which requires malice).

If they would have gone by the evidence and not the media and local talking heads, they would of probably had a much more reasonable chance for a conviction on the charge of manslaughter. As it stands, they are doomed.

He actively pursued Treyvon, pushing the fight. He can't then claim that because he started losing the fight, he was at risk of being beaten. You can't have it both ways.

exactly.

If there's any credibility to the tapes that his former attorneys allegedly released, he's already contradicted himself several times over.

It also looks very bad that he lied to the jury about his assets and passport.

And then there's that awful interview he gave to Hannity...

None of it looks very promising for Zimmerman.

Actually if he was at risk of serious injury or death and wasn't able to escape he could.

Except that he WAS able to escape at any time. He's the one who pushed the fight, and escalated the threat level EVERY time.

When he was on the ground with Martin on top of him escape was not possible.

If he believed he was at risk of death or serious bodily injury in that situation, he is justified to use force.

Florida's Use of Force by the Aggressor law has a couple of very specific situations where the aggressor is justified in using deadly force.

That is what his defense has to argue.

How was it he ended up on the ground?...Didn't he make a call from the safety of his truck?...Was he drug from his vehicle?...I think Zman was the one, that pursued, deliberately confronted Martin...He was the aggressor, he was in hot pursuit...

He got out of the truck, he's admitted it openly multiple times.

Do a little research.

I also believe he confronted Martin.

Doesn't actually mean anything as far as whether or not the shot was justified.

Again research use of force laws.

If Trayvon threw the first punch he's the aggressor.

The hunted now becomes the aggressor...Right...Our justice system?floridas is a mess...If that is how they sees this...But in the US you ARE guilty until you prove your innocense,,A dead person, can't prove anything...Its good his family is there fighting the injustice...Martin stood his grounds and NOW he's dead....

Just because someone is following you or even asks you what you are doing somewhere, DOES NOT give you a legal right to break their nose.

Or should we all start punching anyone that follows us?

IN THE UNITED STATES YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...

That's a basic foundation of our entire Justice System.

Another premiss is the concept, "Better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be punished."

Zimmerman followed Martin, confronted him by asking, "What are you doing around here?"

Trayvon had every right to answer him truthfully, tell Zimmerman to F-off, to ignore him and walk away, etc.

He did not have a right to punch Zimmerman.

If he did he committed Assault.

There isn't a single state in the US that rules that differently.

If someone assaults you, you are legally justified to use force to defend yourself.

If the assault gives you a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, you are justified to use deadly force to stop that assault.

What some people fail to understand is, the witnesses who say they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman did not know whether this was the beginning, middle, or end of the altercation.the 2 could have very well be rolling around on the ground for a period of time changing positions then when the witness finally noticed, Martin ended up on top.

Where on earth did I claim otherwise?

I've stated multiple times we don't have anyway of knowing who started the fight.

Just that if Trayvon did so, the self defense claim is much harder to shoot down.