stmarysmead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,302
- Reaction score
- 16,931
.
This info is going to Loom Large - from the Bond Hearing:
The State has no evidence GZ was Not going back to his Vehicle:
"O’MARA: That he turned back to his car. We’ll start with that one.
GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.
O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?
GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?
O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.
The State has no Evidence to show George started the Fight:
"UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O’MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.
So we are left with a Beaten Zimmerman and another with some damage on his knuckles.
We are left with one man that repeatedly called Police - and asked others to do so too - and another that had a phone connected to him semi-permanently (with earphones, etc), that never called the authorities, nor his family.
So, it seems quite a stretch with the aforementioned testimony that Zimmerman could be the aggressor. If by some huge stretch, one assume that Zimmerman provoked the attack on himself - then the Stand Your Ground Rule STILL applies!
This is what Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz explains in his article!
USE OF FORCE BY THE AGGRESSOR in FLORIDA LAW ( and thereis no proof of who is the aggressor)
Deadly force is justified if "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;"
I read these (other) Internet Forums and post after post after post states that GZ loses the ability to protect himself if he was the aggressor (which he was not). That is simply NOT the law.
NOT the Law.
.
This info is going to Loom Large - from the Bond Hearing:
The State has no evidence GZ was Not going back to his Vehicle:
"O’MARA: That he turned back to his car. We’ll start with that one.
GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.
O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?
GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?
O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.
The State has no Evidence to show George started the Fight:
"UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O’MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.
So we are left with a Beaten Zimmerman and another with some damage on his knuckles.
We are left with one man that repeatedly called Police - and asked others to do so too - and another that had a phone connected to him semi-permanently (with earphones, etc), that never called the authorities, nor his family.
So, it seems quite a stretch with the aforementioned testimony that Zimmerman could be the aggressor. If by some huge stretch, one assume that Zimmerman provoked the attack on himself - then the Stand Your Ground Rule STILL applies!
This is what Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz explains in his article!
USE OF FORCE BY THE AGGRESSOR in FLORIDA LAW ( and thereis no proof of who is the aggressor)
Deadly force is justified if "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;"
I read these (other) Internet Forums and post after post after post states that GZ loses the ability to protect himself if he was the aggressor (which he was not). That is simply NOT the law.
NOT the Law.
.
