FL - George Zimmerman injured in Lake Mary shooting, police say

[SStarr33]

The ballistics testing and LE analysis should be able to tell if only 1 of them fired but the part that may always be a grey area is if GZ did any pointing of his weapon at MA. Because if MA is claiming that, then he probably had a right to shoot to defend himself if he saw a gun pointed at him.

Unless they can produce other witnesses, it sounds like it will end up being MA word against GZ word.

Which means that Apperson is going to prison.

 

[Hatfield]

Police already confirmed Zimmerman wasn't shooting his gun.

Right, but what is MA claiming? Is MA claiming GZ threatened him by pointing his own weapon at him? Or driving his car toward him? Or anything like that?

Because if GZ threatened MA life, then it could be a justified self defense shooting.

I have no idea what happened because I think they both could be embellishing their stories and unless evidence comes from a 3rd party.

I cant believe either one of them fully at this point.

 

[cady]

Police already confirmed Zimmerman wasn't shooting his gun.

Well, bless his peaceful heart! JMO

 

[jjenny]

Right, but what is MA claiming? Is MA claiming GZ threatened him by pointing his own weapon at him? Or driving his car toward him? Or anything like that?

Because if GZ threatened MA life, then it could be a justified self defense shooting.

I have no idea what happened because I think they both could be embellishing their stories and unless evidence comes from a 3rd party.

I cant believe either one of them fully at this point.

When Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, he was arrested, charged and put on trial.
This guy admits he shot at Zimmerman. So why shouldn't he be arrested, charged and put on trial? He can claim self-defense then and see if jury believes it.

 

[Hatfield]

When Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, he was arrested, charged and put on trial.
This guy admits he shot at Zimmerman. So why shouldn't he be arrested, charged and put on trial? He can claim self-defense then and see if jury believes it.

LE is probably in the process of investigating right now to see if charges against either one of them will be filed.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Which means that Apperson is going to prison.

If that is what it is actually it doesn't mean that. In Florida if the defense asserts self-defense, it is up to the prosecution to disprove it rather than for the defense to prove their affirmative defense, which coincidentally with the GZ/TM case GZ didn't have to prove he acted in self-defense with TM being the original aggressor, but instead it was up to the prosecution to prove TM wasn't the original aggressor. With it coming down to a he-said-he-said case, it would go towards acquittal if there's even a prosecution at all given the prosecutorial burden Florida.

To repeat, the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that his resort to such force could have been reasonable.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/murray-v-state-937-so-2d-277-fl-ct-app-2006/

 

[cady]

Not at all sure, but I think that a credible "stand your ground" claim results in no arrest because no crime. GZ's defense was self defense, but not SYO. JMO

 

[Sonya610]

Because if MA is claiming that, then he probably had a right to shoot to defend himself if he saw a gun pointed at him.

Unless they can produce other witnesses, it sounds like it will end up being MA word against GZ word.

Was MA in his own vehicle? Because if he got OUT of his vehicle and approached GZ, and GZ stayed in the car with the window up I don't think displaying a weapon would make the shooting self defense. Not saying ZM did display a weapon, but if MA was the aggressor and approaching the vehicle then that blows the self-defense thing.

 

[jjenny]

Not at all sure, but I think that a credible "stand your ground" claim results in no arrest because no crime. GZ's defense was self defense, but not SYO. JMO

Credible stand your grown might be home owner shooting a burglar. How is it credible in a road rage type situation?

 

[Trident]

When Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, he was arrested, charged and put on trial.
This guy admits he shot at Zimmerman. So why shouldn't he be arrested, charged and put on trial? He can claim self-defense then and see if jury believes it.

I love the logical, no-nonsense way you think - except about test questions, lol.

 

[jjenny]

Was MA in his own vehicle? Because if he got OUT of his vehicle and approached ZM, and ZM stayed in the car with the window up I don't think displaying a weapon would make the shooting self defense. Not saying ZM did display a weapon, but if MA was the aggressor and approaching the vehicle then that blows the self-defense thing.

Both of them were in their cars. Zimmerman claims he was trying to avoid MA and made a U-turn, but MA followed him (in the car) and shot at him anyway.

 

[Sonya610]

Both of them were in their cars. Zimmerman claims he was trying to avoid MA and made a U-turn, but MA followed him (in the car) and shot at him anyway.

So did MA blow out one of his own car windows? Or did he roll his own window DOWN to take the shot?

If you are sitting in the drivers seat of a running auto one would think the first reaction to seeing a gun would be to MOVE THE CAR! Not sit there staring down the barrel of a gun and taking aim at the assailant.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I think whatever evidence there is or isn't of a doctor's appointment could be critical...also knowing how long ago GZ allegedly moved out of FL. GZ going by where MA worked may or may not be very strange depending no the circumstances as GZ now at best lives hundreds of miles away (this happened right in the middle of Florida, not in a border city to another state). If GZ moved out months ago and became a resident of another state, it would be strange that he'd be booking a doctor's appointment in another state. However, if this was something recent where he was more in the process of moving to another state rather than being full moved, then it might or might not be so questionable...a doctor's appointment booking could be quite exculpatory.

 

[SStarr33]

If that is what it is actually it doesn't mean that. In Florida if the defense asserts self-defense, it is up to the prosecution to disprove it rather than for the defense to prove their affirmative defense, which coincidentally with the GZ/TM case GZ didn't have to prove he acted in self-defense with TM being the original aggressor, but instead it was up to the prosecution to prove TM wasn't the original aggressor. With it coming down to a he-said-he-said case, it would go towards acquittal if there's even a prosecution at all given the prosecutorial burden Florida.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/murray-v-state-937-so-2d-277-fl-ct-app-2006/

Funny you mention Branca, I was just reading his post on LI about this.

 

[cady]

Credible stand your grown might be home owner shooting a burglar. How is it credible in a road rage type situation?

Just guessing....but credible if GZ was in fact brandishing his weapon. I have no idea why they are dubbing this "road rage" though. JMO

 

[Sonya610]

If that is what it is actually it doesn't mean that. In Florida if the defense asserts self-defense, it is up to the prosecution to disprove it rather than for the defense to prove their affirmative defense, which coincidentally with the GZ/TM case GZ didn't have to prove he acted in self-defense with TM being the original aggressor, but instead it was up to the prosecution to prove TM wasn't the original aggressor. With it coming down to a he-said-he-said case, it would go towards acquittal if there's even a prosecution at all given the prosecutorial burden Florida.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/murray-v-state-937-so-2d-277-fl-ct-app-2006/

I bought a copy of Branca's book after emailing him a couple of times during hte GZ trial.

Haven't actually read the book yet, but the first couple of chapters were very good (on how many prosecutors WILL go after you if they think they can win, even if they believe you really did act in self defense).

 

[jjenny]

So did MA blow out one of his own car windows? Or did he roll his own window DOWN to take the shot?

If you are sitting in the drivers seat of a running auto one would think the first reaction to seeing a gun would be to MOVE THE CAR! Not sit there staring down the barrel of a gun and taking aim at the assailant.

I think it's pretty clear Zimmerman wasn't waiving the gun at the moment he was shot at. His window was rolled up. It would be difficult to see inside with windows rolled up. I don't know about MA's car, bu I presume his window was open in order for him to shoot.

 

[Hatfield]

Someone had mentioned it may be a good idea if GZ begins to carry a body camera with him.

I think this is a great suggestion. Its sad to have to inconvenience himself but I think his own lawyer said he gets taunted all the time. So if that is the case then by him having his own camera to video any incidents like this, he could then prove if he was being harrassed or shot at.

 

[SStarr33]

Just guessing....but credible if GZ was in fact brandishing his weapon. I have no idea why they are dubbing this "road rage" though. JMO

If GZ brandished it and then rolled up his windows and retreated, but then MA followed him and shot him, what happens?

 

[who]

When Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, he was arrested, charged and put on trial.
This guy admits he shot at Zimmerman. So why shouldn't he be arrested, charged and put on trial? He can claim self-defense then and see if jury believes it.

He wasn't arrested for quite a few weeks after he killed Trayvon.

That's why it made such big news.

People couldn't believe a person could shoot and kill a teenager and not get arrested.