The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-update-how-much-injury-is-required-before-self-defense-is-justified/

Quote:

Zimmerman Update — How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?

Apparently frustrated at Mr. O’Mara’s masterful performance on cross-examination (see Zimmerman Trial Day 5 – Analysis & Video – State’s own witnesses undercut theory of guilt for our analysis) Mr. de la Rionda asked, as if he meant it, whether all people have perfectly round heads or wasn’t it true that a person can have a bumpy or raised area of their head as a normal state of affairs, and not solely as the result of traumatic injury.

Was he trying to suggest that the normal appearance of Mr. Zimmerman’s skull included contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and blood trails? It was more than a little bizarre....

...In fact, the State had pounded on this theme of “Zimmerman’s minimal injury throughout the day, asking witnesses if they had observed Zimmerman to be staggering or unresponsive to communication (it must be said that more than one witness–State witnesses, mind you, all of whom were previously deposed by Mr. de la Rionda or a colleague, testified that Mr. Zimmerman had, in fact, complained of dizziness, etc.)

It seems that the State is attempting to establish in the jurors minds that Mr. Zimmerman could not have been justified in his use of deadly force in self-defense unless he had actually and already sustained life-threatening injury. If one accepts this notion, then the fact that Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries have (apparently) turned out to be transient may substantially attenuate his claim that his use of deadly force in self-defense was lawful.

(I say Mr.Zimmerman’s injuries were “apparently transient” because it may be many years before there are clinical symptoms of any brain injury resulting from the repeated blows to Mr. Zimmerman’s head by well-thrown punches and sidewalk cement. What is emerging from the NFL with regard to late-life brain damage among players who have suffered repeated blows to the head is not encouraging.)

Must You Wait for the Attacker’s Bullet to Strike Before You Act in Self-Defense?

The very idea that the State is seeking to establish–that self-defense is conditional upon actually suffering serious injury–is, of course, ridiculous on its face. The purpose of the law of self-defense, particularly in the context of the use deadly defensive force, is to be able to protect yourself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm before that harm occurs, not to require that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm before you may act to protect yourself.

Under the conceptual framework being advanced by the State, if a man were to clearly state his intention to kill you, slowly remove a pistol from his desk drawer, point it at you, and pull back the hammer, you would be required to wait until he shot at you–indeed, until he actually hit you–before you would be entitled to use deadly force to protect yourself. After all, if you acted with the swiftness appropriate to the occasion and struck down your attacker before his bullet tore through your body you wouldn’t have so much as scratch to later show Mr. de la Rionda as justification for having used deadly force in self-defense.........

in a fight that he (your boy Zimmy) started...

I didn't realize that being followed was an excuse to start beating someone up.

Third camp - lean either way but are willing to listen to new evidence and debate it as it happens;

I didn't realize that being followed was an excuse to start beating someone up.

Did he feel threatened? From what I have heard, he thought it was a creepy as cracker.
He didn't state he was afraid of said cracker.

Did he feel threatened? From what I have heard, he thought it was a creepy as cracker. He didn't state he was afraid of said cracker.

a Zimmerman lack of credibility would not meet the states burden of proof.
since it does not appear that the state has a case it would be stupid to put zimmerman on the stand,
they should mount no defense at all.

Did he feel threatened? From what I have heard, he thought it was a creepy as cracker. He didn't state he was afraid of said cracker.