desert dude
Well-Known Member
Kynes, I disagree with your interpretation of the statute. I agree that paragraph (a) is the one that applies:zimmerman could not use the defense that he tried to withdraw, as there is no evidence that he tried to withdraw at any time. he followed martin in his car, and then on foot despite being told by the 911 operator to not follow martin. his only defense is
"(a) Such force is so great that 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; ..."
but that doesnt fly either, he was armed, his victim was not.
zimmerman has no chance with any self defense argument. he is fucked by his own stupidity. he deserves the lengthy prison time and the inevitable anal rape he has earned by being a dipshit.
the only way he could possibly defend his actions is if his lawyers cook up some silly crap about he believed martin was engaged in, or fleeing a felony, and he was attempting a citizens arrest.
zimmerman is a murderer and a depraved coward of epic proportions.
he started the fight with his stalking, and martin failed in his lawful attempt to defend himself. this does not relieve zimmerman of his culpability.
1. Z could not escape because Martin was on top of him and beating him.
2. Z reasonably feared great bodily harm/death.
The fact that Z was armed is irrelevant to the SYG law. To say that being armed invalidates your coverage under SYG is absurd on its face. The whole point of SYG is so to allow citizens to use lethal force against an assailant and to shield the citizen who used said lethal force from gratuitous legal prosecutions.
Zim is most likely going to use 776.041, paragaph(a) as his defense.
BigLittle, I suggest you read the statute a little more closely. It specifies exemptions under paragraph (a) OR paragraph (b). Zim met the criteria under paragraph (a) and has no need to meet (b).
Having said all of this, I suggest we not turn this into a "Trayvon" thread when we have a perfectly good "Trrayvon" thread with about 9000 posts in it already.