The Misconception Of A Stand Your Ground Hearing
Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 12:47PM Right after Judge Lester was removed from the bench, Mark O’Mara said he would likely schedule a “stand your ground” hearing sometime next year. On August 31, Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel wrote:
Nelson will now be the judge who must decide whether Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder, is entitled to immunity under Florida’s much-debated “stand your ground” law, which allows anyone with a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to use deadly force against an attacker.
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara has said he would likely schedule that hearing next year.
“It will take a tremendous amount of judicial courage at this point to throw the case out following an immunity hearing,” said Winter Park criminal-defense attorney David Faulkner. “My guess is that any judge, Judge Nelson or otherwise, is going to let a jury decide this issue for the benefit of the public.”
Of late, there’s been a lot of discussion and, perhaps, some arguments, over the difference between filing a stand your ground motion and a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. In essence, they are nearly interchangeable; sort of like buying a GM or Chevy vehicle. You can’t have a Chevy without GM, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Without the stand your ground law, there would be no immunity and dismissal motion applicable in this case. In other words, the important thing to remember is that the immunity and dismissal motion is based on Florida’s stand your ground law, F.S. Statute 776.032: Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force, which states:
A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer… As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
Initially, the Sanford Police Department followed the tenets of the stand your ground statute by not placing George Zimmerman under arrest, but that act did not mean he was free from future prosecution. Now arrested and charged, Zimmerman has a right to file the immunity and dismissal motion based on the statute. F.S. 776.012 states:
Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Right now, we will pay particular attention to 776.012(1) and whether or not Zimmerman was right to believe that firing his gun into Trayvon Martin’s chest was necessary to prevent imminent death. After all, he said he was being pummeled to death by the teen. We will ignore 776.013 because it addresses the unlawful and forceful entering of “a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle…” 776.031 doesn’t apply, either, because it covers the use of force in defense of others.
Before going into F.S. 776.012, it’s important to first mention F.S. 776.041 and the “Use of force by aggressor.”
Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Here is where some of the confusion may originate over stand your ground and immunity. By most witness accounts, and certainly something the State can clearly establish, the fight did not end where Zimmerman described. Trayvon’s body was found 30-40 feet south of the “T” joining the east/west sidewalk with the north/south one. Witnesses will testify that there was a scuffle with people running and yelling. Who was chasing whom is not relevant at this point because, once able to escape, Zimmerman chose not to. After all, he was the man with the gun. The bottom line is, he cannot prove that Trayvon cold-cocked him there at the “T” intersection. Furthermore, he cannot prove that’s where the fight ended with a bang, as he showed in his reenactment the next day. His best bet is to not bring it up at a dismissal hearing and that means the State will not be able to address it. That’s why, in my opinion, the Defense made an “adjustment” in its strategy, and it’s what led to the confusion over stand your ground and the impending dismissal motion.
At some point, the Defense realized it stood a better chance if it heeded F.S. 776.041. Where the Defense would most likely falter during a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal hearing lays in (1) and the first part of (2) in 776.041. Why? In (1), will the Defense be able to factually establish that their client was not the aggressor, who forced himself upon the victim, therefore committing a felony? The shooting at the “T” has been debunked by evidence. The gunshot took place far enough away to establish that Zimmerman’s story is false. If the Defense goes in that direction, so will the State, and Bernie de la Rionda will have every right to do so. And, boy, will he ever!
There’s a big word in (2)… unless, and here’s where it will come into play. Let’s move south. For sure, there was a fight, and since no one can really prove who was on top and who was on the bottom, it’s important for the Defense to lay claim that Zimmerman was on the bottom, being beaten to death. I don’t believe (2)(b) will apply because there’s no testimony by the defendant that he attempted to withdraw. He will most likely assert that his mouth was covered and couldn’t speak, but if he does, the State will counter with the lack of evidence; there was no blood, saliva, or any of Zimmerman’s DNA on the victim’s hands. The Defense will not be able to prove it, any more than it will be able to prove that their client was the one yelling for help. If they try, the State will mention that the screaming stopped immediately after the gunshot while Zimmerman stated that he continued yelling for help as he spread the victim’s lifeless hands away from his torso.
Let’s try (2)(a) instead. Bingo! Here’s Zimmerman’s greatest hope. By claiming, which he has all along, that his life was in danger and that he had exhausted all means to escape, he had no choice but to shoot. OK, fine, but how did he gain access to his gun? The only way to explain it is to show the judge exactly how he did it, and the only person who could do that is George. Without taking the stand, he can’t do that because the video reenactment is too sketchy. If not that, then what’s left?
The medical records.
Yes, let’s just say that Zimmerman did have a fractured nose, meaning broken to some extent. The ARNP who diagnosed him was qualified to do so, and that’s what she wrote in her report:
1. Scalp Lacerations: No sutures needed given well-approximated skin margins. Continue to clean with soap and water dally. We discussed the red flag symptoms that would warrant Imaging given the type of assault he sustained. Given the type of trauma, we discussed that it Is imperative he be seen with his Psychologist for evaluation.
2. Broken Nose~ We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal deviation. The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury. I recommended that he be evaluated by ENT but he refused.
Review of Systems:
Constitutional Symptoms: Denies fevers and/or chills.
Eyes: Denies loss and blurring of vision, diplopia.
Ear, Nose, Mouth, Throat: Admits nose pain. Denies hearing loss, tinnitus.
Cardiovascular: Denies palpitations, chest pain/pressure.
Respiratory: Denies shortness of breath.
Gastrointestinal: Denies abdominal pain, nausea and/or vomiting.
Integumentary: Admits- (Scalp lacerations).
Neurological: Admits head trauma. Denies tingling, numbness, weakness, headache, dizziness, speech difficulty, gait disturbance, loss of consciousness.
Psychiatric: Admits stress. Denies suicidal thoughts or attempts.
Nothing in that document paints a portrait of a person remotely close to death the day before. Even the Sanford Fire Department EMT report from the night of the incident showed nothing life threatening. Patient Conscious. Breathing normal. No external hemorrhaging. Mucous membrane normal. Extremities normal. Abrasions to his forehead and bleeding/tenderness to his nose. Small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding. If you combine both reports, it doesn’t help the defense because Zimmerman cannot, in any way, shape or form, establish that he was remotely close to death, and if he tries, he opens a can of worms the State is going to take full advantage of.
§
Back to the matter at hand — the legalities. Enough of the medical. If Zimmerman can factually establish that his use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances outlined in the above statutes, he could walk. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) showed that F.S. 776.032 established a true immunity and not just a justification for what he did. According to the Jacksonville law firm, Hussein & Webber’s website:
The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.
The main issue in this case will be whether or not Zimmerman will be able to show enough evidence to establish immunity. Once again, I must reiterate what I touched on in The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner? Was Zimmerman’s fear subjective or objective? Was he correct in fearing for his life or did he just panic? That’s the difference, and there’s a huge distinction between the two and whether or not immunity applies. Of course, there’s one more thing that could only be brought up at trial; did George Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin in cold blood? For that reason alone, and for the lack of evidence showing “by a preponderance of the evidence,” Mr. O’Mara had better be preparing his client for trial. I see it no other way.
Cross posted on the Daily Kos
Dave Knechel | in Angela Corey, Bernie De la Rionda, DNA, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Donald West, Eighteenth Circuit Court, Forensics, George Zimmerman, Judge Debra S. Nelson, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal, SYG, Sanford, Sanford Police Department, Seminole County, Seminole County Courthouse, Slimm v. Zimm, Stand Your Ground, Trayvon Martin, Zimm v. Slimm, marinadedave | Share Article | 1 Reference 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (437)
New Puppy: Your last paragraph is very interesting.
I've been grappling with my thoughts--trying to put into words the sense of anger I feel radiates from Zimmerman's actions that night.
I think you said it so much better than anything I could manage!
I share your concern about the possible outcome, too. I try not to dwell on it. I know there is still a long way to go.
J4T
I like hearing from Bryan. He spices up things in here quite nicely. I am not saying that I agree with everything he says but he makes sense in some things, not much but a little.
ChicaDee, Bryan does have some interesting views and gives reason to why his convictions go where they do. It is true, sometimes we don't try to think outside what we already believe, as in this I believe George Zimmerman is guilty but I am also interested in finding out what brought him to commit such an act, one that took minutes, in which time, he could have turned back and nothing lost. George believes in himself and obviously feels that society should believe in him. He is his own worst enemy telling one lie after another, not showing remorse and as his family lets us know how very much in financial need they are, there is no concern whatsoever, of what the need is in the hearts of Trayvon Martin's family. Therefore in their asking us to be sympathetic it turns more off than on. He/they has not GIVEN any sympathy toward a life George needlessly took.
Bryan, I think is trying to be completely thorough in whatever conclusion he comes to, like not taking someone else's decision and making it his own without complete evaluation. We all tend to be that way.
Nan11, I'm telling you, you amaze me with your valuable contributions, keeping so many of us pointed in the direction of so much which would be missed by one like myself, who doesn't know how to walk around the block without running into myself. Others so dedicated are also greatly appreciated for their minute by minute uploading links and facts.
Hehe now there really is kind of a lot I want to say that does go far off topic of the blog post that this originated from (and I had no idea it would meander like this from the one post I originally made), but the most important one I think is I need to thank some people, starting with Dave, for being rational and open minded, it's so much a breath of fresh air compared with a lot of people I've talked about this.
As to where I'm coming from, back in April I originally had written this off as what the media portrayed it as, as a "racist vigilante kills black kid and tries to claim self defense" story. It was some writings by Jeralyn at Talkleft that first showed a different perspective, drawing analysis from the witness statements that got me curious enough to look into it, and got more interested the more I read and heard.
Also, to be clear, I'm not trying to claim that George is a paragon of honesty by any means, and I certainly understand how people can come to the conclusion that he's lying about quite a bit. My opinion is not so much "He's telling absolutely the truth" as it is "I've not seen enough to convince me he's lying."
Sure, on the morning that O'Mara released his statements, I jumped in, starting with the reenactment first (before it was taken down on O'Mara's site), then with the interviews in chronological order, and the same inconsistencies jumped out that many others have seen. I've reconciled probably 90-95% of his inconsistencies to the point where I don't believe they prove a lie, given the currently known evidence though. And that would probably take an entire book to explain each one, but to give an example with what is one of the more "Troubling" inconsistencies.
George did tell Singleton at first that he'd gotten out of the vehicle to look for an address. He did so again at the reenactment, which is highlighted by the address being right there. IMO, George was getting ahead of himself trying to relate everything. In the reenactment George then goes on as they walk down the sidewalk and move past the T, and that's when George remembers the dispatcher advising him not to follow, so George corrects himself, with an "Oh yeah, back there is where that happened." That really strikes me as a memory issue more than a truthfulness issue.
After that point, then at the stress test he remembers it and again reiterates about him following Trayvon until being advised not to, and saying "Okay." George really didn't seem to be trying to hide that (though downplaying it out of an admitted fear that it would be interpreted as a pursuit.)
Then when we come to the 3 part interview with Serino and Singleton, while playing the NEN call, Singleton points out where he got out of the vehicle in response to saying "Shit, he's running" and the dispatcher asking which way he ran to, and accused him of trying to hide that he was following...even though George had already corrected that at least twice in later interviews, with Singleton present. She borderline lied to George about his prior testimony to try and get him to slip, and this pushed George into trying to defend a position he wasn't trying to take, and that led to the "I was going the same direction" and "I don't remembers" that followed.
It's an understandable tactic by Singleton and Serino to try and see if George is hiding anything by pushing him however they can, but also extremely unfair IMO in that now that interview is being used to judge his honesty.
And yeah, this post is already getting ridiculously long probably, but hopefully explaining an alternative possibility for at least one of the bigger "lies" that people believe George told can help some see how someone can look at the same evidence and see what they believe is a strong case of George acting in self-defense.
Bryan, Just a question at this time, I agree that George has not illustrated enough if any at all remorse sincere apology, different people will disagree, while many will state HOW it should have been done. His use of It is GOD's PLAN! This in not just a Christian inflammatory remark but is strange to almost anyone with compassion and understandable anger. How could God have planned that George would shoot and kill a young man who had given absolutely no indication of trouble.
How do you Bryan, feel about this particular lack in judgement, which has added more disdain for George for his actions. No remorse illustrated!
I don't think we have enough to judge George on his remorse. DIfferent people react to tragedy or traumatic events in different ways. It's in the discovery that one of George's co-workers the day after said that George seemed emotionally devastated. We don't know what that co-worker saw in George that led to that conclusion, but the Ostermans have said in their upcoming book that George went through periods with lots of crying.
As for the God's plan bit...I think O'Mara explained that to the press when asked about it. It's a common belief among Christians that everything that happens, both good and bad, is all part of a greater plan by God. That belief is often clung to, to help people cope with grief and tragedy. I have a different belief in that regard (I'm Christian but don't believe in predestination), but yet I've found myself saying that too, to cope. Trayvon's mother has said that too, that God has called Trayvon, that he was chosen.
I've seen people say "Sybrina is just saying that to cope with the loss of a child, so it's okay"...but if it's okay for Sybrina to state that belief as a coping mechanism, why wouldn't it be okay for George to also cling to that same belief to cope with the tragedy?
@ Bryan,
Ah, I see. I prefer to study the evidence myself and reach my own conclusions. I've read the conclusions at Talk Left and they're faulty.
I don't believe a word put of Zimmerman's mouth. He knew the CCTV cams at the front gate were down and believed he could slide by with his story. He forget about the cams at the clubhouse though and they're his undoing. He wasn't even parked at the clubhouse when he was calling in to NEN.
If any "circling" it was done by Zimmerman, passing back and forth and hunting Tr\yvon from his truck. I hope he goes away for a long time for provoking a confrontation and shooting an unarmed teen to stop his screams before LE arrived.
Coffeelover, I didn't say I accepted the conclusions from Talkleft. I said they pointed me toward an alternative perspective that caused me to do the research myself and come to my own conclusions.
That entire analysis I typed up is not from Talkleft, and noone has given any reason why it (or Talkleft for that matter) is faulty.
Bryan~~you are correct in the fingernail scrapings being ME-2...ME-2A..right hand fingernail scrapings , ME-2B-left hand fingernail scrapings
(the following is from my mess of notes from 1st doc dump..Trayvon's DNA profile is ME-3 and Zimmerman's DNA profile is JR-2)
Page 7...I gun shot residue kit collected from Zimmerman at Sanford PDept, Feb 26/12
Page 9...Evidence Tag ME-2..fingernail scrapings taken from Trayvon Benjamin Martin (page 104)
ME-2A....right hand (page 104)
ME-2B...left hand (page 104)
Fingernail scrapings from the right and left hand collected from the victim during the autopsy performed at the Volusia County Medical Examiner's Office...Feb 27/12
Evidence Tag ME-3...(page 9 and page 104) ME-3 is Trayvon's DNA....Zimmerman's DNA is JR-2
V.C.M.E.O. Submission.....(digital imaging taken during an autopsy)
FTA card collected from the victim during the autopsy.... What is a FTA card?
ME-2...fingernail scrapings of Trayvon Martin...
ME-2A..chemical presense of blood but no foreign DNA
ME-2B..no DNA results obtained
Pages 107/108
ME-8 Trayvon's shirt
ME-8 Stain A...showed Zimmerman (JR-2) DNA
ME-8 Stain B...showed Trayvon's (ME-3) DNA
ME-8 Stain D...showed mixed DNA... included as possible both Zimmerman(JR-2) and Trayvon (ME-3)
M-8 Stain E.. Trayon (ME-3) DNA
An evaluation well stated Bryan and you are right about the use of "Gods Plan" verbally. I think we may be lacking in our understanding in such a blatant statement and will say many fundamentalist pastors emphasize acceptance of painful situations with those very words. "God's Will" is another where I think it is supposed to be in acceptance of our own personal dicipline. In effect before an act is carried out it would be to ask ourselves if this would be Gods Plan, is this the WIll of God of ourselves, rather than lay it on to make up for our irresponsible and perhaps greater than God ego decisions. I am not educated in how God's Word is to be applied other than to try and be conscious of how, as an individual, I am to react or respond to His Will. Respectfully,Trayvon's parents have no better alternative except to try and find comfort for the loss of their son, the way it happened, by assuring themselves, that God will sustain and comfort them. Not that it was Gods Plan that their son be singled out as he was. Their gracious and strong personal example is in my opinion very pleasing to God. I am not filled with His Mercy and Grace therefore have deep appreciation for people like the Martin family. Thank you, not argumentative, just thoughts as this time.
Published on Sep 7, 2012 by LLMPapa I Couldn't
We all tend to interpret words differently. During the Hannity show when Zimmerman said it was God's plan, I thought he meant it was God's plan that he was the one who ended up still alive. I don't think he meant it was God's plan that he should have killed someone.
Being a student of the Book I'll comment on the God's plan thing. God had a plan for man from the beginning of time,however he did give man a free will. That does not mean it was God's plan for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon. Trayvons death was a consequence of Zimmerman's free will act which resulted in Zimmerman's being alive. If Zimmerman had not pursued Trayvon they would both be alive and maybe even fulfill God's commandments.
" 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.'" Luke 10:27 NKJV
Thank you Tommy's Mom.
I'm still stuck on the fact that GZ was able to carry/conceal by Florida law. I also have a problem with GZ assuming that his actions have divided this country. Personally, I don't think the man has the capacity to feel empathy for the Martins. From what I have read and heard, the world is more about him than others.
I don't have the slightest idea if second degree murder is the right charge. I was thinking manslaughter or negligent homicide but what do I know...lol.
New Puppy
Their gracious and strong personal example is in my opinion very pleasing to God. I am not filled with His Mercy and Grace therefore have deep appreciation for people like the Martin family. Thank you, not argumentative, just thoughts as this time.
Excellent thoughts. I'm sure the Martin's do understand that we must forgive if we are to be forgiven. They have indeed showed their deep love for both God and Trayvon. There pain is beyond measure and their courage is amazing. I cannot imagine their sitting in that courtroom hearing Zimmerman make that terrible statement to them. I'll definately keep them in prayers.
@Tommy's Mom,
Particularly "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
@Bryan,
Consider the catologue of trepasses Zimmerman claimed to the police Trayvon committed:
A 'sucker punch' to the nose.
Fists that felt like bricks raining down more than 15 blows to the face.
Hands that grabbed his head and repeatedly smashed it down into the concrete.
So where are the split lips, chipped teeth, cheek bruises that should have swelled like apples, eyes that should have swollen shut? Not to mention the back of the head being a pulpy mess, concussion and dangerous brain swelling?
If true, Zimmerman would have been rushed to the E.R., sirens wailing.
OR Trayvon must have been using a feather duster. Since there's no foreign DNA on his hands and he managed all that without even splitting the skin of his knuckles or fracturing his own hand.
Fiddlesticks. He hurt that boy causing him to scream in agony, and then shot him to silence him.
I don't believe Zimmerman is sane myself, but he does know right from wrong. Sociopaths lie when they get caught. If it walks like duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.
Newbie~~I think second-degree is an overcharge. Look at the Anthony case, a jury would have convicted her for second-degree. They didn't want her to get the death penalty. I agree with you on Z getting a carry and conceal permit. I read somewhere that there are more guns than people in the state of Florida.
I just want to let you know I'm out of town for the weekend. My best friend's 60th. Needless to say, I won't be online much, but the comments are incredible. Absolutely fascinating!
I don't really pay much attention to GZ's various interpretations of what went down because he has ADD and is on medications. That kinda makes him inaccurate to begin with IMO because he has problems with memory. So I have to look at all the other stuff.
Mainly I am offended about his actions while on the phone with the police NEN operator. That and other evidence collected and recorded eye or earwitness statements. All of the 911 calls were recorded as is, so that is first hand witness accounts, especially that last one with the gunshot. I believe Trayvon's girlfriend because she was on the phone at the time it happened. The lack of blood and bruising on TM's knuckles is telling in that he couldn't have pummeled GZ the way he described. Probably got a couple of good knocks in.The lack of bruising and more lacerations on GZ's head shows me he probably only hit the pavement once or twice, not "over and over". (that and the amount of time the fight took seem to be against a prolonged altercation like GZ described - memory again). That's the way my mind goes.
I certainly hope they don't make the same mistake they did with CA and put in other charges down to manslaughter, so it won't be 2nd degree or nothing. He should spend some time for what he did.
The thing that bothers me most (and I imagine others also) is GZ's attitude toward the entire thing. I won't say he shows no remorse, even though I haven't seen any. The thing that bothers me is there is nothing, nothing. No "it was an accident', "I didn't mean to shoot him", "the gun went off accidentally". None of that. That tells me he intended to shoot if he found himself in a difficult situation. I have no idea what state of mind he was in when he left the house to grocery shop (how many men grocery shop without their wives along?!!) Did he have an argument before leaving the house? Did the rain put him in a foul mood? Was he off his meds? I have looked up adderal and one of the side effects is violent behavior. Did his meds need to be adjusted? There is just something wrong with GZ's affect. He's not presenting with the affect of someone who's done something wrong and realizes it. That, to me, makes him unpredictible at best and dangerous at worst.
Connie: Regarding: "Was he off his meds?"
That is a very interesting question. There is also the possibility that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin during a period of time when George Zimmerman was undergoing a 'change' in his prescribed medication.
A change that comes with the warning that violent mood swings can occur.
Let's hope the State uncovers some very intersting info. in the perusal of Georgie's medical history.
I really appreciated your whole comment.
Really great comments today! And I agree with Newbie,CoffeeLover,Snoopy Sleuth,conniefl and Nan11.
The fact that Zimmerman never said anything about it being an accident or that he was sorry he had to take a young man's life really bothers me. His terrible statement to the Trayvon's mother & father was very upsetting to me. What possible difference could their child's age make? Would he not have shot Trayvon if he knew he was a teenager?
It's some where in the docs that he had holstered his gun after the killing. Who does that. You've just killed a child and you return the weapon to your holster?
I too wonder if he was off meds,and whether the defense would use that. Of couurse if he's been on meds for some length of time,then it would appear he didn't disclose that when he applied for a carry permit. Don't you have to do that if ypu're taking meds that might alter your perception or impair you in any way?
I do agree he fits the bill for Sociopath,which puts me in mind of CMA. I don't believe a word out of Zimmerman's mouth any more than I believed CMA. I do hope if this does go to trial the outcome will be different,which is quite possible due the response to the jury on CMA's case. That was a travesty of justice. They were lazy and just wanted to go home. This may make juries in future cases take their jobs seriously.
@bryan response to your post to me. And I'll respond to other comments here as well. Sorry for the length.
Ur use of reasonable wasnt an example of the reasonable person concept that is a prerequisite for SD and SYG. Not to mention the problem with using of deadly force facing non deadly force. The jury will have it thoroughly explained. But my point is George can claim anything he likes. If its determined his behavior wasnt reasonable and doesnt match his story or injuries, since he committed homicide, and since he used deadly force when faced with bare hands, that alone could be his undoing. His changing/ impossible story and medical records are more than enough evidence for that. And the circumstantial evidence youre so quick to dismiss will paint him as a liar and make his story unbelievable.
And you STILL havent responded my questions about ur claim that the witnesses who stated a struggle moving down the T matched GZs story when he said multiple times, and wrote in his statement that he was struck at the T, fell back ward there immediately and was mounted. Where the struggle down the T in his 1st interview? Facts only please.
You also keep suggesting that witnesses support his story, but they really do no more than call it wrestling for the most part. Not a life and death struggle. Nothing that would justify deadly force when being met with non deadly force. No one saw head beating. No one saw TM start the fight. Your star witness John didn’t see their position at the time of the gun shot. Joe’s wife did, and she says the stocky man was on top, and shes the only witness at that specific time. The teacher says the entire event happened on the grass and not on the side walk. Other witnesses say they didnt see fighting before the shooting at all. And as I already pointed out, they all have a much longer discussion taking place with a struggle down the T. George story is 3 sentences, and immediate dropping with the first punch at the T. So when you don’t cherry pick, the witness testimony doesn’t support George at all. I take from it that Geoges initial story takes place at the T to avoid having to admit he chased TM south, where all the witnesses actually have him. And where the body was found.
And, most witnesses describe George as matter of fact and indifferent after. One has him discussing which gun he used. Another said he rolled his eyes at LE when they cuffed him. They have him walking around, pacing, on the phone. None have him on deaths doorstep as a man beaten for several minutes.
Actually, in Singletons 2nd interview with GZ she clearly pointed out his lie by omission when he said he got out of his car to orient himself, coincidently at the same time TM ran, which he left out of his story initially. They (DS,CS) aren’t stupid, and nether am I. There's only 1 reason to leave out something so important. And in his first interview he says he went to RVC to look for a street sign. Of course he later changed that to an address when it became clear he wouldn’t need to take that walk to get the name of the very street he lived on. And, why would there be a street sign in the middle of the block on TT? Or at the end of a dog walk? When you cut thru to RVC is the middle of the block. They don’t put street signs in the middle of blocks either. He’s not a stranger to the small development. And as you said, they asked for directions. The address request came later when they asked where his car was parked. Most of what he has NEN asking for in his reenactment never actually happened.
That’s because we know why he really got out of his car, and it had nothing to do with getting an address. He tells us thru his work companion who said George told her that he was following the kid to keep a visual, and I believe its in Ostermans story as well. There are a few times when he lets his guard down and admits it to investigators too. But since George later said he wasnt following, this alone is a terrible and important inconsistency.
Yeah, the murder suspect accidently used code, forgot to turn in his 2nd passport that he clearly knew he still had, and stashed a bunch of cash,oh, and only lied to and deceived the court, well for no reason at all. Just a big misunderstanding. LOL! You sure youre not related?
You keep saying the witnesses support his story, but they really do no more than call it wrestling for the most part. Not a life and death struggle. Nothing that would justify deadly force when being met with non deadly force. No one saw head beating. No one saw TM start the fight. Your star witness John didn’t see their position at the time of the gun shot. Joe’s wife did, and she says the stocky man was on top, and shes the only witness at that specific time. The teacher says the entire event happened on the grass and not on the side walk. Other witnesses say they didnt see fighting before the shooting at all. And as I already pointed out, they all have a much longer discussion taking place with a struggle down the T. George story is 3 sentences, and dropping with the first punch at the T. So when you don’t cherry pick, the witness testimony doesn’t support George at all. I take from it that Geoges initial story takes place at the T to avoid having to admit he chased TM south, where all the witnesses actually have him. And where the body was found.
RE: remorse, we have him on audio recording mocking TMs by suggesting he’d wear a hoody out of prison, and also discussed showing up at the rallies in his name. I have never once seem the remorse you speak of in those videos and recording we do have. And his condition the next day for work was an act if you ask me. He went to make a showing and start working on his defense. Actions speak louder than words. His nausea was guilt, not remorse.
George hung up with NEN @ 7:13:38, at which point he tells Serino he is already headed back from RVC for what is a 25 sec walk. The first 911 call is 7:16:11. And the witness says she called immediately, based on past instruction. Please account for Zimmermans where abouts for these 2:43?
This is Off Topic~~A comment was left on my blog that Shirley Plesea has cancer and she is staying at Cindys. A brother Dan is helping to care for her. We know Shirley as being a wonderful woman and her g/daughter, Casey put her through hell. I wouldn't doubt that this contributed to her declining health. Shirley can use our prayers. It seems Casey is very concerned that she will not be able to visit her g/mother...yeah right, it's still all about Casey.
oops, sorry about the duplicate content in may last post! I copied for word and did something wrong there! LOL.
Manberk~~I read your entire comment and did not notice anything duplicate that stood out. Not to worry, your comment was great.
For anyone~~
I have never been able to follow along with the reenactments of what took place at Retreat Twin Circle on the nite of Feb 26th so I need some help. I have listened to the unredacted call Z made to the non-emerg dispatcher and all the eye/ear witnesses 911 calls.
It was a rainy Sunday evening and most of the potential witnesses were inside carrying on their normal routines. One young man was out walking his dog who apparently got off his leash. What was it that alerted them to look outside to see what was going on in the very beginning? Was it the loud voices or were they only made aware something was going on once they heard the screams for help? TIA
George`s words were "no regrets" He should have plenty of regrets that, that night ever happened. It was his perfect chance to give us some idea that he isnt as nonchalant about it as he seems.And I will never believe his story of his head getting pounded on the cement over a dozen times, that is just BS and then when he talks about his head getting hit on cement , he adds or a sign. And he forgot he had his gun, come on, who believes that ? There is something seriously wrong with George. Its not Trayvon that has serious mental problems. I can only hope that the jury finds it as disgusting as I do that he shot a kid who wasnt doing anything wrong at all and that they all think , "that could have been my son walking home from the store" It could have been my world totally shattered. Trayvon ran away or skipped (yeah right ) and then came back and decided he was gonna kill this guy. Trayvon didnt have mental problems , he didnt act stupidly that night. If George was having problems over the drugs he was taking , but still carrying a gun, we cant blame Trayvon for that. I hope George has a few years to sit in jail and then maybe he might have some regrets and hopefully come to face the fact that he had no right to kill a kid who was doing nothing wrong. George still cant come up with a reason for why he was suspicious, and thats because he jumped to a conclusion that he was a black kid walking in the rain, so he must be a bad kid.
Well done Marberk!
OT
I happen to be one of the many seniors who has just had a very big problem arise with my insurance coverage.
Article can be found www.lakelandledger.com 11,000 people under Universal Heath Care lose coverage at LRMC
Tommy's Mom, George did know Trayvon was a teenager, when on with the dispatcher he was asked about color, GZ - " He looks black" when asked about age GZ "Um Late teens". He most certainly knew when he had followed Trayvon, coming face to face that Trayvon was in his teens. Yet, in his humble apology to Trayvon's parents, he had the gaul to state that he believed Trayvon to be around his own age, I think that was 28. If GZ had his eyes open instead of having been blinded by his desire to get one of them "up to no good", as they came closer to each other he would have known Trayvon to be a teen in appearance, to be thin and lanky, before full male masculinity when muscles develop and a young man becomes physically stronger (usual). GZ had every opportunity from first sighting to ending of Trayvon's Martin's life, to introduce himself and that he was "just checking him out" because there had been some break-ins. GZ could have easily advised this young teen in a concerned "big brother" way or illustrating to Trayvon that he was interested in his safety, having observed him walking around in the grounds. Yup, GZ went out there and just did his big business, the big guy!
It has always been very interesting that GZ never even attempted to call the shooting an accident, if he had, this case may never have come to trial. Even so, the fact that he did not call the shooting an accident could go down favorably because it could be stated that was the ONE BIG LIE that he did not tell. That he was honest enough to state he shot someone without immediately making an excuse. * I can think of this as being used by the defense, in relating to GZ's state of mind as to him being in shock, possibly still in shock over what happened.* However, the obvious character of a conniving one certainly comes forth in the way GZ manipulated with his wife and family to try to get money and save his butt. The shock I mentioned wore off so he has known exactly what he had done and continued/s to do. Imo Haven't heard much from George recently, is he still around ?
New Puppy
Thank You I must have missed that about TM's age. Actually I don't think I even listened to the call. I guess I better find it and listen in case I missed something else.
I agree totally with your description of Zimmerman and what he did,which is one reason I'm not able to understand Bryan's trying to jumble the facts and taking Zimmerman's side of this. Manberk post was excellent on all Bryan's excuses.
I detest a liar. They think those they're lying to are stupid,that's what made me detest and lose any respect for the A's,Baez and the bully who represents CMA now.
Are you referring to George A or George Z?
Great post as usual and thanks again.
Manberk, please stop inventing untrue accusations about what I'm saying, then claim "facts only" please. It just makes you look dishonest. Especially while cherry picking statements yourself. You bring up W-12 again. She initially told investigators that she saw two shadows with one on top, and that she couldn't tell their sizes or, well, anything. Then weeks later, after influence by the media, she thinks the larger shadow was on top. That testimony is going to hold very little water. The teacher saw little to nothing distinguishable, and didn't see the entire encounter, so she doesn't refute John either.
George says the encounter started at the T. Witnesses support the encounter starting at the T. John hears the screams for help coming from a distance and get closer. George says he ended up on the ground. Witnesses support there being a fight on the ground, with the only one who saw clearly enough to tell distinguishing features such as clothing seeing Trayvon on top with George struggling and unable to get up.
That the fight started at the T and moved south with George ending up on the ground is undisputed. With the distance being something that would only take a few seconds to cover, the only issue I see is you expecting someone to have perfect clarity of recollection of a few seconds between the time being punched and ending up on the ground, while in pain, in the dark.
I see no reason to make that assumption.
Bryan, you present your arguments in a calm, civil and coherent manner I wish all Zimmerman supporters would emulate. I can’t help but recall, however, a line from the film Broadcast News, when one character says to another, “please don't take it wrong when I tell you that I believe that Tom, while a very nice guy, is the Devil.” :)
The tone of my last comment to you was triggered by having read a large number of posts and comments by Zimmerman supporters who generally adhere to a few basic rules: equivocate, avoid, suppress, and misrepresent. I don’t take it kindly when I assert an argument and a responder cherry-picks in order to address only one part of what I wrote, disconnecting it from the rest. This you did in both your responses to comments I made, although, to your credit, you did note that you were doing so.
There is no special Neighborhood Watch cap that Zimmerman can put on and take off at a whim. When reporting a suspicious person or criminal activity, it makes no difference whether you’re on the way to the store, out walking your dog around the neighborhood, or looking out your bedroom window; you’re still expected to stay put and wait for the responding LEO, as would be done by any reasonable person. As the NW coordinator and a block captain, Zimmerman was familiar with police guidelines and NW advisories; given this, the criteria for his behavior would be expected to be even more circumspect.
So, yes, one is advised not to approach someone you believe to be suspicious. One is also advised to do nothing more than call in a report and await the LEO. The effort to excuse Zimmerman’s failure to approach and identify himself to Trayvon based on one advisory while excusing his failure to adhere to another because, well, whatever, are absurd.
nemerinys well done!
I didn’t want to make my previous comment too long, but I did want to address one example that particularly provoked my response to Bryan, and one that illuminates must one of the methods often used by Zimmerman supporters.
An earlier response from Bryan to commenter Manberk:
Yes, you were wrong about the dispatcher asking for assistance.
Quotes from the dispatcher:
"Okay. Just let me know if he does anything, okay?
Yeah, we've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
He's running? Which way is he running? (This is the point where George gets out of the truck in respose).
Okay and which entrance is that he's heading towards?
Four different statements asking George to update on what Trayvon is doing, and where he's going. Getting out of a truck to keep an eye on someone in an attempt to help Police may have been misguided, but it wasn't illegal.
Here he is coupling two distinct segments of the NEN conversation, and ignoring the context and timing in which they occur. Doing so emphasizes his assertion that Zimmerman exited his truck and followed the path of a running away Trayvon only because he wished to “assist” the dispatcher, who, in turn, repeatedly asked for such “assistance.”
Segment 1, duration 48 seconds, from 7:10:21 to 7:11:07
Zimmerman: Now, he’s just staring at me. […] Yeah, now he’s coming towards me. […] He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male. […] Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?” Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here? Dispatcher: Yeah, we got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.”
Notice that the two statements from the NEN dispatcher – “let me know” – occurred two seconds apart, the second such statement merely reiterating the first in response to Zimmerman’s obvious apprehension.
Segment 2, duration 10 seconds, from 7:11:39 to 7:11:49
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit he's running. Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running? Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood. Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards? Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible] Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Ok
Notice that the dispatcher was merely clarifying the direction Zimmerman was giving him.
Bryan merged these two segments and came up with “four different statements asking George to update on what Trayvon is doing, and where he's going.” Er, no.
Just to reiterate what I and several others have pointed out, “assisting” the NEN dispatcher would not include, in any law enforcement or crime watch compendium, asking or directing or encouraging a caller to follow a suspicious person or to do anything beyond calling in, staying put, and providing only the most clearly observable information. I’ll add that Zimmerman could bloody well see the direction in which Trayvon was running without ever having to get out of his truck; according to his own statements, he was parked right there, facing in that same direction with his headlights on. And, of course, the NEN dispatcher had no idea that Zimmerman had left the clubhouse and drove behind Trayvon, much less that he was in a position to see the direction taken by Trayvon.
Wow, some great thoughts here for sure! Too many to mention,
especially without a quote button :)
Snoopy Sleuth,
I don't want to make assumptions, but are you saying you've not
been able to watch the reinactment at all? Gosh, it's burned in
my brain by now.
I certainly don't know what Zimmerman was actually doing for those
moments after his NEN call ended--only that his explanation of how he
spent those moments makes no sense whatever and I don't believe one word.
But the answer to your question is yes--noise alerted all the 911 callers,
IIRC 'the teacher's' call made it through 1st, at 17:06. The back of her
house faces the T but is a couple of residences past it, closer to RVC.
Her account was she heard voices, then nothing for several minutes, then voices
again.
Noise alerted the residents along the "dog walk", don't forget the distance between
the homes, cement walkway included, is only 50'. What they were hearing took place,
give or take, less than 25' away.
I speculate that Zimmerman spent some time dashing around, hence his gobbledegook
story about a street sign, (what if someone had seen him seaching?)
Then he caught a glimpse of theose red and white tennis shoes. The rest is his story
vs the forscenics, and the phone call TM was on.
nemerinys
ITA and this is what I sent to Bryan once before: If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
I won't respond to him again it's a waste of time. Do you suppose he works for the defense team to get a feel for what the general public thinks of Zimmerman?
I think Bryon himself doesn't believe what he is saying. He's smarter than that. You all did notice he answered my first question yesterday with two questions and no answer. He's toying.
I have to chuckle. It would appear we all came to the same conclusion at the same time.
Coffee Lover~~I think I have the 911 unredacted call to NEN memorized. I have viewed several reenactments via maps and animations via youtube. I lost count of all the different scenarios made by commenters of what they think took place. I also watched the walk through that Z made on Feb 27th. Dee Dee's interview gave me a bit of understanding in what took place. It is the locations of where the confrontation began and finally ended is what keeps me confused. Comparing the times of all the ear/eye witnesses 911 calls tends to baffle me more.
I made an attempt to write in a comment about what I thought took place. This next video is one I could understand a bit. It is lenghty and in three parts.
Trayvon Martin Shooting Animated Timeline pt. 1
A question that has been in the back of my mind....why didn't Trayvon run home, go in the house and lock the door? I thought Dee Dee mentioned he was close to Brandy's but I could be wrong. Being a youth, he surely could have outrun a heavy Zimmerman. I often wonder if the Rx drugs that Zimmerman was on would make him more animated or subdued.
Coffee Lover, thanks for your response.
Newbie~~I am so dang confused with all the reenactments, I cannot tell which is wrong or right. Since we were not there, it is impossible to be 'spot on' in what took place. I understand all the things that Z did wrong when he got out of the truck especially with a concealed weapon. He broke almost a half dozen Neighborhood Watch rules. I wonder what Judge Nelson will think and then six jurors if and when it goes to trial. Hmmmm
Let's all give Dave a big wave and sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY to his best friend...
*Dave is in here reading now...
To Stewie from Dave- it's the one I gave him Stew
If I understand this correctly, Section 776.013, the Stand Your Ground self-defense statute, is overridden by Section 776.041, the Use of Force by Aggressor statute, since the Stand Your Ground defense cannot be used if Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself. But Section 776.041 provides relief if O’Mara can prove either (1) that Zimmerman had to use his gun because he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape that danger; or (2) that Zimmerman either withdrew from the confrontation and clearly indicated that he wanted to withdraw and end the confrontation, but he was unable to do so because Trayvon continued or resumed the confrontation. Thank you, Dave, for writing about this.
I’d guess that O’Mara wants to narrow the focus solely on the point when Zimmerman retrieved and fired his gun since it is, at that point, he can argue that Zimmerman had no reasonable means to escape. He can also argue that it was only at this point when Zimmerman chose to use deadly force; not in response to his injuries, but, rather, in response to his fear when Trayvon allegedly saw or felt his gun.
This will be difficult since Zimmerman not only had the standard two arms and hands, legs and teeth (clearly available since he asserts that he was able to open it to yell for help), he was also able to shimmy-shuffle-squirm his body, rotate his body to unholster his gun, had one hand free to unholster his gun, and had another hand free to physically restrain Trayvon. He also had the cognizant ability to avoid hitting his other hand.
Serino: Don’t recall. OK. Is it a full-sized 9 or a small 9?
Zimmerman: Compact.
Serino: Compact? And you were able to overpower him as far as holding his wrist, you gained wrist…we call it wrist control…you gained wrist control on him basically, and you were able to basically liberate both hands…
Zimmerman: Yes, sir.
Serino: OK. You raised it up. Do you remember hitting him with the pistol?
Zimmerman: No, sir.
Serino: Distance wise…
Zimmerman: I just remember not wanting to hit my own hand, I was holding his, it went past my hand, my body… (sigh)
In other words, Zimmerman was in physical control when he fired his gun, and he was able to think by aiming his gun in such a way that he would not hit his other hand.
Of course, O’Mara will have to explain how Trayvon was able, in the darkness, to see or feel a small gun that was clipped inside Zimmerman’s waistband with the holster situated in the five o’clock position of Zimmerman’s back right hip, and all while maniacally using his two hands for face punching, head bashing, and nose-mouth suffocating.
Nemerinys,great comment. I especially like the last paragraph. While all this was happening Martin allegedly tells George he's going to die. I'm surprised no one heard that statement as it would have had to be rather loud for George to have heard it so distinctly while all else was happening (snark).
nemerinys,
Yes, but we musn't forget that press conference in which O'Mara actually said when he fired the shot Zimmerman was reacting to having his nose broken. SMH for an hour re that remark.
SnoopySleuth,
Ah, now we're on the same page. In fact I'm sure we've visited many of the same pages! Unfortunately I simply don't have an answer. People have done some painstaking analysis, some of it's great work and I'm sure Ms Corey's investigators were far along those paths with more information than we have at present. To be a fly on the wall, I'd give my last loonie.
We know Zimmerman ran and for approximately how many seconds. I hear him trying very, very hard to get his breathing back under control on the NEM. Dee Dee said the 'old man' voice was winded, too. I believe her for a couple of reasons, one of which I already mentioned. He got off the phone and continued his search for Trayvon.
IMO, Zimmerman certainly didn't tell the NEN dispatcher what he himself was doing. Which was driving around---the on my way to Target stuff doesn't compute for me. He patrolled that complex, carrying concealed both with his dog and on that night in his truck because of the rain. If he'd been on his way to Target, he'd have gone there.
As for teens, well, remember? I used to walk from from my friend's down the back lane, then drove my kids everywhere! Trayvon thought he'd lost the truck guy back at the entrance to the cut through, never thinking the guy would pursue on foot. When he realized----hey, the path was dark but there were warm houses with interior windows lit on either side, just 25' away. Considering how far he;d walked, he was close to Brandy's, in his mind.
He wouldn't have thought GUN, run for your life. He was incredibly vulnerable but HE didn't know that.In any case, that's how I see it. .
Coffee Lover~~thanks for your info. It is all mind boggling. I just feel like I have been bombarded with information overload these past few months. I hope they can pick a jury who can figure it all out.
I am going to take a breather from the reenactments and focus on the Rx meds that Z was on and his ADHD etc. First I am am going to post something in another comment box.
Just something to ponder....
Zimmerman's Murder Charge: Prosecution Must Prove 'Depraved Mind'
In the affidavit charging George Zimmerman with second-degree murder, Angela Corey used the term 'depraved mind' when referring to him. Do the following two definitions fit Zimmerman?
Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community.
In the area of legal ethics, offenses that involve depravity of mind such as fraud or breach of trust, make a person unfit to practice law. In Military law, an act involving depravity of mind is punishable, usually with a dishonorable discharge or confinement not less than a year.
Depravity of Mind, Law and Legal Definition
and...
Depravity of Mind Definition:
A degree of moral turpitude and psychical debasement associated with a crime such as repeated and excessive acts of physical abuse or unreasonably brutality or outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman.
Source
Dave~~I was just scanning the transcript of Angela Corey when she made her announcement re charging Zimmerman. One word stood out to me so I will bold it. Remember when we were discussing a certain judge and I said he filed an information. You asked me what I meant by an information. Maybe an information is also an affidavit or maybe a term they use for certain legal documents.
Here is an excerpt from Angela's speech...
Today, we filed an information charging George Zimmerman with murder in the second degree. A capias has been issued for his arrest. With the filing of that information and the issuance of a capias, he will have a right to appear in front of a magistrate in Seminole County within 24 hours of his arrest, and thus formal prosecution will begin.
[edit by Snoopy] Google says,,,
in·for·ma·tion/ˌinfərˈmāSHən/
Noun:
1.Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
2.A formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury.
@nemerinys
"There is no special Neighborhood Watch cap that Zimmerman can put on and take off at a whim. When reporting a suspicious person or criminal activity, it makes no difference whether you’re on the way to the store, out walking your dog around the neighborhood, or looking out your bedroom window; you’re still expected to stay put and wait for the responding LEO, as would be done by any reasonable person."
The flip side to that, is that there is no law that Neighborhood Watch is not allowed to carry, no law that says they're not allowed to get out of the vehicle to attempt to maintain eye contact from a distance, etc.
There is no law that George broke by doing what he did. I've already stated I felt that getting out of the vehicle was misguided, but we have all the time in the world to judge in hindsight. George had a few seconds in which he apparently decided it was safe, due to concluding it was unlikely he'd end up face to face with someone running away.
As to the aggressor statute, it's not likely that will apply, as it will be up to the State to prove that George provoked an attack contemporaneously with the assault that Martin made on it, and the State has shown nothing so far to meet that burden. Even if the bulk of Deedee's account survives long enough to be admitted in the courtroom, that still doesn't suffice. "What you doin' round here?" is not a statement that generally precludes assault, and there is no evidence of George using any force against Trayvon prior to the gunshot.
George's story is that he was on the way back to the truck when Trayvon punched him. If the State cannot refute that beyond a reasonable doubt, George cannot be held as the aggressor as a matter of Florida law.
I dont normally read this site but some comments on another blog led me to this article. I found it interesting so I thought you might too. It is an article on the book that George`s friend has written that this person writing the article claims is not true content and will cause problems for George.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/09/01/chapter-one-the-osterman-book-and-the-dangers-of-misplaced-advocacy/