Sorry, it's not "Period".
Under Florida Law, the event's leading up to that point are a factor to be considered.
I agree, to a degree. No "smoking gun" evidence has been released. However some of the evidence that has been released can be used by the state to undermine Zimmerman's story. For example, the 7-11 video shows no signs of "suspicious" or "drug induced behavior". The bullet path isn't consistent with Zimmerman shoting "up" into Martin. And lack of GSR could be indicative of a greater distance between the two based on an extended arm discharge of the firearm. Then of course we haven't seen the "clubhouse video" listed on the evidence list. If from security cameras and it shows no suspicious activity by Martin, then the very basis of Zimmerman's initial call and his description of events becomes suspect (and on the other hand if it does show suspicious behavior, it adds credibility to Zimmerman's story).
776.041 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.
The opening paragraph clearly indicates that the provisions of 776.041 allow for loss of self defense immunity (the preceding paragraphs in the law).
Paragraph "(1)" says the immunity is permanently lost if the individual was in the act of a forcible felony. Aggravated Assault under Florida Law is a forcible felony and would result either by : (a) simple assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, OR (b) assault coupled with the use of a weapon. Assault need not be physical violence, assault can be conveyed through word or intent, which is different than battery which requires a physical action.
Paragraph "(2)" notes that if the initial aggressor had an opportunity to retreat once hostilities are started and fails to do so, then they also lose self defense immunity. This is were the state could attempt to use the forensic lack of GSR on Zimmerman's jacket and/or shirt to indicate that a straight arm extension was present at the time of firing the weapon which would indicate a greater distance between the two. If Zimmerman had pushed Martin off, then pulled his gun and fired - he would have not have taken advantage of an avenue to disengage.
Paragraph "(1)" and "(2)" are joined by an "or", which means loss of the self defense immunities present in the preceding paragraphs can be lost under either paragraph.
Again though, those are scenario's which don't apply **IF** the defense were to show Martin was the initial aggressor.
>>>>
I am opposed to a wall of words. So I limit my reply to JUST the final section of your post, which I have highlighted in bold and some hideous green color.
Taken sequentially: Section 1 by its own terms does not apply at all since nobody has said that Zimmerman had committed was committing or escaping after the commission of any felony. Accordingly, if he had any right to the justification defense, section one does not remove it.
I havent said that anyone else has said it.
The first indication of this track may be at the self defense hearing. Or it may not. Well have to wait and see.
***********************************************
Agreed, including the point that the none of the evidence at this point supports EITHER Zimmerman or Martin as the initial aggressor and yet many on these boards have expressed as an absolute certainty one way or the other.
A very few of us understand that the hostilities were initiate by one or the other PRIOR to the first witness viewing the scene. Many want to base the determination of self defense solely on what happened later, but the nub of it as you correctly say is what the precipitating events were. If Martin initiated hostilities, then Zimmermans self defense immunity remains intact during the entire time cycle of the event. However **IF** Zimmerman acted as the aggressor, then it is possible for him to lose such immunity.
On this point we need to wait and see, we have seen the raw data from the forensic reports. What was not included was the expert evaluation of what that raw data means.
Physical evidence that may indicate Zimmerman and Martin had a achieved a degree of separation may (speculation) be indicated by (a) the angle of the bullet path through Martins body as a straight chest shot is unnatural when two bodies are close together and the gun must be inserted between them and then angled to achieve a shot , and (b) the negative GSR on Zimmermans cloths which also would indicate that he wasnt underneath Martin when the shot was fired. Lack of GSR would indicate that Zimmermans arm was extended away from him instead of inches above his own chest (because Martin was on top).
I agree.
Seems as if I havent read the statute differently then that, we however may be applying it differently.
Statutory construction is not as complicated as some people seem to believe -- even though the gibberish passed by legislatures often is needlessly convoluted.
Thats the truth.
By the way, in that regard, your analysis of the statute is incorrect. Since sections 1 and 2 were written in the disjunctive [i.e., the use of the "or"], the commission of a felony (section 1) does NOT permanently deprive a person of the justification defense (as you suggest it does) under the conditions described in the statute following the "unless."
Paragraph (1) does remove self defense immunity; however it can regained under specific actions outlined in 2(a) and 2(b). 2(a) requires that the aggressor must have availed themselves of escape if possible and 2(b) says that if the victim withdraws the assailant must accept such withdrawal and not continue or resume the use of force.
Under either provision for the loss of self defense immunity, the state will have an uphill battle making a case that meets the beyond reasonable doubt. To make Murder 2 (or even the less charge of Manslaughter though) they will have to nullify the self defense immunity claimed by Zimmerman and 776.041 is the only means to do that.
Not saying they are going to win, but if will be part of their strategy.
>>>>
He was yelling at the time he shot. Of course, the fact that he was able to shoot contradicts with the very notion that he was on the verge of blacking out. You're a moron.
That never happened, Martin never mentioned gun to his girlfriend.
