Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.
I dont understand how GZ leaving his truck negates his right to self defense.
It wouldn't.
The **possible** scenario would apply to that critical 60-seconds or so between the end of the girlfriends phone call at approximately 19:16 and the gun shot recorded in the neighbors call 911 tape.
During the time of the initial hostilities we have no evidence (that has been made public) as to who specifically was the aggressor. At this time either Martin or Zimmerman scenarios are equally likely. Given the presumption of innocence then there would (or should) be insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman.
Some assume for a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and other claim as a fact that Zimmerman attacked Martin, the reality is that we don't know at this point.
Obviously I am not a lawyer, but if two guys get into a bar fight caused by patron A, and in that fight B gets the upper hand and begins to do things that are not just 'friendly fight' type of things but lethal, then doesnt A still have the right to use lethal force in response?
Maybe.
Under Florida law if patron A has no prior conviction of assault and there was no other felony in progress, then patron A's action would be classified as simple assault (784.011) which is classified as a misdemeanor. If the fight escalated to the point where he feared death or great bodily injury then he could advance the use of force to include lethal force. However if patron A had a previous conviction for assault and then initiated the bar fight, has actions would be then aggravated assault (784.021) which is a felony and would fall under the provisions of 776.041 (use of force by an aggressor) and in this case under Florida law his actions would have negated a self defense claim.
I have always heard that when B refuses to stop when A 'taps out' in some fashion, then B is taking the violence to a lethal level and this changes the options legally available to A in response.
That is basically the second provision of 776.041 which provides that if the initial attacker is presented with a reasonable opportunity, as determined by a reasonable person, to withdraw and does not take it and continues the fight, then again they can lose the claim of self defense.
While I am asking stupid questions, isnt the introduction of a third party assaulting A in support of B not also an escalation of the violence that justifies lethal force by A?
I would think so, if the introduction of the third party was in a manner that continued to threaten patron A. For example someone jumps in and tries to pin patron A's arms, then yes. However if someone jumps between the two trying to separate them, then no.
Anyway, I think the law is getting pretty convoluted when it expects people who are getting pummelled to cooly analyze their legal obligations. Most people just instinctively know that you dont beat peoples heads on sidewalks and not expect some kind of escalation on the part of the one being beaten.
IMHO, that would be an incorrect interpretation of what the law is trying to do.
What the law is trying to do, again IMHO, is to state that if you are the initial aggressor and you are in the act of committing a forcible felony (murder, rape, kidnapping, unlawful detention, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, etc.) that you cannot initiate the conflict, have it escalate and then claim self defense.
Take for example a woman walking down the sidewalk returning home from the library. An unknown assailant grabs her and drags her into an ally. The unknown assailant then begins to beat and attempts to rape her. However she fights back - maybe she knows martial arts or grabs a short piece of 2x4 laying on the ground and beats back at the attacker. The attacker then pulls a gun and shoots the woman dead, the police arrive on scene and arrest him. In this case where the attacker is committing a forcible felony, he cannot claim self defense because she hit him with a board because he was the initial aggressor.
************************
Link to FL Laws -->>
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Title46/#Title46
>>>>
