At 7/9/13 01:26 PM, Korriken wrote:At 7/9/13 01:16 PM, Ceratisa wrote: evidence points to there was indeed a punch to the nose, and his injuries were consistent with at least 6 other blows.Dr. Di Miao has all but wrapped this up for the defense. Unless the prosecution has some major up their sleeve for the doctor, it's more or less over.
Not necessarily. All this proves is that there was an altercation, which neither side denies.
Many people here are very much oversimplifying how self defense relates to murder. They tend to fudge two VERY important key issues: proportionality and reasonableness.
Many people here are mixing up generic self defense with the use of dedly force for self defense. They are not the same. For generic self defense the mere existence of striking by the victim is enough (except when the defendant struck first) to prove that generic self defense, such as a punch back, was warranted. That is NOT the case with lethal self defense. For lethal self defense their must be a reasonable fear, held by the defendant, that his life was in danger or he was in danger of serious injury (akin to losing the functionality of an organ, or dismemberment). While an altercation is evidence that such a fear may have existed it is HARDLY conclusive of such a fear. The existence of a gun or a knife in the hands of the victim is the type of evidence that is darn near conclusive.
The biggest issue here, and the point the prosecution should (and likely will be) hammering home during closing is reasonableness. The fear of death cannot just exist. Zimmerman's well documented belief that "they" (whether that be black people or youths, or both) cause trouble is not to be taken into account as that is a subjective view held by the defendant. So what we have is the question as to whether a husky and stocky man with a gun should feel like he is danger of death or serious injury after he was punched a few times by a horiffically scrawny kid who just happened to be taller than him. That is very much borderline. This is a factual question that jury must decide based on less than optimal facts.
Prosecution claims there was a generic fist fight. Defense claims he was getting curb stomped. Mere fist fight = failure of self defense (though not necessarily guilty of 2nd degree murder). Curb stomp makes a much stronger argument for self defense. As of yet, the evidence has been VERY unclear as to the actual nature of the altercation leaving this very important fact quite foggy.
There is one last issue that may cause problems as well, though it may lean more toward a nullification style ruling than one based purely in law. This is the issue that Zimmerman picked a fair fight (it has been strongly established and not disputed by the defense, that Zimmerman's actions were very threatening and could easily have elicited a reasonable self defense response from Matrin) and killed the kid because he was losing. While the law is fairly clear in that even if a person initiates the original violence, but the initial vicim then ups the ante, any act in response to the ante upping by the initial aggressor can be justified in self defense, it is unclear how the jury will see ths and whether they will punish Zimmerman for picking the fight even if they believe Martin upped the ante.
So, don't believe the NRA crowd in saying that this is a done deal. It's not. Not only is the law more complex than this crowd is purporting, juries can be very unpredictable.