Author Topic: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference  (Read 12805 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2012, 05:40:27 PM »
So they're going to have a Stuck On The Ground Hearing?

Lay Your Ground

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What O'Mara Says the Case is All About
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2012, 05:50:22 PM »
"We need to focus on what really happened.  And it seems to be drilled down to, Did George act reasonably to protect himself from great bodily injury?  That seems to be the issue.  Let's get down to it".

Anything relevant to Zimmerman's credibility is relevant to deciding if he acted reasonably.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What O'Mara Says the Case is All About
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2012, 06:08:45 PM »
Anything relevant to Zimmerman's credibility is relevant to deciding if he acted reasonably.

Well anything may be relevant.  What he says about what he saw while in his car is not very relevant to whether or not he was reasonable in shooting Martin.  It has much less weight than the relative injuries that each had, for example.  But since the prosecution has no evidence that he was unreasonable in his fear of disaster to himself if he didn't shoot, they probably will stick with the irrelevant. 

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2012, 07:15:15 PM »
Ok, O'Mara is right. He gets an immunity hearing for traditional self-defense as well as SYG.

 Three statutes are involved:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

Quote
    —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.

776.013 Stand Your Ground

 
Quote
   (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

and

Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

Quote
(1) 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.

The only difference the aggressor statute, 776.041 makes is that should he be found to be the aggressor (which I don't think he is), he would have a duty to retreat if possible. The aggressor can use the justification in 776.012 even though he provoked the use of force against him so long as:

Quote
    (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;

 When you are flat on the ground, beneath the person who is using force against you, and you can't get away or out from under them, and you believe you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death should the attack continue or they get hold of your gun, you have no means of escape. According to GZ, he tried to wriggle away and move his head to the grass, fearing he would lose consciousness, and that's when his gun became exposed and he felt Trayvon's arm reach towards it. According to GZ, he also cried out for help but no one came to his aid, they all went to call 911 instead. And according to Witness 6, he tried to sit up -- he saw his back lift up, but Trayvon prevented him. So he tried 3 avenues to escape the danger: wriggling away, crying out for help and trying to get up, and none worked.

My only question is why is O'Mara not using SYG? Zimmerman was not engaged in unlawful activity when he was hit by Trayvon, he was in a place he lawfully had a right to be, and his belief he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death if Trayvon's attack was not stopped was a reasonable one.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2012, 07:56:14 PM »
My only question is why is O'Mara not using SYG? Zimmerman was not engaged in unlawful activity when he was hit by Trayvon, he was in a place he lawfully had a right to be, and his belief he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death if Trayvon's attack was not stopped was a reasonable one.

Maybe he's trying to avoid the controversy over SYG. If he can get GZ immunity with "traditional" self-defense then the backlash if GZ goes free might be lesser. Maybe more significantly if Lester (or his replacement) is concerned about the political fallout he might be more inclined to grant a "traditional" self-defense immunity. The fact that GZ couldn't retreat is a huge thing IMO. It seems MOM wants to stress that. GZ didn't have a choice.

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2012, 08:45:41 PM »

My only question is why is O'Mara not using SYG? Zimmerman was not engaged in unlawful activity when he was hit by Trayvon, he was in a place he lawfully had a right to be, and his belief he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death if Trayvon's attack was not stopped was a reasonable one.


My understanding is that he is using SYG, the statute anyways.  He just thinks that calling it that is misleading as it implies that George had the opportunity to retreat and chose not to, while trying to emphasize that George was pinned down on his back and thus couldn't retreat.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2012, 08:52:06 PM »
Ok, O'Mara is right. He gets an immunity hearing for traditional self-defense as well as SYG.

 My only question is why is O'Mara not using SYG? Zimmerman was not engaged in unlawful activity when he was hit by Trayvon, he was in a place he lawfully had a right to be, and his belief he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death if Trayvon's attack was not stopped was a reasonable one.

There seem to be three things that O'Mara might try to prove by a preponderance of evidence at an immunity hearing:

1. Zimmerman was not the initial aggressor.
2. Zimmerman could not escape after the battle began.
3. Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his continued existence if he didn't pull the trigger.

During the news conference he said something to the effect that 2 has been agreed to by everybody.  He said at the end that 3 was what the case was all about.  Could it be that he realizes that he can't whip up a preponderance of evidence for 1 (Would he have to?  I have asked this before.) so he is saying the heck with 1, I can get immunity for Zimmerman by just establishing that 2 and 3 are more likely than not.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 08:58:40 PM by RickyJim »

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2012, 08:57:08 PM »
I had kinda wondered about that too but wasn't sure how to ask, but thinking about it, it doesn't make sense that he would have to prove each and every point by a preponderance, because to prove at least one of the points would mean proving a negative so to speak.

Proving he was in an area he had a right to be in would be easy, same with proving he was attacked.

 As for proving he wasn't the aggressor or doing anything illegal would be trying to prove a negative I think, so just pointing to the lack of evidence of him doing anything illegal/being the aggressor would be sufficient I think.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2012, 09:29:33 PM »
I got the impression that he self-defense immunity claim was another way of saying that he didn't think that the charge should have been brought.  He made mention that either way, it would eliminate any future civil claims against George Zimmerman.

I remember that Crump said that all the Fulton - Martin's wanted was an arrest.  Wasn't that to aid in any future civil claims?  Either against GZ, the HOA, the SPD, or whomever?

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2012, 03:43:44 AM »
I got the impression that he self-defense immunity claim was another way of saying that he didn't think that the charge should have been brought.  He made mention that either way, it would eliminate any future civil claims against George Zimmerman.

I remember that Crump said that all the Fulton - Martin's wanted was an arrest.  Wasn't that to aid in any future civil claims?  Either against GZ, the HOA, the SPD, or whomever?

I discussed this with someone on this thread (I believe the person is a lawyer, don't remember who it was specifically). From what this person said, or at least the way I read what they said, the arrest has no real bearing on a civil claim, and neither does Mr. Zimmerman winning immunity in the criminal trial. From what was said, if they filed a civil suit and the charges were dismissed due to immunity - whether granted at the criminal trial or in a civil trial - they (Team Crump) would have to pay all of the defendant's costs - which I took to also mean attorney fees, etc. I'll try to find where we were discussing that - I believe it was the thread I started asking about when 776.031 was invalidated. I specifically recall asking about the whole idea of "Team Crump wanting an arrest so they could file a civil suit."

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2012, 03:55:15 AM »
I think the statutes and case law are clear that if the judge in a Dennis hearing finds that deadly force was justified, the person is immune to further process, criminal or civil.

The immunity does not attach to third parties.

As I understand it, the city of Sanford is the only deep pocket, as The Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowner's Association is barely solvent.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What O'Mara Says the Case is All About
« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2012, 04:24:11 AM »
  But we can figure out whether Zimmerman believed he was reasonable in shooting Martin, which is what the case ought to be decided on.

Under the law it should be decided on what the trier of fact believes is reasonable, not what Zimmerman believed.

That aspect of traditional self defense law was not changed by the so-called SYG legislation. That is a canard spread by opponents of the law.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What O'Mara Says the Case is All About
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2012, 06:41:06 AM »
Under the law it should be decided on what the trier of fact believes is reasonable, not what Zimmerman believed.

The law says that both the trier of fact and Zimmerman have to determine if something is reasonable.  For example 776.013 says,
Quote
3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So you might argue that the jury is the one that has to find it reasonable that Zimmerman thought what he did was necessary (a stronger condition than being reasonable).  In an immunity hearing, I think the judge has to find it more likely than not (again a stronger condition than being reasonable) that Zimmerman thought what he was doing was necessary.  This is all reasonably confusing.   ??? ::)

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What O'Mara Says the Case is All About
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2012, 06:57:41 AM »
The law says that both the trier of fact and Zimmerman have to determine if something is reasonable.  For example 776.013 says,
So you might argue that the jury is the one that has to find it reasonable that Zimmerman thought what he did was necessary (a stronger condition than being reasonable).  In an immunity hearing, I think the judge has to find it more likely than not (again a stronger condition than being reasonable) that Zimmerman thought what he was doing was necessary.  This is all reasonably confusing.   ??? ::)

How does the part you quoted make that point? It says nothing about the trier of fact.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What O'Mara Says the Case is All About
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2012, 07:13:16 AM »
How does the part you quoted make that point? It says nothing about the trier of fact.

The word "reasonable" ("reasonably believes" in the statute) is code for a finding that is NOT in the hands of the accused, but instead is in the hands of the judge or jury.  If an accused could simply assert his belief is reasonable, then the word becomes a throwaway.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking