George Zimmerman Agrees With Attorneys, Won't Use 'Stand Your Ground' Law Before Murder Trial

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

SANFORD, Fla. - The former neighbourhood watch leader charged with fatally shooting a Florida teenager told a judge Tuesday that he agrees with his defence attorneys' decision not to seek an immunity hearing under the state's "Stand Your Ground" self-defence law.

Under questioning from Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, Zimmerman repeatedly said "yes" to a series of questions asking if he was aware he was giving up the right to a hearing before his second-degree murder trial in June. A judge would have sole discretion in an immunity hearing to decide if Zimmerman is exempt from culpability in the shooting. A jury would make the determination in the murder trial.

"After consultation with my counsel, yes, your honour," Zimmerman said.

The judge had set aside two weeks at the end of April for an immunity hearing should Zimmerman want one. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda had filed a motion asking that Zimmerman make clear his intentions on whether he wanted the hearing.

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/George+Zimmerman+agrees+with+attorneys+wont+Stand+Your+Ground/8315522/story.html

[heaven05]

1. Is

this a good thing for justice to prevail?

[hack89]

2. Most likely irrelevant.

it is still a 50/50 proposition.

[JDPriestly]

3. Yes. 50/50. Such is justice in the US of A.

[hack89]

4. It is hard when only one side of the story is told and there are no eyewitnesses.

I think he is guilty as hell but then I thought the same of OJ and Casey Anthony.

[Moostache]

7. OJ and Casey Anthony ARE guilty...

Just because they each were able to exploit flaws in the system does not impact their guilt.

Without incompetent prosecutions and circus-like media coverage of each, both would have been convicted and sentenced to life sentences. That's the price we pay to presumably keep innocent people from convictions - which is still a bigger problem than the high profile cases that get away with it...

[hack89]

8. I know they are - that is my point.

I would not be surprised if Zimmerman walks free - not happy but not surprised.

[Moostache]

9. Agreed...as soon as this case attracted so much attention I expected "Not Guilty"...(n/t)

[naaman fletcher]

6. I'd put it at 80-20

In Zimmerman's favor

[marble falls]

5. Now his defense will have to be, "I was walking around, minding my own business. I was attacked...

and forced to use a fire arm in the face of relentless unremitting deadly assault by Trayvon."

Not a winning gambit. I feel like he knows he's going to get an opportunity to plead down because by dropping 'stand your ground', he's openning the door to admitting some degree of culpability.

[gvstn]

11. I was thinking

That he would still use some form of Stand Your Ground in his defense. But this way he doesn't have a pre-ruling against it. In other words if he had the hearing and lost then everyone including potential jurors would know that it had been ruled that that SYG wasn't applicable. This way he can still use wording from the SYG law to help booster his self defense.

Maybe I'm way off on this but my guess is his lawyer doesn't wasn't SYG officially ruled out. Hence not asking for the hearing. FWIW, I didn't watch the court appearance this morning.

[marble falls]

14. Makes sense.

[naaman fletcher]

13. No,

The thing is that under the law he doesn't have to say he was walking around minding his own business. Under Florida State law he can even admit to confronting Trayvon verbally. He can then say Trayvon attacked him and he was scared for his life.

This is not a good thing, but that is the way the law is. Zimm is going to get offf.

[marble falls]

15. "confronting verbally", sounds like assault. He may plead down, but he's not walking.

[naaman fletcher]

16. it's not. sorry. /nt

[marble falls]

17. Around here getting into someones face can get you arrested. all it takes is to threaten, ...

verbally or through posture, or forcing the other person to move. Point a finger in his face or even having hands above the waist closed or open is considered threatening. Try it with a cop and see where it'll get you. Try it on someone else in front of a cop and see what happens. At the least you will be warned to stop it.

[pacalo]

19. "Florida state law" will never trump common sense.

Zimmerman's 911 call provides his motivation for confronting Trayvon. He was told to leave the area but instead followed Trayvon -- he was not afraid for his life; he was seeking a confrontation. He had a gun & surely he knew about Florida's "stand your ground" law; if he had to use his gun, he thought he would be covered (just like the guy in Texas who cited his gun rights before he shot two of his partying neighbors -- this guy's home is now in a prison cell).

Unless the jury is full of nitwits, Zimmerman is toast.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Once upon a time

I didn't think SYG had anything to do with this case. It simply didn't apply to the facts. Oddly, that has been borne out now, but I find myself in a different position.

The law initially resulted in no prosecution. The investigating officer (Sera) recommended prosecution to the DA. The DA (Wolfinger) declined, citing lack of evidence and SYG. So even though the law does not apply, and won't be used, I still feel it discouraged investigation and prosecution until the court of public opinion brought pressure to bear.


I live in WA. Some states have a duty to retreat. We do not. NOR do we have 'stand your ground'. You may stand your ground, but you will in most cases have to explain your actions before a grand jury who will either indict or no-bill you depending on the facts and your testimony. And that is how I like it. EVERY seemingly justifiable homicide needs to be investigated to ensure the victim isn't the one that can't testify.

I think Florida's law needs to change, even though I am a proponent of even lethal force in self defense, when the circumstances require it.

[krispos42]

12. Nice to see that I was correct on this issue

As the instigator, he was not "standing" his ground. Treyvon Martin was.

Hope he likes being in jail.

[Yo_Mama]

18. I never did see the applicability of Stand Your Ground doctrine to this case

According to Zimmerman's account, he never had the opportunity to retreat.

The hearing is granted under 776.032:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

And it would have to be under 776.012:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

So he could claim and has claimed that he was justified in using deadly force (gunshot), but the legal determination rests upon whether is account is true.

Why would any lawyer want an immunity hearing when trial rights are better protected? It's going to be a lot easier to convince one out twelve jurors instead of one judge that his story is basically true.

The question is whether it was lawful self-defense, and that would depend on the evidence presented. I can see why an immunity hearing would be helpful in the case of a carjacking or home invasion, because then all you have to do legally is establish that it was a carjacking or home invasion, and the presumption of self-defense is in favor of the accused. But in this case?