In the year since it landed on the international news radar, the Trayvon Martin case has raised a global discussion about Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law. But in a stunning twist of events Tuesday morning, George Zimmerman’s attorneys waived their client’s right to a scheduled April 22 hearing that was to be held under the law that has sparked so much debate, ABC news reports.
It seems this case has been constantly hindered by prosecution’s slow compliance with discovery for the defense. Still I saw this initial trial as a quick way to get the murder case thrown out and George Zimmerman back to as normal a life as he could expect to have.
Any Insight?
I’ve been reading the lawyer’s blog every now and then; I think they are making the right decision.
I believe their reasoning goes something like this — Instead of focusing on a controversial but valid law, simply claim that under ANY standard of law Zimmerman was entitled to defend himself.
Then they don’t have to worry about the issue of Zimmerman ‘pursuing’ Trayvon or initiating the encounter. Stand Your Ground would be harder to defend if the prosecution convinces the jury Zimmerman shouldn’t have ‘followed’ Trayvon.
By focusing on the standard self defense; all they have to show is that Trayvon was assaulting Zimmerman and Zimmerman was in fear of his life — no matter who started it.
Interesting, and that makes sense. Also SYG has been under political threat, and this case is VERY politically motivated, so there’s that minefield as well.
Stand Your Ground (in Florida) just says that you aren’t required to retreat (even if you could) from a confrontation so long as you are legally allowed to be where you are. However, even without SYG – where the state wanted you to “try to retreat” – shooting was still justified if you could not retreat. Zimmerman’s shoot still would have been good – as he had no capacity to retreat while being pummeled (providing all the evidence so far points to the correct narrative). Why bother hinging a case on some new(ish) law, when it still is a good shoot even under the older law?
Also, (if what the MSM printed is the facts), the SYG hearing goes in front of a Judge, not a Jury. And since we all KNOW that there’s No Political Influence on a Judge whatsoever, in the EXTREMELY RARE chance that some Judge might have found some small technical violation of the SYG Law, such as “He didn’t use a Musket!,” or “The 2A only Applies to State Militias! My CSGV and MAIG Campaign Sponsors said so!,” I think throwing this over to a Jury will increase the chances of Zimmerman being declared Not Guilty. Remember, it only takes ONE Juror to free someone. Just look at O.J. Simpson.
Buy I can also see the Professional Racists to start Screaming “Rodney King! Rodney King!” and try to start some Riots, but that’s for another Topic.
It’s my understanding that SYG is irrelevant in this case, since—as he was on his back being pummeled—retreat was not an option in the first place. He doesn’t need to defend his right to not retreat under SYG.
Living here in Central Florida, I can tell you that this case is a political hot potato. Not only that, but the lines here have been drawn, largely down a racial divide. These facts mean that it is unlikely that a judge will dismiss the charges in a SYG hearing.
The judge has already said that he will not delay the trial to allow time for a SYG hearing, meaning that with less than 90 working days to trial, the last thing that the attorney wants to do is spend 10 of those days in hearings, and another 20 of those days prepping for the hearing. Especially since the prosecution has been doing all that it can to delay and slow down the discovery process.
These tactics are all designed to outspend the defendant and ensure that he runs out of money and becomes defenseless. This system is not about finding the truth, it is about winning at all costs, and the winner is generally the party with the most money.
I think they waived it for the simple fact that the actual case does not fall under stand your ground. SYG only applies when you physically CAN run but don’t vs being UNABLE to run*. And the fact that the defense would have to show all or most of it’s cards and give the prosecution more time to prepare for the defenses defense.
*I can’t really word it better but what I mean in the sentence above basically means in SYG if you can physically run, such as you aren’t being held down, or you’re not in a dead end alley, or no broken legs and the like, it doesn’t matter. Whereas in non SYG states if you can run, you have to run no matter what, even if the choice is being shot in the front, being shot in the back, or shooting someone, they want you to always pick being shot in the back over the other two.
Massad Ayoob has said (and I can agree with the reasoning) that SYG doesn’t really change things. It’s not the great game-changing revelation that pro-rights folks think it is, and it’s not the abomination the anti-rights people think it is.
SYG removes the Duty to Retreat (DTR), but DTR exists in the first place only if it can be done safely (most laws I’ve read use the phrase “in complete safety”). If the assailant has a gun, there’s nowhere to run “in complete safety”, so DTR doesn’t apply. On the other hand, if he has a knife/bat/club/etc. and is across the room, and you have a door you can close and lock, then you must try that first; but then again that is not technically a lethal-force scenario (Ability: yes, Opportunity: NO, Jeopardy: not quite). The legal definitions don’t change.
Now that I’ve said that, I approve of SYG because of the one thing it does change: the lessening of the armchair-quarterbacking done after-the-fact (and ironically, “in complete safety”). It means that, if caught up in a dangerous situation, you can focus more on ending the threat without having to worry so much about the aftermath and legal definitions. I know that if I’m threatened by a man with a knife/bat/club/etc., I want be free to focus on the assailant, and not have to look left/right/up/down/diagonal/inverted for a “safe” exit.
I think the answer is billable hours. The SYG hearing could have been done a year ago with the evidence avaliable. The “stalking” doesn’t matter, the “skittles” don’t matter, the evidence and eye witnesses support the self defense shooting. I think the lawyer is either making money off this case or has a strategy of waiting, kinda like fouling the last 2 minutes of a basketball game when you are down 20 points. If it’s the latter case, it sounds like the lawyer has already given up.
Here is what the local paper says
Lawyer: State’s main witness in George Zimmerman murder case lied
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-witness-8-medical-records-20130305,0,129597.story
and
George Zimmerman defense ponders request to combine ‘stand your ground’ hearing with trial
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-trial-20130217,0,5860839.story
I wonder if they were getting hints that the judge wasn’t going to dismiss the charges before the actual trial, even if the evidence at the SYG hearing was overwhelming. This thing has gotten so political, it wouldn’t surprise me if the judge herself was giving those hints “off the record” simply because she didn’t want the political fallout of ruling in his favour. At least at the trial, she can shuffle blame onto the jury.
Also, if I understand correctly, the defense can still raise the issue at trial – possibly at the start – and deny the
persecutorprosecutor an early look at his strategy that would give her almost 2 months to prepare a response to anything she hadn’t anticipated.