General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The stalking of Trayvon Martin was the INITIAL act of felon aggression PERIOD END OF STORY [View all]ctaylors6
(693 posts)so intent on this stalking part.
The DA didn't charge that and doesn't need to prove felony stalking. IMHO, that would be a very difficult statute for DA to meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden. The initial aggressor statute provides what I think would be more likely ways to win the case.
Here's how it should go. The DA charged Zimmerman with murder. Assuming that Zimmerman files and loses a pre-trial immunity claim, the following is how the burden should work at trial:
DA has burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin.
Zimmerman will claim that justification of self-defense precludes conviction for murder.
DA must then prove that it wasn't self-defense, which would almost certainly include arguing that Zimmerman was initial aggressor.
Both self-defense and initial aggressor are defined by statute in FL. DA must prove elements in statute.
Initial aggressor statute is key here. It provides that self-defense is not available to person who
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;
OR
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(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; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I would think it'd be much easier for the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman initially provoked Martin's use of force against him, rather than prove that Zimmerman "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed or harassed Martin and made a credible threat with the intent to place Martin in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person."
Furthermore, I think the prosecution would try to show that the self-defense statute itself didn't apply long before they'd try to prove felony stalking (ie even if Zimmerman wasn't initial aggressor, he wasn't justified in using deadly force against Martin).