15:30 in the following video will talk about esclalation and how the defense can make the argument that Trayvon escalated. First by allegedly reaching for the gun and 2nd by continuing the beating and increasing the force.
Right. That's what I'm talking about. That's a tricky defense, though unless they're trying to argue that the gun went off accidentally during a struggle. If Martin reached for the holstered weapon, then that is an attempt at escalation, but once Zimmerman gained control of the weapon, he has the deadly force and Martin does not. So Zimmerman does not have a self defense excuse at that point even if Martin is reaching for the gun because that's Martin attempting to defend himself.
"Continuing the beating" is problematical in that the defense would have to show that Zimmerman attempted to disengage, was prevented from doing so, and then somehow justify the escalation to deadly force.
Although, the attorney indicated it would be best for them to argue that Trayvon was initial agressor and Zimm following is not going to be sufficient to dispute that.
Yep, because that would make Zimmerman's claim of self-defense cleaner. It's the flip-flopping of self-defense that's the problem here.
Again, the agressor cannot claim self-defense unless the other party escalates threat of force or continues the fight after the agressor attempts to disengage or is no longer capable of fighting back. But once the roles switch, they can then switch back, and that's the problem here.
If Z was the intial aggressor, attempted to disengage but was prevented, then M becomes the aggressor and Z was acting in self-defense at that point. But if Z then pulled his weapon, he escalated force and then possibly became the aggressor again. The defense would have to show that it was not escalation of force because the beating was so severe. That's difficult.
If Z was the intial aggressor, but M gained control of the weapon, thereby escalating force, then Z was acting in self defense, until he gained control of the weapon and then again he might have become the aggressor once he had control of the weapon. The defense would have to show that Z gaining control and firing was part of the self defense against M's escalation, and that's difficult as well.
If M was the initial aggressor, that would make the shooting easier to justify in the shifting roles of self-defense.
Jury instruction will be a pain trying to explain all that and keep it clear on how the roles can change.
