Jun 14 2012
What Does Judge Lester Know About George Zimmerman We Don’t Know?
I have been crystal clear about why I think George Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter when he gunned down an unarmed Travyon Martin (and for all those who wanted to see the evil teenager who needed to be killed, I oblige above with a picture to haunt your souls). The early indications we had from the first sketchy information was that either this 17 old kid went berserk on Skittles, or George Zimmerman (GZ) was lying about what played out that night.
IF the latter is true (and I laid my bet early on that it would turn out to be true, based on personal experience with many other like-minded, vigilante types who get off on playing hero – with guns to embolden them) then I wagered Zimmerman was unaware of all the evidence around him. Especially the fact that a young lady was on the phone at the time of the incident and could speak to Zimmerman’s actions as she heard them, and as they were relayed DIRECTLY to her by Trayvon Martin himself. Without full knowledge of the perjury traps surrounding him, GZ was almost 100% likely to screw himself over while trying to gold plate his alibi.
We are close to seeing if my early observations do pan out, because now we are going to get the statements (but not necessarily a link to the contradictory evidence) that has given the State of Florida high confidence in a conviction of not just Manslaughter, but Murder 2.
This yet to be publicized evidence has been seen by both legal teams. The prosecution wanted it to remain out of the public because it would tip their hand before trial. And the defense wanted it out of the public because it would make his client look even worse than he does.
And then there was Judge Lester – who recently noted the evidence is ‘strong’.
There is some strange confusion as to how Judge Lester made this determination, but it would seem obvious in such a case like this with heated media attenti0n and hot heads on both sides. The likely event that exposed the prosecutors case to the judge (and defense team) would appear to be a pretrial conference of some kind:
Generally, the substance of a pretrial conference for a criminal case is the same as that for a civil case. At the conference the judge or magistrate may make rulings on motions, eliminate repetitive evidence, and set schedules.
…
Criminal defendants must raise some issues before trial in a pretrial motion. Pretrial motions are specific requests for favorable orders from the court on particular issues. Under the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, a set of model rules written by the American Law Institute and adopted by many jurisdictions, a defendant should lose the opportunity to raise the following issues if they are not raised prior to trial: defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or formal charging instrument; requests regarding discovery, or disclosure of evidence; requests to suppress or exclude from trial potential testimony or other evidence; requests for severing the trial in cases involving codefendants; requests for the dismissal of the case; and requests for transfer of the case to another jurisdiction.
Similar requirements are imposed on prosecutors. The prosecution must tell the defendant prior to trial of its intention to use certain evidence, such as evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure, wiretap, or other Electronic Surveillance mechanism; evidence culled from a confession, admission, or statement made by the defendant; and evidence relating to a lineup, show-up, picture, or voice identification of the defendant (Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure 422(a)(1)).
It seems very likely that in discussing the withholding of this evidence from the public, the judge had to review said evidence in detail. Thus we can answer some marginal questions such as this:
Interestingly, he [Lester] writes for the first time that the state’s evidence is “strong.” The state chose not to present evidence on the facts of the case at the April 20 bond hearing, relying instead on its affidavit. The only testimony at the hearing on the facts of the case came from the state investigator, called by the defense, who acknowledged weaknesses in the state’s case. The state’s affidavit of probable cause, which as has been endlessly discussed, was a one-sided portrayal with factual inaccuracies and no mention defendant’s claim of self-defense. It didn’t contain evidence of the elements of second degree murder.
No, it did not. And that is because both legal teams have clearly been pushing from day one for the hard evidence against Zimmerman (his own words) to be kept out of the public light. It happens, not all the evidence is public.
Florida statutes, rules and case law provide that the accused has a right to bail unless the state establishes at the hearing that “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.” If the state fails to meet its burden, the judge must set bail. If the state meets is burden, the judge still has discretion (as opposed to the duty) to grant bail. Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn’t make at the April 20 hearing — that the state met its burden under the Arthur standard of establishing that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.
…
Judge Lester made no such finding in April (you can watch the video of closing arguments and his ruling here), and the State never presented evidence other than its affidavit to meet that burden.
This argument against Judge Lester’s decision is handicapped by severe blinders. If both sides want to keep evidence from being made public, the Judge has to go along until he has the opportunity to do the research and make a decision on the motion(s). So, to operate within the request to hold back evidence normally made public, the obvious process is not to expose it during open trial events.
I mean – duh!
The argument being presented actually proves how bad this really is for GZ by explaining how unprecedented things are, and what the conditions must be for them to be proper – and unprecedented:
Case law in Florida since the 1950’s has held that the state is unlikely to be able to meet such a burden in homicide cases where self-defense is raised. An accused’s version of the manner by which a homicide occurred (such as self-defense) is generally accepted for the purpose of determining whether the proof of his guilt was evident or the presumption great.
…
Defendant’s version of the homicide can not be ignored where there is an absence of other evidence legally sufficient to contradict his explanation.
I am assuming everyone here is acting in good faith and within the normal parameters of the law (being seasoned legal professionals of the criminal judicial system). Which means that the reason Judge Lester is coming down hard on GZ and able to take the positions he has is because there is evidence legally sufficient to contradict GZ’s self-defense explanation.
Imagine that. Clear evidence that GZ’s story was rapidly and awkwardly concocted on the spot to cover up his aggressive and criminal decisions and actions.
Those who support GZ without question or thought will be tested very soon. Myself, if the evidence is weak I can switch positions in a second. I am not emotionally hooked to any outcome. My position has been to go to trial and let the process work – for the real victim here. A dead 17 year old American kid with so much ahead of him. The only reason I stand pat is as details have emerged, they have supported and not contradicted my initial assessment. It happens.
Only until I see proof beyond a reasonable doubt Trayvon was a mortal threat to GZ (instead of his stalked victim) I am not buying this self defense crap. TM had a right to stand his ground too. And that included not going home and hiding from a vigilante. Sadly, that would have been the better decision for the young man, but if he thought the coast was clear and began going about is business. That is not a crime.
And that is not an decision worth being killed over.
GZ stalked, confronted and likely initiated the physical altercation. That is my guess based on the character of Zimmerman and how he builds his lies and alibis. He looks to be the kind who lies easily (like in bail hearings where we now have two lies recorded regarding TM’s apparent age and his financial situation – where the coward had his wife lie for him), and he looks to build these lies by twisting events that actually occurred to his view. I truly wonder who came up to whom from behind and began this deadly dance.
I will end with this observation:
If the state wants bail rejected on June 29, it seems to me it has to file a written motion for pre-trial detention under the pre-trial detention rule, 3.132, and both produce non-hearsay evidence in support of the charges and prove there are no conditions that would reasonable assure Zimmerman’s appearance at trial or the safety of the community. If it doesn’t do that, then the court is still proceeding under the pre-trial release rule, 3.131, which requires the state to produce far more evidence, hearsay or otherwise, than it did in April, to establish Zimmerman is guilty of the charged offense.
Is it really a coincidence new evidence is becoming public over the objections of both legal teams? Not if the judge wants to free his hands in this situation. The judge rightfully noted GZ admitted to killing TM, so there is no issue with releasing more evidence of same. The question is how did this come about, and we may get some answers very soon.
Mata,
Here is one thing I do not understand about your argument:
if GZ’s life was not imperiled to a degree which is specified by self defense law, then GZ committed some type of crime – possibly or probably murder.
I do not see why a determination of who provoked or started the fight has any importance in determining which party was at fault (except as it relates to whether or not GZ is lying). The issue will be decided upon the question of whether or not GZ’s life was imperiled to a degree which is specified by self defense law.
If GZ’s life was not significantly imperiled, then he committed murder. Who cares who started what? I do not understand why you consider that relevant.
Also, in the bond hearing, the state admitted that it did not have evidence to indicate who started the fight. Therefore, apparently, the state does not consider this question to be relevant.
gocharn,
It has been stated too many times for you not to have figured out you cannot create or initiate the incident that then causes you to fear for your life and invoke self defense.
Simple examples (not to be used for comparison):
An armed person harasses an unarmed person to the point the unarmed person gets angry (but is not really a life-or-death threat). The person initiating a conflict cannot later claim he was in fear of his life.
Someone feels threatened (or uneasy) and leaves the incident to get gun and comes back. Once gone, the person should stay away and call the police.
Someone is breaking into property and stealing, and then you are threatened.
These are incidents where people stepped into a situation of their own volition – or worse created a conflict where one was not needed or called for.
GZ stalked and scared TM. TM has a right to stand his ground (and win a fight if needed). GZ should have and could have (and was directed to) avoid any conflict TM. TM attempted to retreat many times from a conflict.
It really is simple, and why GZ is likely to be convicted.
Okay, I now understand that you believe
1. a person who starts a fight
2. forfeits their right to use deadly force in the event that they are assaulted with a deadly weapon.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the applicable law.
You still don’t get it, gcotharn. Zimmerman isn’t charged with improperly executing a SYG or self-defense action. He is charged with second degree murder, which pivots around what led up to the condition that self defense needed to be executed.
So you are, again, trying to apply a law that has nothing to do with the State’s case for prosecution. They don’t care his head was being pounded because they believe his actions were responsible for being in the position to get his head pounded.
Let’s try this another way:
1: The State will attempt to prove that Zimmerman created the conditions that led to the death, and is guilty of all three elements of second degree murder. #1 is a guarantee… Martin is dead, and Zimmerman admits to killing him.
2: The defense will attempt to combat the State’s argument that Zimmerman was responsible for the conditions/meeting/fight, and then try to convince the jury he had no other recourse but to kill TM.
Even if the jury believes that Zimmerman had no other recourse but to kill TM, if they also believe – beyond all reasonable doubt – that he was responsible for situation to begin with, they have no choice but to convict because that is the *only* thing the state needs to prove.
mata, while I agree with much you said, when you were discussing some of the issues I had above, you completely missed my point on most of them. but let me be specific.
for example you quote me thusly: “RT: This can’t be true because clearly the defense is entitled to know the evidence against the defendant ‘prior’ to the trial. It can’t be ‘sprung’ on them without time to prepare a defense.”
now I read that as I don’t believe that the prosecution is allowed to spring evidence against you in a trial without the defense knowing it ahead of time. but apparently you thought my intent was something else because you said: “The defense files the requests for that evidence during the discovery period.”
Now I wasn’t the one that made the point, I was only commenting on the fact that AJ said in the post:”“The prosecution wanted it to remain out of the public because it would tip their hand before trial. ”
My point was, who did the prosecution ‘not want to tip their hand to’ before trial. As you said, with discovery and sunshine law, the defense should already have had this information but they are clearly saying here that if the information were ‘made public’ it would tip the hand of the defense. Doesn’t this imply that if they ‘would be tipping their hand to the defense’ that the defense would not already have this evidence. So are you in agreement that the prosecution should have evidence in their possession that the defense has not been properly informed about? I’m not.
Also, one of my key points, you completely ignored or skipped over and made no comment on. “are you ok with this judge going out to the public jury pool and making statements that the ‘evidence is strong against GZ’ ? You think that this is something a presiding judge should do? Don’t you think the judge should be impeached?
Would you be okay if the judge were making public statements basically that the prosecution was wasting their time that they had no case and should just drop the charges? It is exactly what the judge did, only for the other side.
“Such language of “legal lynching” is not only an insult to our judicial system ” how else would you define what the judge did? It is clearly an attempt at a legal lynching, but maybe it is easier to swallow if someone calls it justice. depends on perspective, I guess.
Different subject: “Without addressing the merits of the lawsuit, the court refused to hear the case based on no standing. This is not a determination that Obama was, or was not, ineligible. Only that the SCOTUS decided the candidates had no standing and thereby they won’t even touch the merits of the legal argument.” without getting into obama’s eligibility. This has to be one of the worst actions that could possibly occur by the SCOTUS. Every citizen in the US is directly impacted by the actions of the president and therefore every single person has absolute standing. for a court to rule as they did is the absolute epitome of shirking their duty. They just don’t want the flak. This is no different than an insurance company denying a claim and then when you attempt to sue them, they rule you have no standing. Exactly the same circumstances.
RT, to your questions:
The defense is not going to formally request possibly inculpatory evidence so quickly that it immediately hits the public on the sunshine law. The State is also going to keep their strategy as close to the vest as possible. Both have their own agenda.
O’Mara didn’t want to get the GZ statements in public at all, and the State didn’t want them out there to quickly. Both had their differing reasons for their respective delays, but had O’Mara wanted them the day after the arraignment, he needed only have requested them.
Of course I addressed it. Perhaps you missed it, so I’ll repeat it.
A judge’s fiduciary duty *is* to examine evidence, and make assessments as to their strength or weakness. This is how stuff get’s into trial as evidence to begin with, as well as whether a trial is held at all.
Your problem is that you are equating a judge’s review of evidence as strong as a “guilty” verdict. That’s not his problem, that’s yours.
And point of fact, if the judge had ever considered any of the State’s evidence was weak, it never would have gotten to the arraignment stage. Burdens are pretty tough on prosecutors so I would expect the judge to say the State has a strong case because that is the standard the prosecutors have to meet in order to get the charges thru the initial stages. Otherwise he would have dismissed it from the outset.
Impeachable? OMG… An absurd and drastic leap merely because a judge is doing his job in evaluating evidence. Secondly, if O’Mara feels it’s out of line and damages his client’s chances, he need only file a motion asking the judge to recuse himself. Word of advice… don’t hold your breath… I suspect you’re more outraged than he is.
It’s nonsense to attack the State or the court whenever you hear something you don’t like. You may have to get used to it, ya know. This was an order of bond revocation because of misrepresentation of the financial means. The behavior was so disrespectful that the Judge appropriately reiterated the seriousness of the situation. GZ is on trial for a crime that can carry a life sentence, and he’s not there because of lightweight or weak evidence, I assure you.
So this wouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone, except that the public has been swayed by a ga’zillion iconic talking heads, telling everyone they know better that there isn’t any evidence of for the charges. Everyone of them should have known that wasn’t the case… most especially in Florida where everything the prosecution has would be made public before the trial.
But it keeps the talking heads in the limelight with a devoted crew of listeners and readers.
Yup… SCOTUS can get most of us pretty darned frustrated. However I’m less concerned about them dodging Obama’s birth than I would be if they attempt to dodge the overreaching Congressional Commerce Clause power. It’s June… I’ll have lots of fun reading coming up because it’s SCOTUS opinion document dump month.
Mata,
I now understand what you are saying, vis a vis the importance of who started the fight. And I disagree with your conclusion about the importance of who started the fight.
You view the fight as one continuous event.
I see two events:
1. a normal fight
2. a fight with deadly weapons.
In my opinion, the verdict will hinge on who started #2, i.e. who started the fight with deadly weapons. If GZ started the fight with deadly weapons, then GZ is guilty of murder.
Re #1, i.e. the normal fight: it doesn’t matter who started it. Imo.
And, also, apparently, in the opinion of the state, insofar as the state testified that they do not have sufficient evidence to indicate who started the fight.
Could the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ started the fight, insofar as GZ is A] a liar, and B] an idiot with a gun, and C] the aggressor, i.e. the stalker who drove the action? I don’t see how A,B, and C constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, A, B, and C, taken together, constitute a hunch, but not proof.
Therefore, for the above reasons:
Reason 1: the identity of the person who started the fight is irrelevant
Reason 2: the state is unable to prove who started the fight
For the above reasons, I do not think any portion of the state’s case will hinge upon who started the fight. I take it as a given that you disagree, and I understand your reasons.
gcotharn said:
“To me, A, B, and C, taken together, constitute a hunch, but not proof.”
I meant this:
A, B, and C, taken together, can be the sources of a hunch that GZ started the fight. But, they do not constitute proof.
Conversely, there are evidences which may be the sources of a hunch that Trayvon started the fight.
sigh….
Why would I disagree? How many times have I stated that the State has *no* reason to prove, or to care, who started the fight because it is not one of the elements relating to the charge of Second Degree Murder?
The only ones that are likely to hang their hats on the fight, or who started it, will be the defense… but only in tandem with an attempt to place reasonable doubt in the jury’s minds that Zimmerman was not responsible for creating the conditions for the fight in the first place. The defense cannot ignore the events leading up to the fight without putting GZ in jeopardy.
Mata,
Let me restate:
What matters .. is who first used a deadly weapon. The rest of it does not matter —- including the conditions and circumstances which led to the fight: those circumstances do not matter.
RT & gcotharn,
I have to admit your gyrations demonstrate without a doubt you know very, very little about how the judicial process works. As Mata has pointed out many times, your reactions to standard processes and procedures prove your naivette.
There will be no impeachment for following law and precedence. The ones who need to be impeached are those posing as having a grasp of legal matters.
The judge ALWAYS knows what the evidence will be, and only STRONG cases go to court. It is one check/balance to control zealots working as prosecutors. He decides what is fair to present and what is not. He decides which motions pass or fail.
If you have not figured it out yet GZ is accused of creating the incidents that led to the physical altercation. The fact there WAS a physical altercation has never been denied. And the fact GZ was beginning to slightly lose the battle was also not in doubt. But the Murder 2 charge is shorthand for saying “an angry and out of control GZ stalked, confronted and killed an unarmed kid”. It really is up to GZ to prove his self defense claim is valid.
Was the fool (GZ) in mortal peril? Hell no. He was walking around the scene afterwards. He was talking clearly. His head injuries were superficial. He was in a fist fight – and that does not warrant a self defense killing.
Let me repeat, losing a fist fight is NOT a self defense for killing an unarmed person.
That alone would be manslaughter (shooting an unarmed person because you were losing a fist fight). But GZ did much more than kill someone because he was losing a fist fight (again, only slightly losing one).
He stalked an unarmed kid. He admitted to the 911 operator he was following the kid. He admitted to the 911 operator he felt the kid was suspicious because he was walking in his neighborhood.
Is that allowed? By itself yes. As reason to create an altercation and then killing someone? – no.
GZ made up easily disprovable claims for why he was not the instigator. Remember how he told police he was heading back to his truck? But where TM was killed was nowhere near the path back to GZ’s truck.
That is an out and lie. Instead of going for his truck, GZ went for TM. TM himself says this to his girlfriend on the phone. And I wager GZ gave a version of his story closer to this at one time during questioning (at least once).
If you have not figured it out yet, GZ’s story changed over the telling. That much is obvious. He was making it up, and when pressed for areas of inconsistency (details the police would note to get GZ to trip up) he probably lied himself right into the Murder 2 charge trying to fix his alibi up.
TM tried to flee the confrontation. This is not in doubt because both sides have stated this. TM’s girlfriend on the phone stated this, and GZ also stated it to the 911 operator when TM took off running and lost GZ the first time.
This act of fleeing by TM is why GZ is in the trouble he is in. When one party tries to avoid the deadly conflict they are NO LONGER THE AGGRESSOR! The one who continues to pursue the confrontation IS THE AGGRESSOR!
This is simpleton case law my friends. This is why who was winning the fight is irrelevant. It boils down to who was responsible for creating the conditions for the fight.
GZ was told AFTER TM was able to flee the initial confrontation to not go after TM. When he defied directions from the police and went after TM (well away from the path to his truck) GZ became the aggressor and TM was the one ‘standing his ground’ when GZ came upon TM the SECOND TIME.
Got it yet? GZ follows TM and TM flees. GZ is directed to stand back. GZ goes after TM anyway, clearly angry TM might get away. This the mindset and actions that go from manslaughter to murder 2.
The clear anger on the 911 call, the disregard of police direction and the chasing of TM while he attempts to avoid a conflict is why GZ is likely to be found guilty. These are the acts that he admitted to doing already. Then there is the post incident witnesses regarding GZ’s cold behavior (and whatever he blurted out then of course).
GZ’s claims about being the victim don’t work out at all. GZ was not chased. GZ was not cornered. GZ was not close to death from the fist fight. And he was not attacked from behind heading to his truck. That one also seems to have been completely debunked.
GZ was apparently caught lying and changing his story….
All the fantasizing about TM’s character will not work in court because it is irrelevant. And it is dangerous. If GZ’s defense team tries to go after a dead kid, they might get GZ convicted of more than murder 2!
A.J.
All of your above explanation
is contingent upon Trayvon having not mounted GZ
and having not slammed GZ’s head into concrete
in a way which created legally significant risk of death to GZ.
Which is why the case will be decided upon the question of which actor first used a lethal weapon. If GZ, then GZ was not acting in self defense, and GZ is guilty of murder. If Trayvon, then GZ was acting in self defense.
I note, from several comments above, that you believe:
1. a person who starts a fight
2. forfeits their right to use deadly force in the event that they are assaulted with a deadly weapon.
Therefore, you disagree with my assessment that the case will hinge on GZ’s self defense claim. I am pleased to clearly understand the significant places at which we disagree.
and, by “starts a fight”, I inherently intend to include creating conditions which are conducive to sparking a physical fight. Thats for you, Mata!
Not unless it’s a jury filled with those who believe in jury nullification, gcotharn.
The case will be decided only on whether the State can prove the elements of Second Degree Murder beyond all reasonable doubt.
Even if the jury believes that GZ had no recourse but to kill TM, if they believe the State conclusively proved the three elements beyond any doubt, they must convict.
To boot, even GZ and the defense panics, and feels they may lose, any plea bargain would have to be aggravated assault of a child because of Martin’s age. That carries a max of 30 years, compared to the life max with Second Degree Murder.
From what I can tell, you don’t “clearly understand” the disagreement at all since you seem to think a jury can just ignore the elements of the charge because they think Zimmerman was losing the fight.
Allow me to correct some misconception under which you labor, gcotharn.
No… the person who starts the fight doesn’t “forfeit” their right to respond to force with reasonable counter force.
It also doesn’t remove their right to over respond with unreasonable force… however the person who does that will pay the penalty for their actions by facing the appropriate degree of charges.
The one who appropriately, or inappropriately, uses reasonable/unreasonable force also doesn’t not lose their right to a trial by jury unless they choose to waive it.
Gcatharn,
Again your ignorance shines through. The fight which GZ may have been losing was created by his anger and aggressiveness. And since TM had a right AFTER attempting to flee to not only stand his ground, but WIN the physical fight (even to the point of killing GZ the stalker), his winning the altercation GZ initiated has NO bearing on the case. If you Perry Mason wannabes think GZ had a right to deadly force if TM was the aggressor, then guess what? Now TM has the right to deadly force if GZ was clearly the aggressor.
Dude, face it. You are so wrong it is sad….
Really sad…
Mata says
“The case will be decided only on whether the State can prove the elements of Second Degree Murder beyond all reasonable doubt.”
I agree.
Mata says:
“Even if the jury believes [1] that GZ had no recourse but to kill TM, if they believe [2] the State conclusively proved the three elements beyond any doubt, [3] they must convict.”
Problem: the jury cannot simultaneously believe [1] and [2].
Here are the three elements of Murder 2:
1. Dead victim
2. Crime was committed
3. Unlawful killing… demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life”.
Assertion A:
In order for the state to prove crime (#2), unlawful killing (#3), and depraved mind (#3), the state must prove that Trayvon was not a legally significant lethal threat to GZ.
It is not that I ignore the elements of the crime. Rather, I do not see evidence that the state can prove the elements of the crime.
Assertion B:
Note, A.J. disagrees with the above, b/c it is A.J. (i.e., not gcotharn) who believes that
1. a person who starts a fight
2. forfeits their [legal] right to use deadly force in the event that they are assaulted with a deadly weapon.
Assertion C:
A reasonable person cannot simultaneously assert both Assertion A and Assertion B. Such would be inconsistent with reason.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
re responding with deadly force
I was speaking of legal activity vs illegal activity.
A.J.
I note your opinions.
Wait, I have to respond:
A.J. says
“TM had a right AFTER attempting to flee to not only stand his ground, but WIN the physical fight”
I agree.
A.J. says
“(even to the point of killing GZ the stalker)”
If Travyon had accidentally caused GZ’s death, that might have been defensible action on Trayvon’s part.
However, if Trayvon mounted GZ and repeatedly slammed the back of GZ’s head into concrete, then Trayvon was taking action which was significantly likely to cause death. Trayvon had crossed a line: from action which might accidentally cause death (i.e. a normal fight), into action which was significantly likely to cause death.
A.J. says:
“[Trayvon’s] winning the altercation GZ initiated has NO bearing on the case.”
I agree.
A.J. says:
“If you Perry Mason wannabes think GZ had a right to deadly force if TM was the aggressor”
We do not think that. Trayvon’s being the aggressor had nothing to do with anything. Similarly, GZ’s being the aggressor had nothing to do with anything. In an assault case, maybe being an aggressor would be significant. This is not an assault case.