This morning, Megyn Kelly conducted an excellent interview with both Alan Dershowitz and Bernie Goldberg regarding George Zimmerman and the issues that will define a successful claim of self-defense. Kelly did a marvelous job of handling the give and take between her guests, leading to specifics like a “perfect” and “imperfect” self-defense being explained by Dershowitz…who then went on to claim that it doesn’t make any difference WHO started the initial encounter.
In Florida, the defendant is accorded “perfect” self-defense even if he started the confrontation. Many states have “imperfect” self-defense that would consider the fact that your actions may have led up to the confrontation, and thus you would not be safe from criminal prosecution. Kelly said she believes the prosecution’s case will in all probability come down to the written testimony of the police officer who wrote that the incident could have been avoided had Zimmerman not confronted Martin. Dershowitz’s response? “There is no such thing as a “But-If” clause. Really, an excellent interview.
Treeper Jello333 provides this to the tip line: It looks like Crump and the media are about to start a new tactic: “If only Zimmerman hadn’t left his vehicle none of this would have happened. So it’s all ultimately his fault no matter what happened later.” So here’s my answer to that: (more…)
