company. okay. that s an issue. what about the rest of the instruction? the rest of the instruction, beginning with the line however the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find the defense has inserted the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt. you re going too fast for me. sorry. the line however okay. the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find the defense has inserted the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt at that point. okay. i see that. what is the purpose of that? i assume it is simply to restate what is said at the very last paragraph on the next page. convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. it is simply a second place to say it. if they want it there, we ll put it there, too. that s fine. that s not an argument. what is the next there s a larger issue here. they re not arguing with it being in there so we don t need to go there. well, i included this
as it relates to that instruction, your honor, the first line really isn t in dispute with the exception the name change, that being at issue in this case is whether george zimmerman acted in self-defense. the next difference is in the next sentence. it is a defense to mr. west has sa sa said i d like to argue my own instruction rather than having mr. mantei. i see what the differences are. the difference in what the lesser included offenses are. correct. i don t have an objection to the phraseology in the defense s proposed instruction such that it would read it is a defense to the crime of second degree murder and to the lesser included offense, whether we make that offense or offenses of manslaughter or manslaughter and third degree murder, i guess that s to be determined. but the way it is phrased is not objectionable to the state.
that s something that lee says that he never would have allowed. in fact, he suggested he advised against it. that s why he s talking out now. it seems like given what s come out in court where you heard norton talking about the decision to play that audiotape and also talking about whether or not he received instruction from his police chief about whether it s a good idea to play that tape. now is the time, he says, to come out and talk about his side of the story. his version of events. and why he decided, you know, playing that audiotape was a bad idea. but also about that investigative process. he wanted to make the point that when you look at everything that has come out through the court, his investigators did their job. he did his job. but, again, the difference is he lost his job. because he says of politics, which interfered in that investigation. and he makes that point in the interview with you. george, don t go away. we re keeping a close eye on the
instruction because unless the victim was doing that we don t have this situation. so if they don t want to allege that trayvon martin was committing any forcible felony upon the defendant, then what they re my argument would be what they re telling the court is they don t believe this is justifiable use of deadly force. didn t take it for a second that s their argument. that s the reason i put this language in here. response. yes. the state is seeking this instruction as part of a larger scheme, another trick that the state is seeking i don t want to hear the word trick anymore in regards to these arguments, please. we don t want that instruction. we re not claiming aggravated battery specifically so as the jury would be instructed on the elements of aggravated battery. the state wants the the court to come up with a definition of
be the supreme court has addressed the instruction and maybe that s addressed in montgomery. i think maybe now that law has be been the holding in shurose by the fifth district has now been addressed although not directly. i don t find a reference to that case in any of the subsequent case law, but i do see that montgomery from 2010, a florida supreme court case, does specifically say that the intent for manslaughter by act is the intent to commit an act that was not justified or excusable not justified or excusablxcusab which caused the death of, in this instance, trayvon martin. i want to be sure that we ve got that precise language. if that s what the instruction