Question about the Trayvon Martin Case?

[Modevo]

If this had been a racially motivated crime against a white man, would it have received as much media attention? I'm mixed race by the way, so don't take this as "Oh, this white guy is trying to be a smart aleck" like many people would.

[Belowjob2.0]

Media attention? No, because it would have been investigated and prosecuted.

Here's a stand your ground case in GA, where a black homeowner was attacked by a threatening white guy, on the homeowner's property. Not a stranger or unknown person, but someone with a well documented history of threatening this man and his family. In the end, the black homeowner was found guilty of murder, for defending himself.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when...eton/#comments

[steronz]

Yeah, I've heard this brought up a lot, and it just seems silly. 28 year old black man shoots unarmed 17 year old white kid coming home from the store? Of course it wouldn't receive media attention, because the killer would be in jail.

[Marley23]

We don't know that it was a racially motivated crime. My inclination is that Zimmerman pursued Martin because Martin was black and wouldn't have found him suspicious otherwise, but that hasn't been proved in court or elsewhere, and once he made the decision to pursue him, I'm not sure anything else would have mattered.

That being said: I think that if a black guy had shot a white guy in similar circumstances, the black guy would have been arrested at the scene and prosecuted. So no, the case wouldn't have been more than a blip on the radar screen, although it's not impossible that Fox News or someone of their ilk would have used the shooting as part of a broader complaint that the media was ignoring anti-white racism.

[Gatopescado]

Originally Posted by Modevo

If this had been a racially motivated crime against a white man..............

How does this relate to the Martin/Zimmerman issue?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

You know what confuses me about this case? The fact that the stand your ground law seems to apply more clearly to Trayvon than Zimmerman but that nobody seems to be talking about it. By my reading, the law gives you the right to respond with force when confronted with aggressive harassment. Thus, Trayvon would be within his rights to punch Zimmerman in the face when he was confronted; under the law he had no duty to retreat. Zimmerman, on the other hand, was the initial aggressor in this confrontation. The stand your ground law does not give you the right to follow, hassle, confront, detain, or in any other way bother people walking through your neighborhood.

Does this mean that in Florida I can pick a fight with someone and then shoot them to end the fight?

[Hank Beecher]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

You know what confuses me about this case? The fact that the stand your ground law seems to apply more clearly to Trayvon than Zimmerman but that nobody seems to be talking about it. By my reading, the law gives you the right to respond with force when confronted with aggressive harassment. Thus, Trayvon would be within his rights to punch Zimmerman in the face when he was confronted; under the law he had no duty to retreat. Zimmerman, on the other hand, was the initial aggressor in this confrontation. The stand your ground law does not give you the right to follow, hassle, confront, detain, or in any other way bother people walking through your neighborhood.

Does this mean that in Florida I can pick a fight with someone and then shoot them to end the fight?

Following someone is not illegal, even though in this case it seems like a very poor decision. When people respond with violence to being followed by paparazzi they are breaking the law, for example.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Hank Beecher

Following someone is not illegal, even though in this case it seems like a very poor decision. When people respond with violence to being followed by paparazzi they are breaking the law, for example.

It was more than following though, by all accounts Zimmermin confronted and possibly attempted to detain Trayvon. Give me a few minutes and I will quote the relevant portions of the law...

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Hank Beecher

Following someone is not illegal, even though in this case it seems like a very poor decision.

The issue is not "is the other person breaking the law," it's "do you feel your are in danger of death or serious injury?" The law is about your duty to retreat (or lack thereof) when you have reason to believe someone is going to hurt or kill you. Here's the law.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

As I understand it, it's actually the next section of the law (776.013) that is the stand your ground/castle doctrine part, and immunity from prosecution part is 776.032.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Also this section:

776.013 (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Nobody but Zimmerman knows what exactly happened that night, but it is clear that he confronted Trayvon. Trayvon had no duty to retreat and was lawfully allowed to meet any force with force. Right?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Trayvon had no duty to retreat and was lawfully allowed to meet any force with force. Right?

The answer is in your quote: yes, if he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

It is such a stupid law. I am all for explicitly giving people the right to defend themselves, even with deadly force if necessary. But people should have a reponibility to retreat; force should be the last resort and only used if there are no other options available. I fully expect there to be more controversial deaths in Florida.

[Marley23]

The really stupid part and the part that caused this controversy is the "immunity from prosecution" clause, which is so idiotic I'm amazed anybody had the nerve to try to get it passed into law in the first place. I can understand that at least in some situations it's not reasonable to require people to retreat or wait to figure out what a criminal's intent is.

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The really stupid part and the part that caused this controversy is the "immunity from prosecution" clause, which is so idiotic I'm amazed anybody had the nerve to try to get it passed into law in the first place. I can understand that at least in some situations it's not reasonable to require people to retreat or wait to figure out what a criminal's intent is.

Exactly. since when can't a prosecutor at least investigate a killing. The NRA and cohorts got this law passed and IMO are largely responsible. As on other threads on this subject I wish we could start talking about these laws and how to overturn them without destroying the right to self defense any thoughts?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

As on other threads on this subject I wish we could start talking about these laws and how to overturn them without destroying the right to self defense any thoughts?

Unless you think Stand Your Ground laws and immunity from prosecution clauses are required for a right to self defense, the answer is pretty obvious.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

Exactly. since when can't a prosecutor at least investigate a killing. The NRA and cohorts got this law passed and IMO are largely responsible. As on other threads on this subject I wish we could start talking about these laws and how to overturn them without destroying the right to self defense any thoughts?

As a gun nut and second amendment fellator and self defense fan...hell if I know. I'm sad though that these national debate cases are always about race or some other bullshit, and the culture among gun nuts is pretty toxic.

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Unless you think Stand Your Ground laws and immunity from prosecution clauses are required for a right to self defense, the answer is pretty obvious.

No Marley I don't, I am very pessimistic about this particular case and IMO the discussion needed to start yesterday, It seems clear from this law that you can be aggressive and claim self defense, this is a gross distortion of the concept of self defense. This law lets you create a threat then defend yourself from said threat

[BigAppleBucky]

Barney Fife on self-defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo10xdN2Rds

Something tells me there was a lot of the 'ol Barney in George Zimmerman.

Tonight, Chris Matthews's show had numbers from a WaPo-ABC poll that showed 5% of white Americans thought Zimmerman acted in self-defense, 39% thought he was guilty of murder and 56% said they didn't have enough information.

I hold with the 56%. We just don't know. Yet.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

No Marley I don't, I am very pessimistic about this particular case and IMO the discussion needed to start yesterday, It seems clear from this law that you can be aggressive and claim self defense, this is a gross distortion of the concept of self defense. This law lets you create a threat then defend yourself from said threat

You forgot that you also have to not be black, that is the most important thing.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when...r_ground_fails

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by grude

As a gun nut and second amendment fellator and self defense fan...hell if I know. I'm sad though that these national debate cases are always about race or some other bullshit, and the culture among gun nuts is pretty toxic.

Well at least IDK is a good place to start, I think we as responsible gun owners are a little freaked when something like this happens, we tend to get lumped in with the same group that will do anything/say anything to absolve Zimmerman of any responsibility for his actions and blame a kid for his own death. Self defense is one thing, canned hunts a whole nother

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by grude

You forgot that you also have to not be black, that is the most important thing.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when...r_ground_fails

I know I know. Just trying not to go there and concentrate on the fact he was a kid

[Hank Beecher]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Also this section:


Nobody but Zimmerman knows what exactly happened that night, but it is clear that he confronted Trayvon.

Do we know that this for sure? Is it possible that Trayvon reacted to being followed by confronting and threatening his pursuer?

[standingwave]

Originally Posted by Modevo

If this had been a racially motivated crime against a white man, would it have received as much media attention? I'm mixed race by the way, so don't take this as "Oh, this white guy is trying to be a smart aleck" like many people would.

I think there are several reasons: Primarily because there were no charges filed and the appearance that the shooters' word was taken as a truthful account. Secondly, the release of the 911 tapes where you can actually hear the gunshot and then the release of the video of Zimmerman at the police station just 37 minutes after the incident showing none the worse for wear.

I think it's pretty easy to see why the media would jump all over this given the material they've had to work with.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Hank Beecher

Do we know that this for sure? Is it possible that Trayvon reacted to being followed by confronting and threatening his pursuer?

Well, this contradicts the girls testimony which, I believe, is credible. We also have the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car which is pretty damning, IMHO, with regards to who confronted who. But, again, nobody knows exactly what happened that night except for Zimmerman. Whatever happened, whether the shooting was justified or not, I do hope that Zimmerman feels remorse. Even if the shooting was justified as self defense, he created the situation and an innocent teenager is dead due to his actions.

[Hank Beecher]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Well, this contradicts the girls testimony which, I believe, is credible. We also have the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car which is pretty damning, IMHO, with regards to who confronted who. But, again, nobody knows exactly what happened that night except for Zimmerman. Whatever happened, whether the shooting was justified or not, I do hope that Zimmerman feels remorse. Even if the shooting was justified as self defense, he created the situation and an innocent teenager is dead due to his actions.

I think it is likely that Trayvon reacted to being followed by confronting and attacking George. If this is what happened then, in my opinion, Trayvon was the only one acting reasonably that evening, even if he was also the only one that night who commited a crime. It is a pretty natural and predictable young male reaction to turn and confront someone who is following you.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

You think it was reasonable for him to stop his car and get out while being confronted by Trayvon? Pretty stupid in my book. If he really thought Trayvon was a burgler or another type of criminal and Trayvon was approaching his car and confronting him for following him, Zimmerman should have backed off and waited for the police, not escalated the situation with a potentially armed potential criminal. Reasonable my ass.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by Hank Beecher

I think it is likely that Trayvon reacted to being followed by confronting and attacking George. If this is what happened then, in my opinion, Trayvon was the only one acting reasonably that evening, even if he was also the only one that night who commited a crime. It is a pretty natural and predictable young male reaction to turn and confront someone who is following you.

Also reasonable: He's confronted by an armed man who is not the police who tries to detain him and is shot while(from Trayvon's viewpoint) fighting for his life.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Oops, strike that. I misread your post Hank. Apologies.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

The thing is, according to the stupid stand your ground law, Trayvon would not be committing a crime turning around and physically confronting george.

[Hank Beecher]

Originally Posted by runner pat

Also reasonable: He's confronted by an armed man who is not the police who tries to detain him and is shot while(from Trayvon's viewpoint) fighting for his life.

Is there evidence he tried to detain Trayvon?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

The thing is, according to the stupid stand your ground law, Trayvon would not be committing a crime turning around and physically confronting george.

As already said though, that's not how it actually works out in real life.

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

Media attention? No, because it would have been investigated and prosecuted.

Here's a stand your ground case in GA, where a black homeowner was attacked by a threatening white guy, on the homeowner's property. Not a stranger or unknown person, but someone with a well documented history of threatening this man and his family. In the end, the black homeowner was found guilty of murder, for defending himself.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when...eton/#comments

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

By my reading, the law gives you the right to respond with force when confronted with aggressive harassment. Thus, Trayvon would be within his rights to punch Zimmerman in the face when he was confronted; under the law he had no duty to retreat.

Which part of the law -- and your reading -- makes you say that someone has the right to respond with force against "aggressive harassment?" Which part says that someone may punch if confronted?

Specifically?

I agree he had no duty to retreat. Where do you get that he had a license to respond to being asked a question -- even aggressively - with a punch?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Which part of the law -- and your reading -- makes you say that someone has the right to respond with force against "aggressive harassment?" Which part says that someone may punch if confronted?

Specifically?

I agree he had no duty to retreat. Where do you get that he had a license to respond to being asked a question -- even aggressively - with a punch?

If the confrontation is such as to cause a reasonable person to believe he is under imminent threat of greivous bodily harm, then he may legally punch the confronter in the face.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Belowjob2.0

Media attention? No, because it would have been investigated and prosecuted.

Here's a stand your ground case in GA, where a black homeowner was attacked by a threatening white guy, on the homeowner's property. Not a stranger or unknown person, but someone with a well documented history of threatening this man and his family. In the end, the black homeowner was found guilty of murder, for defending himself.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when...eton/#comments

But the jury didn't agree.

For one thing, black homeowner McNeil told the police that Epp came at him with a knife, but the knife was found folded in Epp's pocket. I notice you didn't mention that, and I assume it's because the Salon.com article you linked to describes the event in this way:

Originally Posted by Salon

McNeil quickly grabbed his gun from the glove compartment in plain view of Epp who was coming at him “fast.” McNeil jumped out of the car and fired a warning shot at the ground insisting that Epp back off. Instead of retreating, Epp charged at McNeil while reaching for his pocket, so McNeil fired again, this time fatally striking Epp in the head. (Epp was found to have a folding knife in his pocket, although it was shut.)

Why do you suppose the author of the Salon article left out the false claim made by McNeil to police?

The jury is entitled to conclude that since McNeil lied, his report of the remainder of the scene was also self-serving.

The Salon.com article says, "After a neighbor across the street who witnessed the encounter corroborated McNeil’s account, police determined that it was a case of self-defense and did not charge him in the death."

But in fact, the neighbor testified that when Epp increased his speed toward McNeil and McNeil raised his gun and fired at Epp's head, Epp's hands were at his sides, and the neighbor did not see Epp raise his hands or see any weapons in Epp's hands.

Why do you suppose the author of that article left out those facts?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Frylock

If the confrontation is such as to cause a reasonable person to believe he is under imminent threat of greivous bodily harm, then he may legally punch the confronter in the face.

Yes.

Very true.

But not simply "when he was confronted."

You're exactly right: the 'confrontation' has to be such that would cause a reasonable person to believe he is under imminent threat of greivous bodily harm.

Was it?

I don't know. And if anyone other than a member of the legal team that has seen all the evidence says they do know, they are mistaken.

Well, I guess Zimmerman knows, too. But unless you're employed by the state of Florida or your name is Zimmerman, you don't know what that confrontation consisted of.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Where do you get that he had a license to respond to being asked a question -- even aggressively - with a punch?

What in the law gives Zimmerman license to respond to a punch with a bullet?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

What in the law gives Zimmerman license to respond to a punch with a bullet?

A punch that bloodies the nose is "serious bodily harm." I cited the caselaw for that back in the IMHO thread - do you want it again?

[dontbesojumpy]

Originally Posted by Bricker

A punch that bloodies the nose is "serious bodily harm." I cited the caselaw for that back in the IMHO thread - do you want it again?

considering he's been arrested at this point for it, to you and your "knowledge" of the law i say don't quit your day job.

armchair wikipedia laws and trying to philosophically apply them however you want.

he's in jail for this now.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But the jury didn't agree.

Exactly as it should be. And now a jury can decide if it believes Zimmerman's story.

The outrage was (at least for me) because for quite some time it appeared that Zimmerman's story would never be tested by a jury of his peers but merely taken as true by the investigators.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Thus, Trayvon would be within his rights to punch Zimmerman in the face when he was confronted; under the law he had no duty to retreat. Zimmerman, on the other hand, was the initial aggressor in this confrontation.

I hadn't thought of applying SYG to Trayvon's actions, but I think you're right. Unfortunately, that just means that Trayvon couldn't be prosecuted for punching Zimmerman, and it may still apply to protect Zimmerman from prosecution for shooting Martin.

That seems to be a major problem with the law - it allows you to escalate the severity of the situation, and could possibly end up with a dead teenager and no one having broken the law.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

A punch that bloodies the nose is "serious bodily harm." I cited the caselaw for that back in the IMHO thread - do you want it again?

So you don't believe the law imposes a proportional response requirement in self defense situations?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy

considering he's been arrested at this point for it, to you and your "knowledge" of the law i say don't quit your day job.

armchair wikipedia laws and trying to philosophically apply them however you want.

he's in jail for this now.

Sure.

But I have no idea if he actually got a bloody nose or not, and I have no idea if he got the bloody nose because he grabbed Martin and tried to physically restrain him first or not.

Ms. Corey does, or at least she has access to a wealth of evidence that I don't, evidence from which she can decide what she can likely prove to a jury. Lacking that evidence, all I can say is IF Zimmerman merely approached Martin and demanded of him, "What are you doing here?" and if Martin responded to that question by punching Zimmerman hard enough to bloody his nose, then the law says that Zimmerman may use deadly force to protect himself.

Ms. Corey's decision to charge Zimmerman strongly suggests that the scenario I just laid out didn't happen.

[dontbesojumpy]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Sure.

But I have no idea if he actually got a bloody nose or not, and I have no idea if he got the bloody nose because he grabbed Martin and tried to physically restrain him first or not.

Ms. Corey does, or at least she has access to a wealth of evidence that I don't, evidence from which she can decide what she can likely prove to a jury. Lacking that evidence, all I can say is IF Zimmerman merely approached Martin and demanded of him, "What are you doing here?" and if Martin responded to that question by punching Zimmerman hard enough to bloody his nose, then the law says that Zimmerman may use deadly force to protect himself.

Ms. Corey's decision to charge Zimmerman strongly suggests that the scenario I just laid out didn't happen.

negative.
zimmerman was the interloper.

the ground on with "one could stand" was occupied by martin.

if your scenario PLUS martin approached zimmerman, then yes. if your scenario as said, no.

this moot to speculate on anymore.

you're the same dude who said he couldn't be detained (he was) and said he can't be arrested (he was).

clearly "stand your ground" does not apply to zimmerman, otherwise he'd be free right now.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Exactly as it should be. And now a jury can decide if it believes Zimmerman's story.

The outrage was (at least for me) because for quite some time it appeared that Zimmerman's story would never be tested by a jury of his peers but merely taken as true by the investigators.

Well, even before he gets to a jury, Florida law gives him the right to ask a judge to determine if probable cause exists. However, I'd be very surprised at this point to learn that Corey's team did not have enough evidence to support probable cause.

But I'd also be very interested in seeing it; it amounts to free early discovery for the defense.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy

negative.
zimmerman was the interloper.

the ground on with "one could stand" was occupied by martin.

if your scenario PLUS martin approached zimmerman, then yes. if your scenario as said, no.

No. If Zimmerman simply approached Martin and asked, "What are you doing here?" you believe that lone is sufficient to allow Martin to punch Zimmerman and bloody his nose?

What are you basing that on?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy

you're the same dude who said he couldn't be detained (he was) and said he can't be arrested (he was).

clearly "stand your ground" does not apply to zimmerman, otherwise he'd be free right now.

What I said was that he couldn't be detained without probable cause to believe the force he used was unlawful.

And that he couldn't be arrested without probable cause to believe the force he used was unlawful.

And both of those are absolutely accurate statements of the law.

Indeed, in the information Ms. Corey will file, she will allege that she has sufficient facts to show probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

[dontbesojumpy]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No. If Zimmerman simply approached Martin and asked, "What are you doing here?" you believe that lone is sufficient to allow Martin to punch Zimmerman and bloody his nose?

What are you basing that on?

the fact zimmerman was armed, had been skulking around following martin noticed for enough time that martin expressed fear to his gf and accelerated his pace to get away from the strange stalking man who didn't identify himself in any way, shape or form...

yeah, you get to kick that guy's ass when the chases you down.

jesus. that's why he's in jail.

on what planet do you think you can, in the dark, hunt down kids in the night and chase them for blocks and follow them and run after them with guns and not identify yourself and NOT expect some kind of self defense to factor in?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So you don't believe the law imposes a proportional response requirement in self defense situations?

I believe the law stands for the proposition that getting a bloodied or broken nose is proportional to deadly force.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy

the fact zimmerman was armed, had been skulking around following martin noticed for enough time that martin expressed fear to his gf and accelerated his pace to get away from the strange stalking man who didn't identify himself in any way, shape or form...

yeah, you get to kick that guy's ass when the chases you down.

jesus. that's why he's in jail.

on what planet do you think you can, in the dark, hunt down kids in the night and chase them for blocks and follow them and run after them with guns and not identify yourself and NOT expect some kind of self defense to factor in?

I'm sorry, but that's not the case.

He's in jail because there is evidence --which I haven't seen, but which must exist -- to believe the force he used was ulawful.

He is not in jail because, as you so cogently phrase it, "Yeah, you get to kick that guy's ass when the chases you down."

[dontbesojumpy]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I believe the law stands for the proposition that getting a bloodied or broken nose is proportional to deadly force.

you're nuts, man.

you're and advocate for murder.

i'm glad you're just an internet no-body with no say so in anything that matters.

wow.