View Single Post
Old 06-13-2019, 10:55 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,193
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I agree it is illegal to attack someone for following you.
I agree.
It is not illegal to defend yourself from unlawful arrest.
I agree.
We agree it is illegal to protect yourself.
I assume you meant "legal" rather than "illegal". If so, I agree.
It is relevant because you said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being questioned.
That was the last thing that happened before Zimmerman attacked, if that is what you mean.
If Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed himself to be in danger (which he was because Zimmerman had the intent to unlawfully arrest him), his attack is justified.
We don't know that Zimmerman had that intent. And again, if Zimmerman's intention was to arrest, why did he call the police? Wouldn't that mean Zimmerman was taking the rather large risk that the police would show up and see him illegally arresting Martin?
We know from Martinís phone call that he believed/knew Zimmerman was intending to harm him in some way.
No, we don't know that. There is nothing in Dee Dee's testimony that establishes this.

And, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why would he double back, after he and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, and seek Zimmerman out to confront him?
If Martin did not believe Zimmerman was going to harm him and he attacked him for asking a question, that would be an assault by Martin. This is why I believe Martinís reason for attacking Zimmerman is relevant.
I also agree with this.

Martin attacked Zimmerman - that is, he initiated violence - because Zimmerman had been following him, and also because Zimmerman asked him (according to Dee Dee) what he was doing. Following someone, and asking what they are doing, is neither harm nor the threat of harm. And to repeat, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman harming him, why did he double back from his father's house and confront Zimmerman?
If Zimmerman had his gun out, would you believe Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?
Yes, it would be justified. It would be stupid, because punching people with guns in their hand is a bad idea, but legally it would be justified.

But the evidence indicates that Martin did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, because he doubled back and confronted and attacked him. Therefore, it is unlikely that Martin feared harm from Zimmerman, since he could have walked into his own living room. He didn't - he went back and sought Zimmerman out.
In any case the harm we know Zimmerman intended was the arrest of Martin. We know this because if he simply was looking for an address to meet with police, he could have stayed at the mailboxes.
No, we don't know that, because there is no evidence that it is so, and some evidence that it isn't so.
Zimmerman called the police so that they could arrest Martin. Once he had lost sight of Martin, he didnít think the police would be able to find him, so he set out to get Martin himself.
Again, there is no evidence that this is so.

Zimmerman spotted Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. Zimmerman then calls the NEN operator and follows Martin. The NEN operator advises Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman and Martin lose sight of each other, Martin makes it back to his father's house, Zimmerman then tries to find a house number or street name to arrange an exact location to meet up with the police. (You can't see house numbers from the back, which is why Zimmerman went between the houses to look for them), and then was confronted and attacked by Martin when Zimmerman was coming back to where he arranged to meet the police. Martin comes back from his father's house, finds Zimmerman, they exchange words, and Martin attacks.
Is it illegal to unlawfully arrest someone?
Yes, by definition whatever is unlawful is illegal.
If it is, it is also illegal to stalk them with intent to arrest them.
As mentioned, there is no evidence of Zimmerman's intent to arrest Martin. That's something you are assuming, and there is evidence to suggest that the assumption is incorrect.
You donít get out of a truck to look for an address. You can see street names and numbers from a vehicle, they are designed for that purpose. He got out of the truck for another reason. If it wasnít to get an address and it wasnít to apprehend Martin, what was it?
It was to get an address. You can't see the street names from the back. The back is where Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked him.
Are you justified in defending yourself from unlawful arrest? If so at what point in the following scenario are you justified in doing so?

1)A man gets out of his car.

2)He pursues you for 15 minutes straight.

3)He confronts you with a holstered weapon and questions you.

4)He unholsters the weapon.

5)He aims it at you and tells you to lie on the ground.

Please keep in mind that if you wait for number 4 to occur, thereís a good chance you die.
Somewhere between 3 and 4. But you have left out a couple of intervening steps, which are

2a) You are a few steps from a place of perfect safety

2b) You do not have any reason to believe he has a gun


3a) It is illegal to attack people for asking you questions whether you know they have a gun or not

3b) If, because he followed you and then asked you what you were doing, you knock him down, break his nose, blacken his eyes, and sit on his chest smashing his head against the ground, it is likely to lead eventually to step 4, and he is legally justified (all other things being equal) in doing so.