# Are you Team Trayvon or Team Zimmerman? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881 "2012-03-26T21:27:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 48
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/941 "2012-04-01T00:36:34Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You and others read news stories and then create a narrative of what you think happened that night. I don’t do that. I am simply happy to wait and let our society’s truth-finding function do it’s thing. You can, it goes without saying, provide specific examples proving that I, **Vinyl Turnip** , “read news stories and create a narrative of what I think happened that night.” Right? Otherwise you wouldn’t say it, because unlike the liberal douches you hold in contempt, \*you \*don’t make generalizations you can’t back up with evidence, right? Otherwise you’d look like a real fucking asshole, wouldn’t you? Take all the time you need to hunt down the links and lay out the narrative I’ve created. If you need assistance, I’ll provide some billable hours. > [@Rand Rover](#): > > So, it is not the case that I think Zimmerman’s actions were justified or not a crime or anything like that. I simply have not created my own personal version of events, so I have not taken a position on the ultimate issues. Your vehement opinionlessness is truly an inspiration. I’ve nominated you for the Beige Star, but be warned that you face some limp competition from **brazil84**. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/942 "2012-04-01T00:37:54Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Would you agree that this shit-storm began because weeks after the shooting, **it appeared** very clear that our society’s “truth finding function” **appeared to be** doing nothing of the sort, and seemed rather to be more of a “sweeping under the rug” function? I agree with that–the shitstorm started because people thought the authorities were going to do nothing. Whether that is actually the case or not is not proven at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/943 "2012-04-01T00:57:07Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I agree with that–the shitstorm started because people thought the authorities were going to do nothing. Whether that is actually the case or not is not proven at this point. Here’s a timeline of events[from ABC](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/trayvon-martin-case-timeline-of-events/): > [@](#): > > Feb. 26: Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Florida high school student, is found shot and killed in Sanford, Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. > > March 9: Trayvon Martin’s family demands that police release the 911 tapes or make an arrest nearly one month after Martin was killed. Police declined to comment at the time, but told ABC News the tapes would be released the following week. > > March 13: ABC News uncovers questionable police conduct in the investigation of the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. Sanford Police Chief Billy Lee said there is no evidence to dispute George Zimmerman’s assertion that he shot Martin out of self defense. > > March 18: Trayvon Martin’s family asks U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the FBI to get involved in the investigation of their son’s death. Now you tell me - does that look like the authorities were conducting a thorough and professional investigation? Of course NOW the investigation is taking place. But only after the public shit-storm. To me, it looks very much like a MONTH after the killing, the local police were content to just let this case disappear. As an aside - common courtesy dictates that you indicate that you bolded certain comments when you quoted me. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/944 "2012-04-01T01:21:56Z")
How would any reasonable human consider March 9 to be ‘nearly one month’ after February 26? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/945 "2012-04-01T01:50:26Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I agree with that–the shitstorm started because people thought the authorities were going to do nothing. **Whether that is actually the case or not is not proven at this point.** That bolded part appears to describe the case in the universe outside this thread, as well as within it. There’s something a little bit disturbing about that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/946 "2012-04-01T02:07:08Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > How would any reasonable human consider March 9 to be ‘nearly one month’ after February 26? It’s an ABC copy editor/reporter. Not a reasonable human. Let’s make it “nearly two weeks” for those of us with a working calendar. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/947 "2012-04-01T02:20:27Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > How would any reasonable human consider March 9 to be ‘nearly one month’ after February 26? _Disclaimer: The following is an attempt to overlay the characterizations made by a television news organization upon the spectrum of what might be “considered” by “any reasonable human,” and should not be construed as actually “reasonable.”_ Well, one is in **February** , don’tcha see, and the other is in **March** , which is a month later than February. Don’tcha see. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/948 "2012-04-01T04:46:16Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This is the part I don’t get. Where does this certainty that Martin attacked Zimmerman come from when we havent seen evidence that the guy was even injured? I saw this earlier today. Not sure how it fits with the surveillance video: A man who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes Sanford Community where George Zimmerman lives and where 17-year old Trayvon Martin was killed, talked exclusively to FOX35 Friday about what he saw on Zimmerman’s face less than 24-hours after the shooting. “I saw George, he was banged up,” he said. The man, who didn’t want his identity revealed, said he saw bandages on Zimmerman’s nose and on the back of his head and well as lumps on his face. [http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/033112-George-Zimmerman%27s-neighbor-describes-his-injuries](http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/033112-George-Zimmerman%27s-neighbor-describes-his-injuries) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/949 "2012-04-01T04:52:51Z")
> **[Orlando Sentinel: Forensic voice identification expert says screaming is not...](https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/31/1079557/-Orlando-Sentinel-Forensic-voice-identification-expert-says-screaming-is-not-George-Zimmerman-s?detail=hide)** > > Artist: Amaryllis DeJesus Moleski One of the key pieces of evidence in the Trayvon Martin shooting case in Sanford, Fla., is who is heard screaming and crying for help shortly before the 17-year-old ... **Forensic Voice Identification Experts Says Screaming Is Not George Zimmerman** > [@](#): > > …“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare… ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/950 "2012-04-01T04:57:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [Orlando Sentinel: Forensic voice identification expert says screaming is not George Zimmerman's](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/31/1079557/-Orlando-Sentinel-Forensic-voice-identification-expert-says-screaming-is-not-George-Zimmerman-s?detail=hide) > > **Forensic Voice Identification Experts Says Screaming Is Not George Zimmerman** Stop bothering us with the facts! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/951 "2012-04-01T05:01:51Z")
Many’s the time I’ve heard such an argument, or non-argument. That the facts are unclear, there is more evidence to be considered, one must not rush to make judgement. Every time I’ve heard it said, its said in a calmly reasoned voice. Uncertainty is not generally a vociferous state. One does not seize another by the lapels and scream into their face when advocating for open-minded consideration and examination. But here we are witness to advocates for calm inspection tearing their hair and setting their balls on fire while they shriek invective. Their faces redden, the veins stand out in their necks as they call for cool deliberation. Gotta love it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/952 "2012-04-01T05:05:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [Orlando Sentinel: Forensic voice identification expert says screaming is not George Zimmerman's](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/31/1079557/-Orlando-Sentinel-Forensic-voice-identification-expert-says-screaming-is-not-George-Zimmerman-s?detail=hide) > > **Forensic Voice Identification Experts Says Screaming Is Not George Zimmerman** Oh luc, you know you can’t trust those reaity based libbys at the Kos! I listened to all the 911 calls the other day and one in particular was incredibly disturbing because you can hear Martin very well in the background and the only way to describe it heartbreaking: his tone is plaintive, desperate, and he sounds very young… He sounds very much like he sees a gun, understands clearly that he is facing death, and is pleading for all he’s worth for it not to be so, for someone to stop what he _knows_ is about to happen. He does NOT sound like a grown man being beaten with fists. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/953 "2012-04-01T05:07:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But here we are witness to advocates for calm inspection tearing their hair and setting their balls on fire while they shriek invective. Their faces redden, the veins stand out in their necks as they call for cool deliberation. > > Gotta love it. Gotta love you. And I do as much as ever, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/954 "2012-04-01T05:15:10Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Stoid, that was terrific. Well researched, and finally getting to one of the cruxes of this case: what range of behaviors can we reasonably expect when one person follows another person around a neighborhood like this? Aw shucks [toe in the dirt] 'tweren’t nuthin…\ I have more…stay tuned…(I love this research stuff, weirdly enough. Sit me down in front of a screen with full LexisNexis access and I’m happier than a pig in shit. And the cost of that would floor you. One of my lawyer-advisors let me use her account… I ran up over $600 in charges in one month just digging out cases! Ooops.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/955 "2012-04-01T06:07:22Z")
> [@standingwave](#): > > I saw this earlier today. Not sure how it fits with the surveillance video: > > A man who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes Sanford Community where George Zimmerman lives and where 17-year old Trayvon Martin was killed, talked exclusively to FOX35 Friday about what he saw on Zimmerman’s face less than 24-hours after the shooting. > > “I saw George, he was banged up,” he said. > > The man, who didn’t want his identity revealed, said he saw bandages on Zimmerman’s nose and on the back of his head and well as lumps on his face. > > [http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/033112-George-Zimmerman%27s-neighbor-describes-his-injuries](http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/033112-George-Zimmerman%27s-neighbor-describes-his-injuries) Is it my imagination or is it that every time some anonymous “witness” surfaces against Martin, its carried on the local Fox news channel? And nowhere else? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/956 "2012-04-01T06:13:58Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Is it my imagination or is it that every time some anonymous “witness” surfaces against Martin, its carried on the local Fox news channel? And nowhere else? What I love is how for some folks it then morphs into “evidence”. Oh wait, just because they call it “evidence” does not mean that they meant it was “evidence”. They meant it was a rumor. Or something like that - they make me confused. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/957 "2012-04-01T06:14:00Z")
Zimmerman claimed he was beaten to within an inch of his life, but the video clearly shows not a mark on him. He claimed he shot the boy in he chest while they were so close as to be wrestling with each other, but there isn’t a speck of blood on him or his clothes. He claimed he was being attacked, but the only one crying for help on the tape is Martin. _His self-defense claim is a lie._ This is proven by multiple pieces of OBJECTIVE, PHYSICAL evidence that do not rely on your opinion of ANY person’s credibility. What else could possibly matter? The central issue is why he shot him and he’s been caught in multiple lies about it. To claim to not have an opinion about this is, itself, immoral. Lock this animal up before he executes again. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/958 "2012-04-01T12:22:20Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > I’ll just leave this previous quote here. " Per that statute, provocation is not "mere words or conduct without force.“Gibbs v. State,789 So.2d 443, 444–45 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001).” Weasel. Weasel, weasel, weasel. Dodge. Weasel. We’ll talk about your case in just a minute, but I want to pause to reflect on how much you are weaseling. First, Shodan makes a point about the issue of provocation. I reply with the statute and quote a professor of law. I outline the questions that need to be answered by a jury in order to determine if Z. Can assert self defense or if the provocation issue precludes it. I make no assertion about what will be found, but do offer my opinion about what I personally believe is likely and provide some information about why. 

You respond by pointing to the part of the chapter that describes what qualifies as justifiable use of force as though there is something meaningful that changes what I had said but without in any way identifying what that would be. You decline to flat out accuse me of being disingenuous for omitting it, electing instead to mock me as ignorant about how statutes work, case law, appeals, forcible detainer, and court staff, noting that you could go on. I point out to you that the section you quoted makes no difference to the point I was making, then give you what you felt I had left out, and then some: the whole chapter, both pre and post SYG changes. I identified the parts of the chapter and how they progressed. Then I politely asked you a direct question: > [@Stoid](#): > > So now can you clarify for me why you feel that my failure to include section 776.012 had to be either gross ignorance of what vitally important truth or a deliberate attempt to avoid which damning reality? Which you ignored, choosing instead to complain about your brain’s struggle to deal with colored fonts. Then you started in about how I understood Shodan, but you declined to be direct, and expressed yourself in such a way as to suggest that I was incapable of understanding what Shodan had written or that I was myself trying to weasel about what I meant: > [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > [If, you simply couldn’t read the words used by Shodan and are now claiming you meant Zimmerman hit or threatened to hit or threatened to shoot Martin first. Please clarify. In other words, rather than back up your mockery by answering my polite question (or god forbid, withdraw it) you switched to something else you thought you could use to justify your rudeness. So I played along and treated your question as a sincere one, even though you had ignored mine. I answered you forthrightly and in great depth about exactly what I meant. I also presented you with a number of questions, all of which you have ignored: > [@Stoid](#): > > Oh? What special knowledge do you have that leads you to state with such confidence what the statute contemplates, given that the legislature chose to keep such critical knowledge close to the vest, rather than actually putting it in the statute itself? > [@](#): > > Me, I’m thinking it really might be like those “case-by-case” deals; you know what I mean, where juries or judges consider the specifics of each instance to determine what one particular man might find provocation to violence, knowing, as they surely must, that this will be somewhat different in different circumstances with different people. > > But you seem pretty sure it’s otherwise. Will you share with us what exactly you rely upon to suggest/assert that there is in fact a very specific meaning intended by the Florida legislature, and what that might be? > [@](#): > > Do you mean to suggest with this remark that the only “words or acts of accused, intended to bring on the attack” or behavior which “initially provokes the use of force” is limited to “fighting words”, that the law recognizes only anger arising from offense as provocation to violence? Because if you are, I’m going to have to ask you to back it up with something written somewhere by some reputable body , > [@](#): > > f I did do that and I managed to be successful, say yanking his eyeball out, and he, in understandable fear of his own, shot me to stop me from reaching in further to pull his brains out, would the law say that I was not provoked? I > [@](#): > > That I was unreasonable in my response to a strange man watching me, following me and repeatedly approaching me when I am alone in the dark, without ever identifying or explaining himself? > [@](#): > > Would the law have expected me to intuit his intentions and refrain from reacting to the atmosphere of menace his actions had created, which then pushed me into taking action to protect myself against what I perceived to be a very real threat? > [@](#): > > .if you find fault with my reasoning I would appreciate a clarification of how and why…especially since it could be important if I ever get killed fighting off a crazy stalker scaring the shit out of me on a dark night. > [@](#): > > So is it your contention that the law normally obscures such critical information so that it’s “lawyers eyes only”? > [@](#): > > So, in light of all that, I look forward to your learned exposition on the detailed nuances of what the legislature really meant, but decided not to spell out, about how to determine what qualifies as provocative behavior. And your response is to poop out this: > [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > I’ll just leave this previous quote here. " Per that statute, provocation is not "mere words or conduct without force.“Gibbs v. State,789 So.2d 443, 444–45 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001).” And bail, as though this answers everything. Weasel. Shameless weasel. You even weaseled with The Tao, who asked you the obvious in reply: > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > So you’re saying I can scare the living crap out of you making you fear for your safety, but you have to wait till I actually hurt you to defend yourself? > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Per the quote: " Per that statute, provocation is not “mere words or **conduct without force**.” > > That is what I’m taking issue with. Do you have a definition of what “without force” means? Does reasonable perceived threat of force count as force? > > I think given the situation even if Martin attacked, he had a reasonable fear of force against his safety. first by getting bitchy (no big surprise) and then by apologizing your way out of it with this weirdness: > [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > The Tao’s Revenge, I guess it isn’t clear at all so I’ll apologize. That cite and case are for Stoid. It’s applicable to Zimmerman’s use of deadly force. Which basically makes no sense. Who cares who you wer directing it to? _His questions were identical to mine_. which makes this condescending towards him to boot, because he understood it perfectly, which is _why_ his questions were identical to mine. Now to **Gibbs v. State,** which you (appear to be) claiming (you actually say as little as possible, leaving yourself plenty of weasel room) is the last word in how the State of Florida interprets 776.041(2), and that “by force or the threat of force” is the answer. Assuming for the moment that that is true, it doesn’t undermine anything, as The Tao understood, and as I believe you do too. For the benefit of those who aren’t research freaks, a summary (read it [here](http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=2&xmldoc=20011232789So2d443_11176.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7)-it’s actually very short and easy to read for an appellate opinion): [ul] [li]Gibbs is a black woman who says hi to a white couple on a bench. [/li][li]They ignore her.[/li][li]She asked why.[/li][li]The woman, Osmun, said: “Get away you dirty nigger, you don’t belong here”[/li][li]Gibbs uses a racial slur and an obscene gesture in response.[/li][li]Osmun got up, approached Gibbs and started swinging at her.[/li][li]Gibbs stepped back, then pushed Osmun. [/li][li]Osmun staggered back, then fell in some shrubbery. She was helped up. [/li][li]A friend took her to “Manor Care”.[/li][li]Within a half hour, Osmun died of heart failure.[/li][li]The ME ruled it a homicide cause by cardiac arrythmia caused by stress after an altercation.[/li][li]After a jury trial, Gibbs was convicted of “culpable negligence with injury”[/li][/ul] Now I will quote the opinion directly,all emphasis is mine: > [@](#): > > At the jury charge conference, appellant requested an instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force, but **asked that the standard instruction be modified** to clarify what “provocation” means. The standard instruction read: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*The use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find Joelle Gibbs initially provoked the use of force against herself. > > \* > > Appellant sought addition of the words “by force or threat of force” to the standard instruction, so that it would read: > > > [@](#): > > > > _The use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justified if you find Joelle Gibbs initially provoked the use of force against herself, by force or the threat of force._ > > Defense counsel wanted the jury to understand that any provocation by appellant had to be “by force or the threat of force.” **He was concerned that the jury might be confused and think that “merely provoking someone by complaining that they didn’t say good morning” justified the victim’s attack on appellant and did not justify appellant in defending herself against that attack.** > The court denied the request for clarification and gave the standard instruction on justifiable use of non-deadly force. > > We agree with appellant that the jury instruction given by the trial court was inadequate to properly charge the jury **in this case.** The instruction stated that appellant could not defend herself with non-deadly force if she “initially provoked” the victim. By not limiting provocation to the use or threat of force, the court failed to make the jury aware that the word “provoked,” as used in the instruction, did not refer to mere words or conduct without force. Stated another way, the instruction given by the court eliminated the use of non-deadly force in self-defense if there was any provocation by the defendant—no matter how slight or subjective the provocation. By that standard, a mere insult could be deemed sufficient to prohibit defending oneself from an attacker. > > **In this case,** appellant’s self-defense was based on testimony that the victim verbally attacked her and then aggressively approached and swung at her. According to the defense, it was only then that appellant pushed the victim and used some force against her. Because the instruction did not limit provocation to some force or threat of force, the instruction **could have misled the jury to believe that appellant’s pointedly asking the victim why she failed to acknowledge her greeting and/or appellant’s racial retorts and obscene gestures were sufficient provocation to preclude appellant from defending herself from an attack by the victim.** > > The state argues that the trial court did not err because it gave the standard jury instruction. However, the Florida Supreme Court’s approval of **the standard** instructions cannot relieve the trial judge of responsibility under the law to charge the jury properly and correctly\*\* in each case as it comes before that judge\*\*. … The **clarification that the defense sought here was peculiarly applicable to the facts of the case** and should have been given.See Outlaw v. State, 82 Fla. 68, 89 So. 342, 343 (1921) (where there is the potential for the jury to be misled as to who was the provocateur or aggressor it is reversible error not to give a clarifying instruction on the issue). See also Chandler v. State,744 So.2d 1058, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(reversing conviction of disorderly conduct where trial court failed to give a requested jury instruction when there was a reasonable possibility that the jury would be misled or confused by failure to give that instruction). > > For the above reasons, we reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence. First and foremost, pretty much everyone who considers Zimmerman the one who provoked Martin even if he didn’t touch him or shove his gun in his face agree that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman’s (arguably illegal!) stalking of Martin. This is a widely held understanding that you are treating as invisible. Since the determination of the validity of this view is normally supposed to be made by a jury made up of normal people with normal reasoning skills, there’s a very good chance a jury will easily find that Martin felt he was facing a genuine “threat of force”, removing Zimmerman’s defense. Secondly, if it really is your contention that this case puts a fence around what can be considered provocation and limits it to a simplistic and literal “force or threat of force” such as your “you meant Zimmerman hit or threatened to hit or threatened to shoot”, you’re simply wrong, which is pretty obvious from the case itself, but applying yourself to the Google will make it even clearer. Since you have access to Lexis or Westlaw, it should be even easier than that. But I’m pretty sure you are perfectly aware of the fact that the whole idea of provocation is a very complex and interesting topic in the law and the things that the law has found to be legitimately provocative enough to justify the use of DEADLY force, forget the NON-deadly force being considered in this case, is pretty generous and definitely includes provocation that has nothing at all to do with the threat of force. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/959 "2012-04-01T14:39:17Z")
Oh, **Stoid**. Why do you punish my mouse wheel so? ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/960 "2012-04-01T15:06:15Z")
That’s what I said, **Stoid**. I mean I didn’t say all THAT but early in the IMHO thread asked why, in a situation where a woman would mace someone, couldn’t Trayvon fight. All I got was it’s not illegal to follow someone. Other posters pointed out that their wives might not agree that it’s ok since it’s not illegal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881.md?page=49)