If you’d just stop wearing that hoodie, he’d probably leave you alone.
im on Team At Least I’m Being Entertained. I’m willing to bet there are at least 10 similar cases out there currently that just aren’t as media friendly.
What the hell is with all these private definitions and ridiculous parsing? (And how is it everyone paid so much attention to Terr’s weirdness with “immediately” but completely ignored his insistence that the “initial report” is defined as the report filed by the first officer on the scene, even if it’s a week after the report filed by the second officer on the scene? The stuff that catches people’s attention around here baffles me…) So do we need to hand out glossaries of everyone’s individual definitions of ordinary English words?
Well, if there’s to be any claim of special meanings when used in the context of the law, I’m glad to have my trusty Black’s by my side:
And this is a bullseye:
From the layperson’s dictionary:
Note the term “initiating” and the term “cold-cocked.”
[/QUOTE]
Noted. In fact, read.
Hold up!..you know what Shodan’s assumptions were?
Oh well, then it’s cheating to speak of knowing what Shodan’s assumptions were, then, don’t you think?
I believe I’m with you so far…
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?
Black’s Law Dictionary gives definitions that are in no meaningful respect different than the common meaning of the word and not in any respect specific about what does and does not qualify as “provocation”, nor even “Provocation of a Difficulty”, which this would clearly be, other than to say “the words or acts of accused, intended to bring on the attack”. I think you’ll have to concede that that leaves it pretty wide open about what exactly would qualify, up to an including jumping around and calling Martin an idiot, should it turn out to be that Martin’s special sensitivity to jumping white men calling him an idiot was known to Zimmerman, making it pretty likely that Zimmerman would in fact be intending to provoke Martin by doing just that.
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, because that seems manifestly unjust, unfair and unreasonable. Not to mention flat out nonsense.
Say I were walking on a dark street at night and I realized that I was being followed by a man who was watching everything I did. I would not be angry, I would be afraid. If that man got out of his truck and approached me, I would be horribly afraid. If I noticed he had gun or if he in any way reached out to touch me in the slightest way I would be terrified and dodge his hand and if I were at all capable of violence (I’m not, personally, I’m the roll-up-in-a-ball-and-hope-they-go-away sort) and felt remotely capable of pulling it off successfully as a defense strategy, vs. making things worse, I might choose to hit/punch/kick/pokehisfuckingeyesout first - they always say never let them take you to a second location, you know. That’s a basic principle of self defense.
If 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? 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 the answer is that the law would have found that I had been provoked by Martin’s (stupid, foolish, unnecessarily aggressive - talk to his neighbors - paranoid and unreasonable) behavior that any man with two brain cells to rub together might have predicted would freak me the fuck out (word to the fellas in case this is news), then why would it not conclude the same on behalf of Martin, who is not here to speak to his fear, although it was certainly strongly suggested by his conversation with his girlfriend. Would the law make special rules for boys vs. women, that they may only be provoked by anger, that fear does not count as provocative enough to explain violence? Id’ find that very difficult to believe. Not impossible, because I now know that nothing is impossible when you’re dealing with human beings, but very difficult.
And it seems I’m not all alone here, although it’s not about the Martin victim in this scenario, this speaks to considering the behavior of anyone who busts out some violent moves based on fear:
I think me and Martin feeling threatened by Stalky McStalkerson rates. Others might disagree, but it’s sure as hell a valid thing to consider, as this attorney sums up my POV pretty neatly:
Ooo…and here’s an Orlando criminal lawyerwith an interesting spin:
Yes, ma’am, I surely am, precisely as I have just presented it here and have done so several times previously in these threads over the past week or two, and 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.
Which reminds me… someone dug up a whole pile of laws that might get dragged in here, some more logically so than others. Including…
So is it your contention that the law normally obscures such critical information so that it’s “lawyers eyes only”? Because the Supreme Court of FLorida really disapproves of that sort of thing, inserting things that aren’t there, ignoring things that are, it just ain’t fittin’! (Cali’s the same way. Funny how that works…)
Whew! 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.
(By the way, I note that the Blacks definition specifies that the provocation is intentional, but Florida law does not.)
I head LeBron is going to have a televised special announcing that he’s changing his team.
Elucidator, funny post. Especially the part about walking like a Mormon.
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?
Yeah, it’s really unbelievable that someone would disagree with the OP.
To me, if somebody chooses “no limit nigga” as a computer nickname, it suggest that this individual sees himself as aggressive and is proud of his affinity with African-American gangsta culture and all that entails – valuing cockiness, rebellion against authority, not shying away from violence, etc.
I would say that someone who calls himself “no limit nigga” is more likely than the average person to break the law; to get into a fight; to go to jail; to shoot someone or to get shot himself.
Anyway, I am skeptical that the phrase means absolutely nothing to you.
Anything could mean anything. Besides which, if somebody sees himself as a “bad ass,” then obviously he is more likely to threaten and attack someone who he perceives as disrespecting him.
And of course the same reasoning applies to Zimmerman. For example, if his computer nickname were “Mr. Bad-Ass 9mm,” it would raise the probability that he was out looking for trouble as those on Team Trayvon seem to think.
You can if you want. A person’s username sometimes give image into their self-image. And sometimes not.
I suspect that if Zimmerman had a computer nickname which connoted aggressiveness, you would have no problem seeing this point.
The argument you imagine that I have made is not very strong. The argument I actually made is solid.
Well does the case really present any legal issues?
To me it seems pretty simple. It seems that according to Zimmerman, he had disengaged from Martin; Martin approach him, threatened his life, sucker-punched him to the ground, and proceeded to start beating him. According to Zimmerman, it was then that he opened fire.
If Zimmerman’s story is true, then he pretty clearly deserves to walk. On the other hand, if Zimmerman is lying, then he should go to jail.
What are the legal issues?
Zimmerman’s lengthy record of assaulting people connotes his aggressiveness much better than trying to find angels dancing on the head of an unverified Twitter account.
I think that says more about you than Trayvon Martin.
If that’s true, then of course I agree. But so what?
It’s not in dispute that he has been arrested twice for assault. Maybe he’s just the unluckiest chubby wannabe cop in the world. How many arrests for assault would indicate a propensity for violence to you?
Lol, and if the phrase means nothing to you, it says even more about you.
Even 1 arrest for assault would raise the probability in my mind that he has a propensity for violence.
So what?
My opinions only:
-
This could have been avoided if Zimmerman had used reason and constraint to begin with. He should have simply called the cops and let them handle it. But the dumbass wanted to be Clint Eastwood and made the stupid decision to follow Martin.
-
Even though the whole situation could have been avoided had Zimmerman exercised common sense, I have no doubt Martin attacked Zimmerman. I also believe Zimmerman felt his life was in danger.
-
Zimmerman was correct in using his weapon to stop Martin. It was a good shoot.
-
Trayvon Martin was a thug. Had he not been killed by Zimmerman, he would have been a career criminal the rest of his life. Martin would have contributed nothing to society. His death is no loss. Just anther thug.
So if the point is to try to determine the likely aggressor in this case, how much more weight would be put on the multiple reports of Zimmerman assaulting people, including the assault on the cop that he was arrested for previously, as compared to the Da Vinci Code-style analysis of an ambiguously named Twitter handle that we’re reasonably sure but not certain belong to Trevyon Martin?
Is Zimmerman’s history of assaulting people 2 times more important thant Martin’s twitter name? 50? 100?
Here is the point I made:
Please try to respond to the points I actually make, as opposed to the point you imagine or wish that I had made.