Did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his own ground?

Great Debates
741

I think it’s obvious that the Zimmerman’s are not legal scholars. O’Mara was supposed to be providing legal counsel to the Zimmermans. How did he prepare them for the bond hearing? Did he prepare them for the bond hearing?

It’s also apparent that because of the early lynch-mob mentality of ABC, NBC/MSNBC, Sharpton, Spike Lee, the Black Panther’s wanted dead or alive offer, etc, that Zimmerman could not find employment because any employer would be afraid of the violent actions of the lynch mobs. Zimmerman’s school asked him not to attend their school because they were afraid of the violent actions of the lynch mobs. The Zimmerman’s had to move because of the threats of violents by the lynch mobs. The Zimmermans needed to purchase bullet-proof vests because of the threats of violents by the lynch mobs.

The defense fund was the only money the Zimmermans had coming in. Should she have told the judge how much was in the defense fund? Yes, she should have. Was she concerned about their lack of income? Probably.

Should Corey have presented enough evidence to the judge to actually justify the charge of 2nd degree murder? Yes, she should have.

The judge made the decision to allow Zimmerman to be free on bail because he believed Zimmerman would report to court when he was requested to. That is the underlying basis for a bond hearing. Will the defendent return or flee jurisdiction. In fact, Zimmerman has returned when requested to - twice.

As to whether Zimmerman is “the good guy”, Zimmerman has a history of helping his neighborhood and his community. At the bond hearing, the judge was not impressed with the “arrest” by the “underage drinking squad”. I thought the judge was rather dismissive of their arrests.

Martin’s record is not spotless either. 3 suspensions, drug residue, mysterious jewlery possession, vandalism, street fighting videos.

A decision to donate money to Zimmerman could simply be based on the over reaching actions of the lynch mobs or the trademarking, for the purpose of making a profit, by the Martin family of phrases being used by the lynch mobs.

742

Actually, it wasn’t valid. Once the new one was issued, the older one instantly became invalid.

743

Ok. “…choosing to surrender a seemingly valid, but about-to-expire passport …”

744

I don’t know. But unless evidence emerges that reveals O’Mara coached Ms. Zimmerman to knowingly lie – a dramatically unlikely prospect – then I don’t see how O’Mara could be at fault here.

That’s not how the system works. The purpose of bond is to ensure the appearance of the accused. I’m sure everyone facing the prospect of a large bond is concerned about family finances. In no event does it give rise to a license to deceive the court.

I agree that the warrant was facially deficient. But ask yourself this: why hasn’t O’Mara challenged the warrant on those grounds and moved to quash the information?

I contend that he and Corey both are aware of additional information, and agreed to keep it non-public in an effort to guarantee Zimmerman something approaching a fair trial. If this information, whatever it is, gets into the jury pool, O’Mara doesn’t want polluted jurors that will result, and Corey doesn’t want the potential of reversal on appeal based on a prejudiced jury pool.

I admit this is supposition on my part.

True. And that fact can be considered in setting new bail.

Agreed. Those prior events are basically non-issues. But against the backdrop of whatever his prior good deeds are, the fact remains that he allowed the judge to be blatantly deceived.

Again, anyone is free to spend their money as they wish. And I’ll say that if I were the judge, on the evidence that is public right now, I would dismiss the charge, finding the immunity provisions of FSA § 776.032 applied.

But that’s not to say that I approve of Zimmerman’s actions or that, on balance, I find him more deserving of a “good guy” badge than Martin. Martin was a teenager. Whatever he did in school has no relevance to the fact that on that night, there is no evidence to suggest he intended anything worse than a Skittles binge. I don’t see anything in Zimmerman’s actions that justify the “good guy” badge.

745

We each have our own idea of what is considered “a good guy”. Personally, I don’t believe there is either a “good” or “bad” guys here but someone else might.

I don’t believe that O’Mara has done anything legally wrong. On the other hand, I don’t believe, based on what I’m hearing from the various outlets, that O’Mara is doing the best job possible for his client. He did arrive late but that was Zimmerman’s decision. I would want a defense lawyer that made it very clear to me what was and was not allowed, expecially if I was constantly and repeatedly being threatened with death by media-led lynch mobs. I’m pretty sure I would not be thinking clearly at that point in time. I would be relying heavily on the advice of my lawyer.

Thinking as a juror, I believe my judgement would be based on who struck who first and why did Martin continue to beat Zimmerman while Zimmerman was pinned to the ground.

I can understand shooting someone who was attempting to kill you but this case and the law in FLA isn’t that simple. Justifiable homicide is allowed under specific circumstances. Does the evidence show that the account of this incident is one of those circumstances? idk. yet.

746

Yet you can not see that the primary actor was Zimmerman, the man who followed and chased a boy in the dark?

Zimmerman could have stayed in his car.

747

Zimmerman had the right to do that. If Martin instigated the violence - which is the scenario that best fits the evidence we have - then he is responsible. Zimmerman is not, and should not be considered, responsible for an irrational, unprovoked attack on him.

Now, if Martin was acting in self defence, that changes. We have only flimsy evidence that he was - the girlfriend’s report of the phone call, as given several weeks after the event - and none that he was entitled to defend himself by continuing to beat Zimmerman.

748

Punching someone because they followed you by car and chased you down in the dark and appear combative is not clearly a violation of the law, it may have been but it is not as obvious as you claim it is.

Most reasonable people would view themselves as in danger in Martin’s situation.

749

Vs the flimsy evidence of the accused, you are picking sides here.

Martin was under no obligation to wait for violence against himself if he was in fear.

750

And at a trial of Zimmerman, this is highly relevant.

Zimmerman is not (based on available evidence) legally responsible. He had a legal right to do what he did.

But Fred Phelps has a legal right to picket funerals and scream, “God Hates Fags!” This does not transform his actions into good ones.

751

No. But Martin was obligated to wait for a threat of imminent violence.

Do you have specific evidence that Zimmerman made such a threat?

Generalized fear is not enough. But the question is: what, specifically, happened?

You tell me. What are the precise events? At what point do you believe Martin was entitled to strike Zimmerman?

752

As you know imminent jeopardy most subjective factor in this analysis so it is difficult to know seeing the target of this claim is no longer with us. But if you want me to guess we already know through his girlfriends claims that he was nervous because Zimmerman was watching him and after trying to lose the man the got out of his car and chased him.

With Zimmerman’s known history of aggression I could quite see that his body posture could have been very aggressive when Martin approached him.

From Martin’s standpoint that may have appeared to be consistent with Zimmerman continuing to escalate the situation.

753

Agreed, and I’ve said several times that Zimmerman’s actions were stupid. I don’t consider them reprehensible on a par with Phelps’ behaviour.

That said, if someone, hearing Phelps’ screaming, were to punch Phelps, then continue to attack him when he was on the floor, and Phelps were to shoot and kill them, I would consider Phelps to be 100% justified.

It is, in my opinion, the continued attack that makes it Martin’s responsibility. If he had punched once, and was shot at a distance by Zimmerman, I would have a different opinion.

754

It may have been, but can you describe the “body posture” you’re picturing? Specifically, what about the body posture could have served as the threat of imminent violence?

755

As you are professional counsel I would ask by what standard of law you are working with that requires specific physical evidence of a imminent jeopardy to justify self defense?

756

FSA § 776.012:

(emphasis added)

757

Combined with his previous behaviors of stalking and chasing Martin I could see how a reasonable person would view an aggressive posture as manifest intent to do harm.

758

That is not what I was asking, do you have any documentation that Florida does not use the reasonable person standard to satisfy your cited section.

759

Florida does use the reasonable person standard.

But in order to make a finding under that standard, there must be some evidence upon which to rest it. In other words, as with any fact, the finder of fact cannot simply decide it’s so – they must be able to point to evidence in the record.

KSH v. State, 56 So. 3d 122 (Fl DCA 2011). (emphasis added)

Now, if Treyvon were alive, undoubtedly he could create such a record by simply testifying. He could say, for example, “I saw Zimmerman clench his fists and raise his arms slightly.” The jury would be entitled to believe a reasonable person, seeing a man under those circumstances clench his fists and raise his arms slightly, was threatening imminent violence.

But they can’t create the imminent violence finding from no evidence at all. They can’t find that the mere fact of someone approaching you is imminent violence, without something more. That’s simply the way fact-finding works.

Let’s put it this way: if Treyvon were on trial for striking Zimmerman, and the only thing he said was: “I approached Zimmerman and he had an aggressive body posture,” then he would not be entitled to a self-defense instruction.

760

Well that is my point…if he were alive.

Obviously when you claim self defense you are in most cases admitting to the act.

I would think assigning culpability is of little use if the target of the investigation is incapable of being charged and punished for the crime.

I thought the original intent of this thread was to examine if Trayvon had a right to act with force. Had he survived and presented his side I personally find it likely that he would have been able to justify his acts as self defense.

I do not understand why everyone tries to exclude the buildup to the combat, it does directly relate to what actions a sound person would do…or the Terminator was a snuff film