he didn’t follow him by car. His vehicle was parked. Martin was observed hanging around the clubhouse at night which is a suspicious act. He then walked less than 300 feet to Zimmerman’s truck where they both stared at each other. Martin then ran off. Again, a suspicious thing to do.
If most reasonable people would view themselves in danger then by extension they would seek safety. Martin was less than 300 feet from his house when the altercation took place. He chose not to go home. He also didn’t just punch Zimmerman. He beat him for a significant period of time.
Life threatening danger? There’s a difference. Was Martin in imminent danger, meaning he assumed his attacker’s apparent intent was to cause great bodily injury or death? Florida law doesn’t allow you beat someone simply for watching you and then getting out of their vehicle. Even asking someone what they are doing in the neighborhood does not allow for the use of lethal force.
Neither man did anything illegal or life theatening until the first punch was thrown.
Did Zimmerman’s asking why Martin was there equate to imminent danger?
It’s Zimmerman’s contention that Martin’s continued beating of Zimmerman caused Zimmerman to believe that he was in imminent danger. That’s why he resorted to lethal force after his cries for help from his neighbors went unaided.
Is there an eyewitness that says this didn’t occur? Can the police produce evidence that something else occured?
Well, sure. If he could testify, he most likely would be able to say something that a jury could latch on to to justify his striking first – or offer up a claim that he did not strike first.
But if we examine the question based on the evidence adduced so far, we don’t have that. We can imagine that he could – almost certainly WOULD-- be able to give us that crucial piece… but that doesn’t bring it into being.
Yes…this is what you keep arguing, assuming my position in the matter and ignoring both the statue and the case law.
It may be useful if you note and maybe Google the phrase “reasonable person” this is a legal term and has meaning.
Go back and look at the code Bickler just quoted and look for it, neither person needed to be doing something actually illegal to justify the use of force, note I don’t see proof yet that it was deadly force in the case of Martin yet.
FYI if you care and wish to stop shoving your assumptions onto a strawman here is what think.
With the information I have I think Zimmerman should have been CHARGED with manslaughter due to the death being caused by “culpable negligence”.
I do not claim to know if he is guilty or not please do not infer that I do.
And so you don’t misstate my position I doubt he will be convicted of murder but he does not qualify for Excusable Homicide because he being the “block captain” should have known how stupid it is to chase someone down in the dark among other reasons.
He was charged with Second degree murder because of “recklessly dangerous acts with a ‘depraved mind’” but I would put a bet on that charge being rejected by a jury with what little we know now.
You are ignoring the crime of assault, there is no middle school first puncher rule, you can break laws with threats. There is no evidence for this but if Zimmerman brandished his firearm or if Martin saw it and thought he was (even if he was holding to keep it in a cheap holster) he may have thought we was brandishing it.
See that…no physical contact required!! not that we have proof that Zimmerman did have a threat but we are lacking one side of the story and this thread was talking about “if’s”
So let us go back to aggravated assult, remember the use of force statue?
Note the part I changed to bold about forcible felonies?
It doesn’t matter who hit first, the threat is enough to justify the use of force.
If evidence is provided at trial that Zimmerman laid hands on Martin prior to any punches thrown will that evidence negate/harm Zimmerman’s ability to claim SYG as an affirmative defense?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the prosecution might have a text somewhere that says “I grabbed his (Martin’s) arm”, or something along those lines.
I’m sure you meant to type “despite Martin’s complete failure to attempt to get away” there, as if he had wanted to get away, he would have been back at the house he was staying in, not waiting for Zimmerman.
Also, what do you mean following him “like a creeper”? There’s nothing creepy about keeping an eye on someone so the police can find them. Stupid and dangerous, as it’s proved, but not creepy.
Not really. The “aggressor” clause is still there, and if Zimmerman’s defense can show that he reasonably believed that he was imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he will walk (since when you’re lying on the ground and someone is sitting on you beating you up, escaping is not an option anymore) no matter who initiated the physical confrontation.
See above. They can have a text like that and Zimmerman still walks on self-defense.
If you were approaching someone in a threatening manner that could be considered an illegal act. No physical contact required.
Except in this case, neither man seems to have been assuming a threatening posture (assult). Neither man did anything illegal. Until Martin began punching Zimmerman. Punching would be considered a violation of FLA law.
Martin approached Zimmerman from behind. Would Martin approach to within arms reach of Zimmerman if Zimmerman was assuming a threatening posture? The two men exchanged words. That’s not illegal. “What are you doing here,” is not what a “reasonable man” would consider a threatening question.
Punching someone because you don’t like their questions, or answers, or breath is not something a “reasonable man” would do.
Beating a man while he cries out for help from his neighbors would lead a “reasonable man” to decide that the man who was being beaten was actually in danger of losing his life.
Remember, had Trayvon been the one that lived it would be his statements we would be basing this one, Zimmerman would be silent on the subject besides the 911 call.
In a trial of Zimmerman, “following someone around like a creeper, on a dark rainy night, despite Martin’s attempts to get away” does not contain enough information for a jury to find an imminent threat committed by Zimmerman.
I suggest this came from the other end of the horse. Baxley seems a bit confused about the laws he helped pass and who said what that evening. I’m sure he’s figured it out by now.
*…I would like to emphasize that the approach that is currently developing in this situation, to convene a grand jury, is the proper one in which to discern the facts of this case. I certainly agree with everyone that justice must be served.
During the debate concerning this incident, some have brought into question the “Stand Your Ground” law, more commonly referred to as the “castle doctrine,” which has been used by the attacker to pardon his actions.
…Quite simply the castle doctrine is a good law which now protects individuals in a majority of states. However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.
…There is no protection in the “Stand Your Ground” law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.
By Rep. Dennis Baxley*
Corey decided that she don’t need no stinkin’ Grand Jury to convict Zimmerman.
SYG is not the Castle doctrine.
After Martin was seen running away, meaning that the two men were no longer in contact with each other, the next confrontation was initiated by Martin who was “pursuing and confronting” Zimmerman.
OK, if things were different then things would be different. If Corey can produce evidence that Zimmerman’s version of what happened that evening did not or could not have happened that evening, it’s likely that Zimmerman is going to be found guilty of 2nd degree murder.
If Zimmerman had approached Martin and attempted to detain him, Martin would be justified in punching Zimmerman.
If Zimmerman had verbally threatened to maim or kill Martin, Martin would be justified in punching Zimmerman.
If Zimmerman had approached Martin with his weapon drawn, Martin would be justified in punching Zimmerman if the opportunity arose. And continuing to beat Zimmerman until the threat of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm no longer existed. Martin could also claim that he had no intention of killing Zimmerman and only applied sufficient force to save his own life.