Any evidence that showed, directly, an imminent threat. “I’m going to hit you now,” would be a classic. But even a raised fist, a pointed gun, a finger drawn across the neck followed by a point – anything like that.
But it has to be something. The jury cannot say, “Well, SOMETHING like that surely happened.” they have to be able to point to some piece of evidence about something that clearly communicated a threat.
See the distinction?
If things were different, things would be different. :rolleyes:
You’re confusing the proving of the charges against a defendant with addressing the “character” of the eyewitnesses and defendant. The jury/judge would be free to decide for themselves if the eyewitness, defendant, police officer, technical expert, etc are telling the truth.
Since it’s obvious that both would have survived we would be discussing an assault/intent to harm situation.
[
A sailboat is both a means of conveyance and a dwelling thus SYG applies, Neither Zimmerman nor Martin were in their Residence nor were they in a place not permitted by law.
in your cited case appears to meet the criteria in the following section.
What part of the SYG legislation do you claim applies in the Zimmerman case?
Note, to other posters I am not claiming Zimmerman does not have a good argument for a valid self defense claim.
Not really.
A raised fist still requires a juror to make an inference. So does a symbolic gesture like pantomining a throat slash. None of these are objective evidence of imminent harm. Otherwise, whenever I tease my friends that I’m going punch them in the face, they’d have the grounds to shoot me dead in Florida. Somehow I seriously doubt that this would fly in court.
We have two independent accounts that Martin ran away from Zimmerman. Those accounts being from Deedee and Zimmerman himself.
We also have strong evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin, causing him to take flight fearfully. We also have Deedee to tell us Martin sounded afraid.
We have the circumstances: dark street, two strangers, public area, not a whole lot of people around.
We also have evidence that Zimmerman had prejudged Martin as a bad person. He had labeled him an asshole. This, plus Deedee’s account of the dialogue she heard, is more evidence that Zimmerman accosted Martin in a hostile way that would make a reasonable person afraid.
The evidence strongly shows that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman. The evidence also shows that Zimmerman took certain actions that made Martin react fearfully. The only real question here is whether Martin’s fear constituted what a reasonable person would feel in the same situation.
I don’t see how anyone can answer this question with anything other than “yes”. It wasn’t unreasonable at all for this kid to be afraid of Zimmerman. The fact that he’s dead certainly seems to validate his fears.
I agree the record is replete with information that allows a jury to conclude that Martin felt fear.
What it’s missing is anything that would allow them to find that Martin reasonably feared imminent violence.
That’s why I mentioned the raised first – that’s an act that directly conveys an imminent threat. What act, specifically, can the jury rely on to show Zimmerman’s threat of imminent violence?
I think it was the “What are you doing here?” question. Obviously when a reasonable person hears that, he’s afraid for his life and has to attack the questioner.
In my extremely limited experience i would say that without hard evidence which is completely lacking as to the altercation in this case that this is just plainly unknowable without the defendants testimony.
To put it another way, Bricker, supposed that Martin had lived. Let’s say the cops showed up minutes before Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Zimmerman points to his nose and accuses Martin of assaulting him. Martin claims he was defending himself against the threat that is Zimmerman. Martin ends up getting charged with assault and battery.
At the trial, Martin takes the stand and explains what happened that night. This is his story:
"On my way back from the story, I’m talking to my girlfriend when I notice Zimmerman staring at me in his truck. I didn’t think too much of him until he starts driving towards me slowly. I then see him mouth the word “asshole” while looking straight at me. It freaks me out so I run towards the backyard pathway area so that he can’t follow me anymore in his truck. But when I look back, I notice he’s gotten out of his truck and is running after me. He looks crazy, like he’s convinced that I’m up to no good even though I’m just minding my business.
After I think I’ve lost him, all of a sudden I see him charging towards me again. I can’t run anywhere this time because he’s practically right in my face; even my girlfriend can hear him. I ask him why he is following and instead of answering my question he asks me what I’m doing there. Then he moves toward me as if he’s going to keep me from running away again. That’s when I punched him."
Do you think this is enough information here for a jury to say whether or not Martin committed a crime by punching Zimmerman, assuming that Zimmerman’s testimony did not contradict Martin’s in any substantial way and there was no other evidence against Martin?
This sounds a serious case of splitting hairs.
Why would Martin be afraid of Zimmerman, if not the fear of violence or bodily harm? Do we really think Martin would have run away from the guy if the most he was afraid of was a stern talking to or a embarrassing kiss on the cheek? Of course not. Let’s not be stupid. He was afraid that Zimmerman was going to channel all that hostile energy into violence.
No, there’s not enough. But that’s the beauty of having a live witness:
“Sir, when you say, ‘He moves toward me as if he’s going to keep me from running away again,’ what, specifically, about his movement made you believe he was going to prevent you from leaving?”
Now, if were to answer, “Uh, nothing really, I just got that idea in my head,” then – still no.
But that’s not realistic. Realistically, Martin would be able to say SOMETHING in response to that question – his hands were raised, he was making grasping motions signifying how he was going to grab my arms… something. And that something is what the jury could rely on. But there has to be something.
Imminent. The statute requires not just generalized fear, but specific fear of imminent violence. That has a meaning in the law. And, yes, perhaps it’s splitting hairs, but that what the law does sometimes.
And if Zimmerman had his hand on his gun? Would that be enough of an imminent threat? Not that I think Zimmerman would ever admit he did that – but I ask because of a local commercial I hear on the radio for gun safety course. In it, a man tells a little tale about how he was walking to his car late at night when two shadowey figures approach him – I can’t remember every last detail of the passion-play, but at one point he says (dripping with machismo) “I had my hand on my SuperKiller 5000” (or whatever gun name he used).
Point being — a man with a gun, who’s had training in this shit, approaching a suspected criminal … don’t you think he’d have his hand on his holster ready to draw if need be? Doesn’t sound too far-fetched to me.
If Martin saw it yes, he very well could have believed Zimmerman was brandishing his weapon.
People have several common behaviors like constantly touching the firearm like many people do with their wallets.
Also unless you have a very well built holster or one with active retention you may need to hold the firearm in while you run.
He may have also cleared his garments from the firearm to ensure it was still there when he stopped running.
Unfortunately without surviving witnesses we will never know because even if Zimmerman was 100% honest he would most likely not remember these actions if he had been carrying for a long time as they would just be habit.
But if he had training no, you don’t touch your firearm until you are ready fire.
Then why do cops do that thing they do with the hand on their holster when they approach a traffic stop?
No, it’s not too far-fetched. And sure, if he did, that would suffice.
But “doesn’t sound too far-fetched” is not the same as “this is a fact now in evidence.” The jury can’t just jump to the conclusion that he had his hand on his gun.
Of course, in his statements, or texts, or something, there may well be something where he says he did. And then the jury can find they believe it. But they can’t just say, “Let’s assume he had his hand on his gun.”
[QUOTE=Bricker]
But that’s not realistic. Realistically, Martin would be able to say SOMETHING in response to that question – his hands were raised, he was making grasping motions signifying how he was going to grab my arms… something. And that something is what the jury could rely on. But there has to be something.
[/QUOTE]
If the difference between “nope, not enough information to conclude imminent violence” and “okay, there’s enough info for me to infer immediate violence” boils down some nebulous something that only a living witness can testify to, then I remain skeptical that a jury can’t look at the facts in Zimmerman’s case and conclude that *if *Martin hit him, he most likely was doing so in self-defense rather than an unprovoked attack.
Even if this kind of judgement isn’t technicall allowable under the law, we all know that juror decisions aren’t governed by the exact letter of the law. Otherwise, we would let computers be jurors.
They are:
a) Not carrying concealed and thus not brandishing by touching the firearm or giving up a tactical advantage
b) Not dealing with an adrenaline dump that limits ones fine motor control and judgement.
c) Not perceived as escalating the conflict by touching their firearm.
d) Openly carrying weapon where retention is a very big concern and also another good reason to keep concealed if you can.
There are many other reasons.
It is a whole other ball of wax, I would also not recommend you try to open every trunk of every car you walk past as they do.
Well, no, we wouldn’t, because there is no mechanism to allow a computer to accept and process this kind of information.
And when the record contains no piece of evidence that allows that finding, we don’t let it go to a jury, for (among other reasons) precisely the one you identify: the fear that the jurors will fail to follow those instructions. Once there is a piece of evidence, however thin, then the jury is entitled to weigh it and believe it if they wish. But if the record has no evidence, the judge is supposed to take it away from the jury and direct a verdict as a matter of law.
And if the judge doesn’t do his job, and the jury doesn’t do their job, then we have an appeals court, who only read the transcript. The defense says to the appeals court, “Look – here’s the transcript. There’s no evidence that the jury could have relied upon.” And if that’s true, then the appeals court says not only, “Conviction reversed,” but also, “You’re free to go,” because double jeopardy prevents a retrial when the problem is insufficiency of the evidence.
IMHO with the evidence that is public at this point most of the states case will center around proving “Depravity Of Mind” I doubt they will spend much time trying to argue that Zimmerman directly started the fight.
Well, I’m not attempting to try the case; I’m trying to posit a reason why Martin might have felt this imminent danger; I steadfastly refuse to believe that Martin just started swinging for no reason other than he felt like beating up a cracker that night.
Personally, my speculation is that Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin, either physically, or by showing his gun, and that led Martin to freak and punch.