That is not something I would assume, and based on the call with his girlfriend, neither did Martin.
If you believe the feeling of being threatened by Zimmerman’s actions, against 911 directives, is reasonable, and justified, does he have to wait to Zimmerman pulls a gun to defend himself? What is the threshold?
also: it takes real disingenuous to call Zimmerman’s stalking “questioning” (as demonstrated by his 911 call).
He has to wait until he is attacked to defend himself. Zimmerman’s actions (if his account is correct) do not constitute an attack.
Regards,
Shodan
For one thing, Zimmerman’s threat has to be both real and imminent. He cannot legally strike Zimmerman first If Zimmerman is acting legally.
And again, the 911 directives have no legal significance, especially as to Martin’s actions, since Martin was unaware of the 911 operator’s directives.
I’ve been followed by a car and questioned just as Martin was, twice. One was near my house and the other was not. A conversation ensued in both cases. If Martin was truly scared he could have called the police or gone to his house. Instead he stopped running and confronted Zimmerman. Had he called police they would have told him what was going on.
I think Martin was insulted for being asked why he was there. Having been in his shoes twice I can tell you it’s a little off-putting. In the second incident the person didn’t believe me and called the police. Another conversation ensued.
To answer your question, the threshold involves some kind of threat, not a question or a suspicion.
I would call it an accurate assessment of the situation. The “stalking” involved one city block of observation. Zimmerman described Martin’s actions as suspicious looking. Obviously we have no way of verifying this. However, at some point after making eye contact Martin takes off running. Big surprise that his actions enforced Zimmerman’s suspicions.
So, he should have reached into his pocket for his phone or ran and not stopped, OK.
So, running was the right thing to do but it makes your pursuer’s suspicions more reasonable so they have even more reason to follow you . . . maybe they should run too so they can catch up? I’d hope it’s not necessary to explain why reaching into one’s pocket ain’t a bright idea here.
I’m quite amused by the notion that merely asking someone a question isn’t threatening. Given that I remember a certain case in NYC where a question was viewed by a significant number of folks as justification, not to give the questioner a beat down but, to shoot the questioner and all of the guys with him (See: Bernhard Goetz).
Does someone really need to compile a list of the times and places when/where being followed meant there was a significant possibility you were going to be found murdered at some in the immediate future? [del]Jack Crawford[/del]John Douglas, a former Chief of the FB fucking I’s Elite Serial Crime Unit says, “A very conservative estimate is that there are between 35-50 active serial killers in the United States” at any given time. Don’t be alarmed by the guy in the Bugs Bunny van, with the traces of clown makeup, picking human flesh out of his teeth, who lives near a river at your own peril.
CMC fnord!
Yes, it’s necessary. Zimmerman was assaulted for roughly a minute before shooting Martin. He certainly wasn’t “gunning for him” in any sense of the phrase.
Glad you’re amused? The question Zimmerman asked was pretty explanatory. He wanted to know what Martin was doing there. Insulting - yes. Threatening - no. You can try to justify Martin attacking Zimmerman all you want but there is no legal basis for it. Zimmerman, on the other hand, was assaulted for something like a minute including getting his head slammed into concrete. There was no sign that the beating would stop. He shot and killed Martin to defend himself. That’s what the trial will be about. If there is additional evidence that suggests otherwise then the outcome will change but as it stands now Zimmerman defended himself from an attack with no end in sight. He literally begged Martin to stop. Martin could have kicked him the balls after Zimmerman fell and run off. He chose to beat the tar out of him. If you want to talk about rage, there it is.
Does someone really need to compile a list of the times someone asked a question meant there was a significant possibility they would be murdered? The question was the last known interaction between the two before the fight. That’s what we have to go on NOW. That can change with additional information. Nobody would shed a tear for Zimmerman if he assaulted Martin first.
I mostly agree with you in this thread, Bricker, but I have to say that I find there is a little wiggle room in the statutory construction of the word “attack.”
Do we not give “ordinary words their ordinary meanings” when interpreting a statute?
Attack:
verb (used with object)
1.
to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent’s statement.
to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor’s reputation.
Also consider the uses of the word assault: Legally it is less than battery; it’s merely putting someone in fear. But in common usage, if I say to someone on the street, “I was just assaulted by some thugs,” people generally think the thugs committed a battery.
So, what’s your take on whether the ordinary meaning of “attack” can include the legal meaning of assault?
I think the law would be more clear if it said “physically attacked” which I am sure was the intent.
No, I think “attacked” is synonymous with “assaulted.” In 776.013, the phrase “imminent use of unlawful force” and the word “attacked” are used interchangeably. And I can’t find any Florida case that construes the statute differently.
Oh, did Bernhard Goetz attack someone for merely asking a question?
Then I would imagine he was charged with a crime for doing so. Let’s look him up and see.
Yup. From People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (N.Y. 1986).
So, sure enough, attacking someone for merely asking a question is a crime for which you may be charged.
As in a person’s reasonable belief that there is “imminent use of unlawful force” can then constitute an “attack?” Even if an actual physical attack hasn’t happened yet?
Seems to me, much as I hate to say it, we’re edging into ground where Rampant Coypu is more correct than he is being given credit for, if indeed we include the legal meaning of “assault” within the plain meaning of “attack.” Not completely, mind you, but edging into it.
if the guy gets out of the car saying “I’m gonna kick your ass, motherfucker,” then Rampant Coypu is correct. He’s not if the guy gets out and says, “do you know where I can get my radiator fixed this time of night?”
I’mk taking it the statute doesn’t define “attack;” but if it did it is entirely relevant to the question and it’s high time we take it into account–otherwise it’s ordinary meanings for ordinary words.
Absolutely accurate.
The statute only uses the word “attacked” in 776.013(3):
If Zimmerman approached Martin and said, “i’m gonna kick your ass,” then Martin has the right to defend himself with a punch.
I agree.
I still say it would be a better statute if it were amended to “physically attacked” or defined “attack” as physical attacks only. Too many people say threatening things, and fights do not necessarily ensue; this statute seems to encourage fights.
One of its many flaws.
that might be harder than you think. If someone threatens your life and moves toward you I don’t think you have to wait until you’re physically touched. there is intend followed by action.
Dude, white man beats down a white man, he gets off. White man kills a white man, there will be plenty more complications than we have seen in the Martin/Zimmerman case. Probably truer up north than it is down here.
I encourage you to represent yourself in court after you test out your theories.
But you have to understand, the earliest evidence shows there was NO punch to the face. I’ve already posted the earliest video of Zimmerman four times. I break your nose and give you two black eyes, you’re gonna have some blood in your shirt. Dude was hyped up to kill an “outsider” He said so in the 911 calls and the dispatcher knew he was dealing with an unreliable freak and told Zimmerman to break it off. If he had broken contact Martin would have been drinking his Snapple and crashing on the couch. How can killing a dude who would have done no more than that be the best outcome?
But I still maintain that a pedestrian should always be suspicious of a person who stalks them in a vehicle, and that almost any level of force by the pedestrian is justified if the driver gets out.
Holmes wanted to be a hero by killing a Negro. He may yet get away with it.
Dude, show me the blood on Zimmerman’s shirt the night of the night of the incident and I will reconsider, though I will still believe a pedestrian has a right to attack first if a vehicle follows them and the person gets out of the vehicle. Do I have to stalk you to prove this? I bet you’re a gun owner and would consider drawing if I had followed you. How can a draw be more moral than a beatdown? And you have to recognize that the earliest evidence indicates there was not a beatdown.
Well yes, I was agreeing that under this statute what you describe is perfectly within the defense.
However, I don’t quite like the statute. I mean, I think self-defense is a very important consideration of the law. But I balance things the best I can, and while I cannot deny situations exist where it is in a person’s best interest to strike first, where harm is imminent, I have got to say in my experience I have seen a whole lot more bluster than imminent harm. I have wanted to seriously hurt threatening people before, and I am kind of glad my policy is not to engage until hit first; upon consideration my state is a do-everything-you-can-to-avoid-it-state. I might have had a prison record I do not have if I had thrown the first punch in some of these instances–keep in mind, a “defense” is still a matter for the jury to decide, you have to prove it, and they have to believe it, or it avails you not.
I think most juries look dimly upon violence, in general, under most circumstances; if it might be questionable what the circumstances are I’m not too willing to bet. I’ve done some questionable things but I have always deferred to my moral code for violence and not let the heat of the moment take me away. I am quite big and quite strong and have done more harm than I meant to before, and searched my soul for remorse for how badly I once beat someone, though I was in self-defense; I’m no fan of violence. He beat me almost as badly, but I felt worse for what I had done than what had been done to me.
The overarching thing I think about various self-defense defenses is that they all have something good about them and they all have some drawbacks too. I think a drawback of Florida’s Stand Your Ground is a tendency to escalate bluster into an actual physical fight. I find myself unable to argue strenuously for any of the schemes I know of, or against them. The important thing to me, as an individual, then, is simply knowing what sort applies in the jurisdiction I am in at the moment. I live near the conjunction of four states and go to them all regularly.
i’d want to know, for instance, whether or not someone could punch me if we were in a heated argument.
Please answer the question - how did Zimmerman fake the police and medical reports of his injuries?
No, he made no such statement. Please do not falsify his statement by using quote marks.
No one has claimed that killing anyone is the best outcome. The debate will probably go better if you confine yourself to things actually said.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, you are 100% wrong about using force.
Regards,
Shodan
Zimmerman’s shirt and jacket were taken into evidence by police the night of the incident. The forensic report shows blood in multiple places on these garments. Do you think the forensic specialists faked their reports?