Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More - around 1:29 into the video
I think this is where people are disagreeing. Zimmerman started the fight by aggressively pursuing Martin even if he never laid a finger on the kid. No reasonable person would consider being followed on your way home from the store by someone in a vehicle who then parked their car and started to chase you down on foot to be non-threatening behavior. Based on all the evidence I’ve seen presented regarding that particular case Martin was the one who should’ve been protected by the stand your ground laws, not Zimmerman. But because Zimmerman is the one left alive at the end of the day he is claiming SYG.
Only in felony cases, and that’s not the majority rule (nor was it at common law). More importantly, Florida follows the common law rule, which is all that matters for the purposes of this thread.
Contradicted here:
http://24wired.tv/34308/trayvon-martins-father-positive-crying-voice-on-911-tapes-is-sons/
Trayvon Martin’s Father Positive Crying Voice is Son’s
Of course. Yet he has no bias to say it wasn’t his son. He definitely has the bias to say it was. I’d believe the un-biased statement. Especially since one statement was made shortly after the incident while the other one was made weeks after, with all the brouhaha.
The shooting occurred 26 February 2012.
The story you want to believe was posted 16 March 2012.
The story you don’t want to believe was posted 20 March 2012.
The first story was posted on 16 March 2012, but the policemen interviewed for it talked about events immediately after the incident.
In your unbiased opinion. :dubious:
The attorney claims that Zimmerman was injured. Has that been confirmed?
Crane
From the Orlando Sentinel:
Thanks - not much to go on there.
Crane
And if you replace “I’d agree” with “I wouldn’t have to tap dance around your invincible logic”, we could all go home.
I’m sorry, I didn’t get that from the video. Where was it exactly that the reporter said when the police played the 911 call for Mr. Martin and he made his subsequent comment comment that it was not his son?
It doesn’t matter if it’s illegal. All that matters is if this person (in this case, Martin) reasonably fears for his safety, in which case he is legally entitled, by Florida statute, to use force against his pursuer (in this case, Zimmerman.) Nothing in statute says Zimmerman had to be doing anything illegal. It just says Martin had to be reasonably afraid Zimmerman was a threat to him.
You’re confused. According to Martin’s friend, Martin just tucked his head and walked away faster when he was being stalked by Zimmerman in the car. The only evidence we have of Martin saying anything is when Zimmerman actually accosted him on the street, after pursuing him both in his vehicle and in person. At that time, MArtin DID say something; specifically, “What are you following me for?”. How did you miss that?
If we go by the girlfriend’s claims, that also constitutes fairly convincing circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman is lying about how the confrontation took place; remember; his claim (before he could have known about the phone call) was that he didn’t accost Martin; that he lost Martin, went back to his car, and Martin ambushed him from behind. What he is saying and what the girlfriend is saying simply aren’t compatible stories.
So if the girlfriend is telling the truth, Zimmerman’s lying about how it happened. And that would be pretty legiitmate circumstantial evidence.
They cannot avoid prosecuting Zimmerman.
This isn’t Joe Horn.
Crane
I am not a laywer, my only legal experience is as a member of a grand jury which has a much lower standard of evidence than a petit jury.
To me it is pretty clear that the “stand your ground law” in the state of Florida would not apply in this case.
This did not happen at Zimmerman’s home nor was Trayvon observed committing a crime so the laws “presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm” afforded to the target in the OP’s link does not apply.
Zimmerman, who was physically larger than Trayvon is quite clearly an aggressor, this precludes him from the protections of the law.
[
](Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate)
Zimmerman, is physically larger and from the limited amount of information that is available it does not seem that he had anyreason to believe Trayvon was armed.
Thus Zimmerman was not at risk of “imminent death or great bodily harm” so even if he was not the aggressor his use of deadly force is not justified.
Obviously I do not have all the information in this case, nor do I know Florida case law but IMHO based on the the 911 tapes and the physical size difference I would have probably voted for an indictment.
You’re absolutely right. And if Zimmerman reasonably fears for his life (for example, when he’s on the ground, with Martin sitting on top of him and beating him up) then Zimmerman can use deadly force against Martin. Wouldn’t you agree?
You missed something. Martin said: “What are you following me for”? THEN Zimmerman said “What are you doing here?”. Martin didn’t respond, and apparently there were sounds of some kind of scuffle. Usually, when I am asked “What are you doing here?”, it elicits some kind of verbal response, from “Why do you ask?” to “None of your business” to “Just hanging out, officer.”.
They are definitely compatible. Martin ambushing Zimmerman, asking “Why are you following me?”, Zimmerman responding with “What are you doing here?” and Martin hitting Zimmerman in response.
But in Florida and anywhere else, you can follow someone that looks suspicious and ask what they are doing without making yourself an aggressor. I’m not saying that happened here, because I don’t know.
But if I follow someone in the neighborhood who looks out of place and he pulls a gun on me, he can’t say I was an aggressor simply by approaching him.
When you are being followed by a stranger that has 100 pounds on you at night as you walk home from the store…do you assume they are benign?
No. As I pointed out before, it is possible this was a case where both sides could claim self-defense. One is dead, though, so his “self-defense” claim is moot.