i’m just really unclear how going and starting some kind of altercation after following a kid around for a long time and freaking him thoroughly out and disallowing him to run away is considered “self defense.” sure, if the kid ran at zimmerman while zims was in his car and the kid started beating the daylights from him, ok–yeah defend yourself. but chasing down a kid who was scared and trying to just get back home away from this weirdo stalker who never identified himself, thus starting a fight (regardless of who threw the first punch) then shooting him when you get your ass kicked because you’re a sack of fat shit…? that’s not really self defense. self defense is when you are attacked.
as for zimmerman’s injuries, the assertion is they were fabricated after the fact to justify the officer’s initial at-the-scene conclusion once a little pressure began to come on. it’s protocol and policy to document any injuries in such disputes (my brother is a CSI and forensic investigator/police photographer. they have to document EVERY claim of injury, even if it’s just bruises or scratches in a no-big-deal-scuffle. it’s simply to cover the PD’s ass in exactly cases like this. MASSIVE failure of judicial process on their part. now it’s just hearsay).
also, according to the gf on the other end of the phone, Trayvon was afraid and accelerated his pace to get away from “whoever this weird guy is that’s been following me.” it’s also why he cinched up his hoodie.
we have the make-my-day law in oklahoma. it was exercised a few months back when 2 men armed with knives broke into the home of an 18 year old girl whose husband had just died the week before. she was there with her baby, alone, hears them break in, and calls 911 saying she’s barricaded herself in the furthest back room of the house with a shotgun and i pistol, i believe. she said “if they come back here, i’m shooting…”
dispatch said “i cannot advise that, but you are free to do what you feel is necessary to protect yourself and your baby.” and she blasted the asshole into kingdom come.
turns out the two men knew she was alone and that her husband died of cancer and were breaking in to steal his leftover pills.
that is why laws like the one in florida exist. to protect people like her.
as it stands, i think the most cosmically honest justice in this case would be for trayvon’s father to catch zimmerman out on a walk at night and shoot him. he knows zimmerman is armed and has a predilection to shoot at will, which by all accounts makes it legal to kill zimmerman (hey, it’s if you feel threatened, right? zimmerman has asserted himself as a threat). just do it in florida. it’s apparently legal there.
I in fact explicitly agreed that it is possible that Martin feared for his life as well.
Only for a biased person. For someone who is unbiased, complete lack of evidence as to who started the physical confrontation means you have no idea who did it.
trayvon’s gf confirms (and the cell convo confirms) he was afraid and was hurrying to get home. this is when zimmerman decided he needed to chase him down, as he was getting “away.”
the physical altercation was 100% known to be started by zimmerman when he refused dispatch and police request to remain in his vehicle and decided to engage a law-abiding, frightened minor. whom he stalked for some time.
zimmerman engaged a totally law-abiding minor. i can’t repeat that enough.
it doesn’t matter who threw the first punch. in fact if Martin did throw the first strike, he was still acting in self-defense as we teach kids to react this way. STRANGER DANGER.
Where does this scenario makes sense, the Twilight Zone?
Start with how you ambush someone who is following you in a car. Throw yourself in front of it, and when he slams on the brakes, crawl up the tailpipe? No, wait, I know! Turn a corner, and while you’re briefly out of his sight, climb a tree, and then when he comes underneath, drop down on him anaconda style! Course, he has to be driving a convertible. (But there has been no proof offered that Zimmerman was not driving a convertible! He* could* have been driving a convertible!..)
And then the scenario continues. Which I cannot help but think of as a mixture of old Batman comics and an otherwise sensible conversation. Martin with his mad ghetto *aikido *skills has brought Zimmerman down, and is flailing away at him, and in between punches, as is so commonly the case, they discuss their situation.
Biff!!! Sock!!! Pow!!! “Why are you following me?” Bash!!! Clobber!!! Zap!!! “What are you doing here?”
Of course, outside of that, your conjecture makes perfect sense!
Just out of curiosity I looked up the decision (to which you failed to provide the link, by the way). And it supports my contention. The whole appeal was on whether the court should have provided the “aggressor” clause to the jury to help with their decision INCLUDING the “unless” clause. The Florida District Court of Appeals decided that the providing of the “aggressor” clause to the jury was legitimate, and it had nothing to do with the previous clause (the “forcible felony” one).
The jury originally apparently decided that the “unless” clause didn’t apply because the threat was not dire enough.
You really should read these things before you post them as some kind of “gotcha”. Makes you look silly.
If I understand your post, (and I’m not sure I do because I’m not sure what “an exception at common law” means), you seem to be applying a general principle that was appealed to in a different state, but I’m looking at the actual Florida law, and it explicitly says that if I initiate the aggression, my victim escalates, and I believe myself to be in danger of losing my life or of grievous bodily harm, then I may kill my victim if I cannot retreat.
You’ve seen the text of the Florida statute. Can you tell me either what in the statute obviates my reading of it, or else, what principle of law makes that statute null and void or something?
ETA: Here it is again:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
The ‘unless’ clause posted above is insane. It allows you to provoke a fight and, if you get the worst of it, shoot the guy. What goof ball came up with that?
It makes sense to me. Let’s say that you walk up to someone, completely unjustified and punch them in the face. That’s a crime and a civil battery. That person has every right to punch you back.
Now, if that person pulls a knife or a gun, THEY have escalated the force to a place where death may ensue. What the law says is that since you started the fight, you aren’t entitled to SYG protection. Now you have to find any and all reasonable routes of escape, again, since you were the asshole that started everything in the first place.
But if escape is not an option, the law doesn’t require you to die because you started a fist fight. The second person has raised the bar on the aggression and now you are once again allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself if you can’t get away.
IANAL but I get the feeling that this particular scenario would be considered justified in most states without SYG laws - she had already taken reasonable measures to retreat and secure herself.
But as written, the law also apparently allows for the following scenario:
You punch someone in the face, he punches you back, a scuffle ensues involving punching and grappling, you both fall to the ground, he’s on top of you, and he begins pummeling you. So you shoot him. And you’re legally in the clear.
It should at least be reworded so that part b takes effect when retreat is impossible, such that if you can’t retreat, you must signal an intention not to fight anymore. As it is written, you are not required to signal any such intention, even if you can’t retreat.
So, where would a duty to retreat have EVER come into play?
Judge: It’s clear from the evidence that you had ample ways to retreat from the situation.
Defendant: I agree, Your Honor, however as he committed a felony assault in my presence, I was attempting to perform a citizen’s arrest, thereby making retreat improper.
Judge: Dismissed.
IOW, if deadly force was authorized, the dead person obviously committed a felony in the shooter’s presence. If duty to retreat doesn’t cross over into here, then when would it ever apply?
But Trevor did not AFAIK pull out a gun. The way the statute’s written, it can be used to attempt to justify deadly retaliation if your confrontee’s merely kicking the provoker’s ass into next Tuesday hand-to-hand.
You start a confrontation and the other dude pulls a gun? OK I can see that. But what if you start a confrontation and the other guy knocks you flat on the ground and kicks you in the nads?
ETA: Ninjaed by** Frylock**.
Next time you buy a computer, spend the extra buck and get the keyboard with a shift key. It’s worth it.
The woman who shot the intruders in OK did not need a moronic SYG law. This would fall under self-defense in any jurisdiction.
Funny how the gun nuts are coming out of the woodwork to do mental gymnastics to find a way to rationalize the murderer Zimmerman. Most of the time they don’t give a rat’s ass about the rights of the accused, but in this case they all turn into Perry Fucking Mason to look at the evidence through just the right set of prisms to protect Zimmerman.
Personally, I don’t want Zimmerman to be the victim of a violent crime. I want him to be sentenced to life in prison and hopefully get his ass raped every single day he’s there.
Your scenario hardly describes the Tayvon Martin killing though. If I make racial slurs about you, express intent to make sure you don’t get away, then stalk you through the rain in the dark, you no longer have the standing to invoke self defense, even if I sit on you and pummel your face. If Trayvon Martin had a gun instead of fists, Zimmerman would be dead. He should thank his lucky stars he got out of it with a whupping and a court date. He deserves both.
That’s why there are police, prosecutors, judges, and juries to determine if deadly force is appropriate when you are getting your ass kicked.
I would say definitely no deadly force is appropriate in your hypothetical. Taking an old-fashioned ass kicking is something you sign up for if you punch someone when you are unprovoked. In fact, even if you aren’t the initial aggressor, you can’t respond to a punch in the face with deadly force. (Generally). I don’t see where the statute says that you can do what you describe.
However, if the person is down and getting kicked repeatedly in the head, or faces a knife or gun, then guy #2 is now using excessive force and putting himself in the wrong. HIS response must be reasonable as well. Once the initial aggression is stopped (and again, I don’t know what happened here) you have to stop. Once a guy punches you, you aren’t allowed to beat his head into the ground. Once the threat is over, you have to stop.
As has been pointed out, FL law says this is not true. An initial aggressor can invoke self-defense, he is just not covered by SYG.
Racial slurs, stalking through the rain in the dark, and telling you to stay where you are is not sufficient provocations for deadly force. I don’t think that is provocation for force at all. Force must be reasonable to the circumstances.
If I insult you, you can insult me back, but not hit me. If I hit you, you can hit me back, but not shoot me, etc.