No, not at all. Which is really kind of the point; no normal, reasonable person gets punched in the nose and thinks they’re going to die. If you want to make the issue personal, we hold those sort of discussions in the Pit.
That isn’t consistent with what we have heard of Zimmerman’s claims.
Again, it’s possible. It’s preposterously unbelievable to me, but it’s possible, I guess, that Martin went to some trouble to get away from Zimmerman, succeeded, and then decided “Hey, I think I’ll go back and beat up that scary dude” and when he, according to Zimmerman, “jumped him” from behind, did so while saying “why are you following me” and Zimmerman responded to that not by reacting with fear or surprise but responded with “What are you doing here” and somehow the scuffling noises only began after that. All quite possible, all quite hard to swallow. I suppose it is also possible that there really was a man on the grassy knoll, or that the WTC was blown up by controlled demolitions. Lots of things are possible but exceedingly difficult to believe.
If in fact it happened as you describe, then I can certainly see Zimmerman’s case. I don’t believe it did, though, because based on the evidence I have in front of me, it just seems so damned unlikely. Again, I don’t have *all *the evidence, so I don’t know for sure, and neither do you. But there is some evidence.
To clarify, I agree with you as well. If I had to bet money on what really happened, I would guess that Zimmerman overreacted and committed some form of criminal homicide, whether murder or manslaughter. But I don’t know, so unless the police have more than what has been released, I not comfortable bringing a charge yet.
The fact that he called the police first is telling in my mind. If you are going to manufacture a reason to murder a black kid, then call the police after it’s went down and the evidence backs up your story.
Yeah. It is blurry because we are sort of going from general to specific as it pertains to this case. I’m basically responding to posters who are saying that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that Zimmerman could claim self-defense since he was the one who started the fight (if he did).
What I should have added was that hitting can possibly lead to a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death if you are on the ground and a guy continues to pummel you.
I very seriously doubt you’d ever convince me it was murder, at least according to statute. There’s no indication he gets out of his car intending to kill Martin. He acted stupidly and recklessly, but absent any shocking new evidence, I don’t think he got into this planning to kill anyone.
This all seems reasonable. The most likely equation is probably over-zealous neighborhood watch + latent racial fear + adrenaline-boosted over-reaction + deadly use of a firearm. I do have some problems with the way the police handled it - I tend to think that if someone’s dead and you know the shooter you might want to be a bit more thorough than they seem to have been.
Right. I think that raises the interesting question and ties in with the underlying point of the “retreat” common law. When is the use of deadly force justified? How much damage do I have to take before I can shoot a man? Is getting this shit kicked out of me worth it if it means I don’t have to live with having killed an unarmed 17-year-old? For many, many years the standard was one of avoiding deadly conflict if at all possible. Retreat to the back wall. Only shoot if you are in imminent danger of deadly harm. That has all been shifted, and willfully so.
I would guess that if you asked Zimmerman today he’d say he wished he wasn’t armed that night. But I could be wrong - maybe he legitimately thinks (and thought) that Martin was going to kill him.
Right, but the premeditation can occur in the “twinkling of an eye.” He didn’t need to leave his car with the intention of killing. That could have been formed at any point.
I believe that Florida has an “imperfect self-defense” law where if you believe that you acted in fear for your life, but it wasn’t reasonable, then that amounts to manslaughter. If Zimmerman shoved, Martin shoved back, and they tussle on the ground and Zimmerman thinks, “I’ll show you, you little bastard” and BLAM, then that’s murder.
I think that this is where SYG is being overapplied in analyzing this case. Before the law, it was completely okay for a neighborhood watch captain to approach a suspicious person and question him. If a scuffle ensued where you were pushed or grabbed and you ended up on the ground with the assailant on top of you, no retreat would be possible. Zimmerman could claim self-defense on these facts under the old law.
I’m talking about what the law says and what its implications are. The applicability to the Martin case is a related issue, but before it can be applied to Martin’s case, we need to be clear on what it’s actually saying in the first place. A lot of people have said Terr is wrong when he says the law allows you to kill someone if they escalate after you are aggressive toward them. But I am saying that Terr is right about what the law says (without intending to agree with Terr about the Martin case in particular).
Rather, I don’t see how it doesn’t say it. It’s right there in black and white. If you are the aggressor, you cannot call “self defense” unless your victim escalated to a point where you reasonably thought yourself in danger of losing your life (or grievous bodily harm) and you have retreated as far as possible.
That’s what it says. It says that even if you are the aggressor, if your victim retaliates in a way that makes you reasonably think you’re about to be killed or seriously injured, then you may use deadly force and call it self defense.
I punch you, we tussle, we’re on the ground, you’re on top of me, you begin pummeling me. I reasonably think I’m about to suffer serious injury. I cannot escape. So I pull out my knife and kill you. In Florida, according to the statute we’re discussing, that’s legal.
Motherfucker. I had a huge post typed out and accidentally closed the tab. Oh well.
Bear in mind that Zimmerman has a criminal record (charges for domestic violence and battery on a law enforcement officer) and if he was convicted on either (I’m not sure that he was), he has a much bigger problem than (2).
That is, as the aggressor he very likely would be charged with battery, which would be automatically elevated to felony battery based on his prior conviction. That would be a forcible felony under §776.08, Fla. Stat., and would mean he would be unable to claim self defense under the first exception (1).
That one doesn’t have an unless clause.
I provided you with the reporter citation, which is how you were able to look it up. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I provided you with a case in which a jury was explicitly instructed on the statutory provision you keep pointing to, with a virtually identical factual scenario, and convicted the defendant anyway.
If you think that makes me look silly, and isn’t a gotcha, bully for you, I guess - but you’re wrong. Really, really wrong.
The “exception at common law” means in the absence of a statute to the contrary, there is no right to self defense for an aggressor. Even with a statute to the contrary (as here), a jury must still determine that a defendant’s belief that he would be seriously injured was reasonable.
No, the castle doctrine exists to protect people like her. The Florida law in question has nothing to do with the right to defend oneself at home; we already had that right.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
I punch you, we tussle, we’re on the ground, you’re on top of me, you begin pummeling me. I reasonably think I’m about to suffer serious injury. I cannot escape. So I pull out my knife and kill you. In Florida, according to the statute we’re discussing, that’s legal.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, if your belief that you were about to suffer serious injury was reasonable. Assuming that you’re an able bodied adult male, getting beaten up is probably not going to qualify.
I keep seeming to be on the wrong side of this, but you guys keep saying things I don’t understand.
What, exactly, is implausible about this scenario?
Z begins following M. M says “why are you following me?” Z says “What are you doing here?” Z does not answer. M goes to truck. Z, angry, decides to follow him to confront him. Z attacks M.
Isn’t that what Terr is saying might have happened for all we know? I’m not agreeing that it happened, I’m just not seeing what’s so “impossible” about it.
ETA or even better:
M follows Z. M stops following Z. Z turns to confront M as M approaches truck. Z says “why are you following me?”* M says “what are you doing here?” Z, angry, attacks M.
*Z says this despite the fact that M has stopped following him because Z is not sure whether M has stopped following or has simply determined to continue following in the truck.
To be honest, I sort of expected the “Fuckin’ coons” thing to be bullshit. But geez, it does sound like he said exactly that. Listening to the CNN audit I cannot imagine a reasonable person not admitting he said it.
I don’t know what it really has to do with anything, though. Racist slurs are vile but not illegal; he didn’t say it to Trayvon Martin’s face, either, so it’s not a fighting word. So it’s not really a “MAJOR DEVELOPMENT” as CNN puts it.
Yes, because other than the defendant’s side of the story there was victim’s testimony and other evidence that contradicted it, and they decided that the defendant didn’t qualify for the terms of the “unless” clause. How exactly does that prove your case that this clause is not valid or operational?
But there is a statute to the contrary.
Of course, because there are qualifications to the clause, one of them the “reasonability” thing. Did I ever say anything different?
Because there are no able bodied males ever dying from being beaten up…
The fighting words doctrine has to do with whether the government can stop you from saying something or punish you if you do. It has nothing to do with whether you are justified in attacking someone.
Just because somewhere, sometime, an able-bodied male died from a whuppin’ does not make it a reasonable or likely outcome in this case. The ratio of non-fatal-to-fatal fistfights would be vanishingly small.