I’m pretty convinced now the answer to this puzzle lies in what the various players mean when they say, “SYG.”
They could mean Florida’s somewhat unique scheme of supplying total immunity upon probable cause to believe self-defense was in play.
Or they could mean florida’s statutory and not at all uncommon revocation of the “duty to retreat.”
How the HELL can you say Martin should not had feared for his life , no one know what really happen . We heard one side of the story and it was from Zimmerman who has been in the news the past few years for all the wrong reasons . Zimmerman is a walking time bomb , and know for having a violent temper . Martin would still had be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the cops like he was told to do.
You mean besides the fact that he was being shadowed then antagonized by an unknown, armed dude ? Not gonna lie, that’d shake **me **some. I’ll freely admit being a little bitch 'bout dat.
For all the often-repeated-and-possibly-inaccurate assertions made over the last five years about the SYG statutory scheme, one that isn’t raised often enough is that it confuses the fuck out of people. That includes experienced criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges. I get case law updates like this on a weekly basis. Of course, the confusion regarding the SYG provision itself is only part of it; the distinction between SYG and SYG immunity is a bigger part of the media’s confusion.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
Apparently, in spite of having received free legal advice concerning his article, via the internet, from lawyers, Kevin Drum still suspects that Zimmerman’s defense was based on SYG.
[/QUOTE]
I have some free legal advice for you: it was. That is, the jury instructions included standard instructions on the SYG defense. Zimmerman’s defense did not include SYG immunity, which is a wholly separate aspect of the law which merely happened to be enacted as part of the same bill.
Zimmerman has a violent temper? I know that’s been claimed, but every time it’s been investigated the claims have been found to be baseless. And he wasn’t told to stay in his car.
If you’re going to argue from the facts, at least get your facts right.
If you mean “followed then spoken to” by your weasel words there, then they are not sufficient to put a reasonable person in imminent fear of attack. Absent a restraining order, people generally have the right to follow and speak to you. It may rise to the level of harassment or stalking, but that’s still not a threat.
There is exactly no evidence that Zimmerman was a threat to Martin before Martin punched him. None. No witnesses, no physical evidence, no circumstantial evidence, nothing. All you have if you claim he threatened Martin is the fact that I can’t prove otherwise, and that’s not how it works if you accuse someone.
Did you follow the trial? I did. The prosecution’s case was laughable, to the extent that I felt sorry for the prosecution lawyers.
Rights have fuck all to do with anything. I have the right to stare right in the eyes of a perfect stranger in the subway for no reason whatsoever. That’d likely weird him out regardless.
As well it should 'cause I’m mental, me, yo.
But facts and perception of those facts are two different things. Cops have argued (successfully) that their perception that they were in danger was justification enough for shooting factually unarmed people. That shit oughta work both ways, neh ?
Is it really inconceivable to be freaked out about a stalker ?
I did not. I really, but **really **don’t give a shit either way. I’m weirded out by your apparent assertion that there was nothing threatening whatsoever about Zimmerman’s behaviour on that night, that’s all.
How the HELL can you say Martin should have feared for his life when it was Martin who approached Zimmerman? According to Rachel Jeantel’s testimony in court, Martin called GZ a nigger, and a creepy-ass cracker. TM also told Jeantel that he had lost the guy who had been following him. Then TM confronted GZ. Words were exchanged, and TM began beating GZ.
Martin would be alive if he had just gone into his father’s girlfriend’s house, or had continued to put distance between himself and GZ.
Really Good Rule #1 - Don’t attack anyone carrying a gun.
Really Good Rule #2 - Assume everyone is armed.
“Freaked out” is not “in fear of imminent injury or death”. Someone following you, staring at you, talking to you, or whatever doesn’t provide reason to fear that.
If it were, as you seem to be arguing, there’d be far more self-defence killings, and I think “mind your own business, on pain of death” is going a little too far.
You can’t just make things up like that.
What’s he making up? Everything in his post comes from witness statements to the court or the police.
Which part did Rachel Jeantel lie about?
Jeantel testified that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “nigga” and a “creepy ass cracker” on the phone with her, not that he called him that. She testified that Martin was trying to lose Zimmerman, not that he confronted him. She never testified that “TM began beating GZ.”
Zimmerman’s police statement said that Martin confronted him, and beat him. You don’t get to dismiss that and assume it’s not true.
If Martin did, in fact lose Zimmerman, as Jeantal claimed, then it must have been Martin who initiated the confrontation, as one can’t initiate a confrontation with someone who’s location is unknown.
Now, it’s possible that Zimmerman lied in his statement, Martin lied on the phone to Jeantal, or that she lied or misremembered what was said. But that only reduces the information available to us, and makes it even less possible to say Zimmerman was guilty of anything.
I am not dismissing anything. I am referring specifically to the content of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony, which doorhinge claimed to be relying on. Also, it is quite possible to initiate a confrontation with someone after you find them.
Why shouldn’t it ? Plenty of serial killers out there. I seen it on the teevee.
The irony of this statement, in parallel with your statements in the “police encounters” thread, is palpable. Hell, it’s pretty ironic when that statement is made in defence of* George fucking Zimmerman*. The guy who successfully argued that he felt he had to lethally stand his ground against a bloke armed with a pack of Skittles.
But I do agree that “I felt afraid (regardless of context), therefore I killed the guy” as a plausible justification/excuse for manslaughter is going a little too far. And by little I mean a hundred miles or so. But that seems to be the standard of SYG laws, so there you go.
“I felt afraid” is not the standard. “I felt afraid, and it was reasonable to do so” is the standard. It’s certainly possible that Zimmerman acted in a way to make Martin reasonably afraid, but many things are possible. It’s possible a third party killed Martin, and Zimmerman for some reason wants to protect him. There’s the same amount of evidence for each theory - none.
What there is evidence of (although not proof) is that Martin struck Zimmerman and continued to assault him. The evidence supports Zimmerman, and that’s actually more than is required for him not to be guilty.
Fear, by definition, is not reasonable.
NM
You’re saying there are no circumstances in which it’s reasonable to be frightened?