Not following you here…it’s evidence that a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s position (person on top of them, and suffering wounds) would fear death or great bodily injury. That is the legal requirement to use deadly force, unless one is the aggressor. Can you prove Zimmerman was the aggressor? As you note, no one saw the entire fight, or the shooting.
Yes.
Yes, though less dramatically than if Martin were on the ground.
What matters is what can be proven.
If the evidence was different to what it is, of course the assessment would change. However, the forensic evidence does not say that.
Also, no-one has said that, because Martin was getting the better of him for a few seconds, he had the right to kill Martin. He had the right to kill Martin if he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Martin getting the better of him may be evidence for that, but it is neither necessary or sufficient.
Of course if it “can be proven” that Zimmerman shot Martin while Zimmerman was standing up and Martin was on the ground, that would change things. But: the forensic evidence that has been released is pretty unequivocal that the shooting was done from inches away, and the defense is bringing the acknowledged authoritative gunshot forensic expert who will testify that the forensic evidence is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. Do you think that will change things for Stoid? I don’t think it will.
Of course. But it just amazes me that the topic never even gets discussed. We don’t know what can be proven. We think we do, but they haven’t rested yet.
We already know that the autopsy found that Martin was shot from point-blank range, and that the muzzle was eight inches or less from his body when Zimmerman fired.
No, this is wrong and stupid - nobody thinks or has said this.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s been discussed, you with the face wrote at length about her theory that the bullet holes in Martin’s clothes suggested that he was being restrained by his clothes at the time of the shot being fired, for instance. And you’ve written about Zimmerman trying to restrain Martin, too.
Actually, I’m not following you either. How in the word do you get from ‘on the bottom, suffering wounds’ automatically equating to ‘fear of death/great bodily injury’? If that were the case, every single skerfluffle that happens dozens of times across the country every single night of the year would reasonably and necessarily end up with a dead person.
Surely you’re not saying that simply being on the bottom with someone on top and having suffered some injuries - no matter how ‘minor’ or ‘insignificant’ - justifies shooting the person on top?
God almighty. Have you been reading at all the caselaw Bricker provided? The level of injury Zimmerman received, as a matter of law, is sufficient to support self defense. It is axiomatic at this point. The jury may decide it’s not sufficient, but it is not, as you seem to suggest, self-evidently insufficient. Quite the contrary.
Yes, I am. That’s a situation in which a reasonable person would fear death or great bodily harm: pinned and beaten, no end in sight, no one helping you.
Would you not fear death or great bodily harm in that situation?
Yes - if the jury believes that Zimmerman got those injuries in the process of defending himself, sure.
I’m stating that the injuries - in and of themselves - are *not evidence of self-defense. *If Zimmerman got those injuries during MMA class that afternoon, would you still claim that those injuries justified shooting Martin?
Being on the bottom, and having suffered Zimmerman’s injuries? No.
You’re made of stern stuff, then. A reasonable person wouldn’t fear death or great bodily harm? They’ve already had their nose broken and eyes blackened and the back of their head injured, they’ve called out to someone (Good) for help and received none. No fear, really?
Well, that’s a bit silly, no? No one is considering the injuries outside of context. Getting your bell rung in a voluntary MMA class is a bit different than getting pinned and punched in the face by some stranger on the street, right? Seriously, this is a debate point we need to resolve? I never had anyone arrested who tackled me during high school football games, either, just to get that out of the way.
And if a stranger pins you and punches you, while there is no certainty what a jury will do, it seems almost by definition a situation where great bodily harm is a reasonable fear.
The prosecution forensic expert just testified that the shot was point blank, with gun touching the hoodie and the sweatshirt hanging forward of the body. Fully consistent with what Zimmerman said.
Um, that’s not what the expert testified to. The testimony was that it was a contact shot: Gun in contact with the hoodie, sweatshirt underneath also in contact with the hoodie. That’s rather different from Zimmerman’s account…
That’s correct, the injuries are not evidence that he defended himself, but they are evidence (not proof) that he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. It will be up to the jury to decide if the counter-evidence that he was not in such fear outweighs this evidence to such an extent that no reasonable person could believe he was in reasonable fear.
They are, in short, evidence that he had the right to defend himself, not that he did defend himself.
By themselves, the injuries are rather weak evidence for it. Combined with the evidence that they were inflicted by Martin, and the evidence that Martin was continuing to attack Zimmerman, the evidence in total is pretty powerful.
Huh? That’s exactly Zimmerman’s account. According to Zimmerman’s account, they were at most a foot or two apart, at arm’s length from each other, and he extended his arm to shoot. So yes, gun in contact with the hoodie is consistent. Trayvon leaning over Zimmerman, the sweatshirt would hang away from the body - also consistent.
Your answer should have been “that’s what she gets for standing her ground”.
Regards,
Shodan
Your idea of invoking it to explain why it’s a positive good that you have killed someone probably has less than 87% support. Do you believe we should have a criminal justice system at all? Are there certain murders that were not part of God’s plan and need to be punished?