That’s true in many states.
But not in Florida.
In Florida, the defense has the burden of alleging, with “even a scintilla” of evidence, self-defense, and then the prosecution must DISPROVE it, beyond a reasonable doubt.
No. The burden is on the state to prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense, and they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Case cite above.
He didn’t need to.
So on what basis do you say he WAS shouting things?
It’s one thing to say, “I don’t believe a word Zimmerman says.”
But you go beyond that, to say that something happened, and you have no evidence to support it. If you say Zimmerman was shouting things at Martin, your evidence cannot simply be, “I don’t believe Zimmerman.” What positive evidence says Zimmerman was shouting?
You’re assuming that there was no interim phase at all between turning around to tell someone to stop following him and the fight starting.
We know that Martin called his girlfriend. She says that he told her “a man was watching him”, that he turned around and said “what are you following me for”, that she heard zimmerman ask “what you doing around here?”, and then the phone was dropped or otherwise stopped mid call. A few seconds later Zimmerman shot Martin.
If you turn to someone following you to tell them to back off, and they show a gun, you could well assume they intend you no good. Depending on the range between you, going at them as hard as possible could well be a much better self defence move then turning and running. The latter just gives them an exercise in target practice.
Well, shit. :smack:
I didn’t know that. I see a lot of lawblogs criticizing the jury instructions as being incomplete in Zimmerman’s favor.
That’s kind of crazy. :smack:
Don’t run, you’ll only die tired.
How can you take the word of a killer as gospel? I just don’t grok how everyone buys that he’s telling the truth. Of course he’s going to paint himself in the best possible light and Trayvon in the worst. Duh
Anyway, I’m sick of rules lawyering. You can have your debate with the other Zimmerman apologists. You have plenty of company.
Why reply like that to someone who is suggesting that you should not believe Zimmerman?
I assume very little, and speculate on available evidence. My response was towards the question: “When did TM become aware that GZ was armed?” While I didn’t state it explicitly as such, I did say (IMO), “About a half-second before GZ pulled the trigger.”
Mythbusters has shown what many self-defense experts have known for years: within a certain distance (~7m/20 ft. +/-), a firearm in a holster can be fairly useless, in that an assailant can close that distance and engage with fists or knife before the defender can clear the holster.
If GZ “flashed” his piece, I find it a reasonable supposition that a testosterone (and possibly adrenalin) pumped 17 y/o TM may have “charged” GZ to take him down/out before the firearm could come into play.
I also find it a reasonable supposition that a testoserone (and possibly adrenalin) charged TM got pissed at some cracker follwing him and started an altercation, got the better of GZ during that altercation, and during which GZ managed to work his handgun free and shoot TM with little or no warning.
We don’t. We examine the evidence, and believe (or withhold belief) to the extent that the evidence backs up anyone’s narrative. If there is no such evidence, we withhold belief.
So, what evidence is there that Zimmerman was screaming at Martin? Zimmerman didn’t say it happened, Jeantel didn’t say it happened, there is no indication of it happening on the 911 tapes, and no witness says it happened.
Do you believe it happened? Why?
Regards,
Shodan
By way of our good friends at ThinkProgress, some excerpts from Anderson Cooper’s interview with a juror.
It appears from the comments (and I emphasize “appears”) that the Stand Your Ground law was central to their decision. Boiled down, regardless of whether or not Z was personally responsible for initiating the sequence of events, if he was ever in fear of bodily harm, he was legally entitled to blow Martin away.
Or as John Oliver put it on The Daily Show:
"Because – let’s be clear here – according to current Florida law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitly tell you to stop following him, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, get into a confrontation with him and if at any point during that process you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida will say, ‘Well, look, you did what you could.’”
Great. Another person who doesn’t know what the word “explicitly” means.
Sorry. Not participating in this particular circle jerk anymore. You’ve got each other to pat on the back. You don’t need me to interrupt your wank fest.
I’m not taking his word for anything.
But you cannot say, “Zimmerman says, ‘I didn’t scream,’ and I disbelieve Zimmerman, so I conclude he did scream.”
Do you see why this is so?
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: OK
explicitly Clearly and precisely expressed.
Um, seems pretty explicit to me.
Not the police, and not telling him to do anything. Apart from that, yeah…
And, you’re ignoring the fact that he did stop then.
Boiled down, the jurors did not think Zimmerman was the “aggressor”.
Well, of course not! Its clear that Martin was laying a trap from the very beginning, what with being all gangster in a gated community, and recklessly eyeballing *private property *that he had no business looking at.
His every action was calculated to lure Z into the situation where he could pounce upon him! And looking like he was on drugs, that’s a dead giveaway, he didn’t have to go around looking like he was on drugs! He just put on that “I’m on drugs!” look to get Z to notice him. Of course, the Skittles was a mistake, people on drugs go to the 7-11 and get nachos. But maybe he figured that Z wouldn’t know that.
But thanks for the insight into the way your mind works, its kinda like reading a Lovecraft novel.
Or they didn’t think there was enough evidence to indicate he was or wasn’t the aggressor.
Seems more like they read the law as saying that it didn’t matter who was responsible for setting the tragedy in motion. So long as Z could feel, at any time! that he was in danger, that was all that was needed for a Stand Your Ground defense.
TG, IANAL, but seems to me they were pretty much right about that. I would cite my authority, but its still creeping me out a little.
A condensed version of the interview with one of the jurors. She didn’t think Zimmerman was the aggressor.