# Question about the Trayvon Martin Case? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504 "2012-04-11T22:28:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/101 "2012-04-12T18:23:53Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > So does he have to give testimony (“evidence of his innocence”) or not? If Zimmerman shows up at the hearing and his defense says nothing and the prosecution says nothing do you really think that the charges will be dismissed due to immunity? Perhaps you think that “testimony” is not “evidence”? Obviously the defense has to say something - such as “my client says that he was in fear for his life at the time he shot Martin”. Then it is prosecution’s turn. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/102 "2012-04-12T18:24:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What, specifically, does “physically confronted” mean? I don’t know, is it possible that Zimmerman tried to physical restrain Trayvon? Maybe tackle him? Zimmerman stated that Trayvon ran and he also stated that he chased him. It is certainly possible that Zimmerman was the first one in this situation to initiate physical contact, especially given the attitude he displayed in the calls with the police dispatchers. If he did initiate physical contact of any form, Trayvon was within his rights to protect himself with physical force, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/103 "2012-04-12T18:25:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What does his plea have to do with anything? > > And I haven’t read anything that indicates Zimmerman’s lawyers won’t be asking for a pre-trial hearing on probable cause grounds. I’d love to read a cite supporting that claim. > [@](#): > > 12:20 p.m. ET: According to the Orlando Sentinel, George Zimmerman “can ask to have the second-degree-murder charge against him dropped without having to stand trial in the death of Trayvon Martin.” > > The paper reports that in 2010, the Florida Supreme Court “ruled that anyone claiming ‘stand your ground’ immunity in a death, battery or assault case can request a hearing on the evidence.” > > However, there is no indication Zimmerman will do so. His attorney, Mark O’Mara, said Zimmerman will plead “not guilty” at his arraignment later today. this was before the hearing, which was at 1:30. at this point the hearing has already happened, he entered a plea of not guilty, they agreed there was probable cause to proceed, set a hearing, he didn’t ask for bail. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/104 "2012-04-12T18:26:26Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I don’t know, is it possible that Zimmerman tried to physical restrain Trayvon? Maybe tackle him? Zimmerman stated that Trayvon ran and he also stated that he chased him. It is certainly possible that Zimmerman was the first one in this situation to initiate physical contact, especially given the attitude he displayed in the calls with the police dispatchers. If he did initiate physical contact of any form, Trayvon was within his rights to protect himself with physical force, yes? Absolutely yes. If Zimmerman was the first to initiate physical contact, then you are absolutely correct. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/105 "2012-04-12T18:26:48Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I am sorry, but the law does not apply to Zimmerman in any form. From what I read in the news, his lawyer feels the same way. His previous lawyers said it applied and they would use it in his defense. I haven’t seen anything to suggest his current lawyer disagrees. > [@](#): > > Again from [the NPR interview](http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149404276/op-ed-why-i-wrote-stand-your-ground-law): Neither Jeb Bush nor Senator Peaden get to decide whether the law applies in this case or not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/106 "2012-04-12T18:28:54Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > this was before the hearing, which was at 1:30. at this point the hearing has already happened, he entered a plea of not guilty, they agreed there was probable cause to proceed, set a hearing, he didn’t ask for bail. No, you’re not understanding what you’re reading. An arraignment is not a hearing at which this issue can be raised. The arraignment is simply a formal proceeding in which the accused is informed of the charges against him and asked to enter a plea. The court does not assess probable cause at an arraignment. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/107 "2012-04-12T18:38:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > No not by all accounts. {or any I’ve seen} That’s what we don’t know. Z’man said Martin approached him aggressively as he was headed back to his vehicle. > > I did notice in his call that he initially agrees to meet the police somewhere and then says “have them call me and I’ll tell them where I am” The girl talking on the phone stated that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Zimmerman while talking to the police said that Martin was running. He then stated he was giving chase (following) Martin. It is possible that he stopped chasing and was returning to his vehicle and was confronted by Martin at this time (though that contradicts the girls testimony), though it is also possible that he confronted Martin (though this contradicts his testimony). Either way the law was not written to protect individuals that are following and pursuing innocent people walking through neighborhoods. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/108 "2012-04-12T18:38:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The arraignment is simply a formal proceeding in which the accused is informed of the charges against him and asked to enter a plea. The court does not assess probable cause at an arraignment. And in Zimmerman’s case it is set for May 29th. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/109 "2012-04-12T18:40:30Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > The girl talking on the phone stated that Zimmerman confronted Martin. If I remember correctly, Martin initiated the conversation with Zimmerman, according to the girlfriend. Can you point out the wording in girlfriend’s recount of the events that leads you to believe that she stated that Zimmerman “confronted” Martin? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/110 "2012-04-12T18:43:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > His previous lawyers said it applied and they would use it in his defense. I haven’t seen anything to suggest his current lawyer disagrees. > > Neither Jeb Bush nor Senator Peaden get to decide whether the law applies in this case or not. Actually, it looks like his current lawyer is going to use it (from [here](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/04/12/zimmerman_makes_court_appearance_in_fla_shooting/?page=2)): > [@](#): > > O’Mara, Zimmerman’s attorney, said his client would plead not guilty and invoke Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” law, which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight. Regarding Bush, Peaden, and Baxley, you don’t think the original architects of the law have any incite into whether it applies? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/111 "2012-04-12T18:45:48Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Regarding Bush, Peaden, and Baxley, you don’t think the original architects of the law have any incite into whether it applies? “Insight”. And no, they don’t. They have “insight” into whether they _wanted_ it to apply when they wrote it. But if the clear language of the law says absolutely nothing that would support their statement that it doesn’t apply, then no, their opinion doesn’t mean anything. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/112 "2012-04-12T18:55:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If I remember correctly, Martin initiated the conversation with Zimmerman, according to the girlfriend. Can you point out the wording in girlfriend’s recount of the events that leads you to believe that she stated that Zimmerman “confronted” Martin? Actually, you are right. Martin was the first to talk in her account. Regardless, I still opine that if Zimmerman was the first to initiate physical contact, then the stand your ground law applies to Trayvon and allows him to use physical force to defend himself. I also think that if Trayvon was the first to initiate physical contact, the use of the stand your ground law to protect Zimmerman goes against the spirit and original intent of the law. The law was written to protect “\*A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be \*\”. Again, quoting the author of the bill: [QUOTE=Florida State Representative Dennis Baxley] I certainly - it certainly wasn’t the intent of any of us to protect anyone who was pursuing and confronting other people. It was when an individual law-abiding citizen was the subject and the victim of a violent attack. [/QUOTE] To me, the consequence of a successful defense using the stand your ground law in this case is that I could go to Florida and intimidate someone until they struck out at me and then I could legally shoot them and claim self defense under the law. Do you really think this is a good use of the law? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/113 "2012-04-12T18:57:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Insight”. Damn auto correct. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/114 "2012-04-12T18:57:27Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Either way the law was not written to protect individuals that are following and pursuing innocent people walking through neighborhoods. No, I disagree. The law is not able to protect people who, after following following and pursuing innocent people walking through neighborhoods, initiate a physical confrontation with that innocent person. But the law certainly protects someone who follows an innocent person and approaches them to ask a question. To be plain: if it turns out that Zimmerman had a camcorder running the whole time, and so we have more or less undeniable evidence of the sequence of events, let’s say that the video shows: Zimmerman following Martin. Zimmerman approaching Martin and saying, “Hey - what are you doing here? What’s your business in this neighborhood?” Martin responding by striking Zimmerman repeatedly in the face, knocking him down and continuing to punch him. Zimmerman pulling his gun and shooting Martin. Zimmerman is entitled to use deadly force, and cannot be convicted. Do you agree or disagree? (Note: I’m not saying that’s actually what happened, for the hypo-impaired). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/115 "2012-04-12T18:59:47Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Regardless, I still opine that if Zimmerman was the first to initiate physical contact, then the stand your ground law applies to Trayvon and allows him to use physical force to defend himself. Yes. Absolutely right. > [@](#): > > To me, the consequence of a successful defense using the stand your ground law in this case is that I could go to Florida and intimidate someone until they struck out at me and then I could legally shoot them and claim self defense under the law. Do you really think this is a good use of the law? Then the law should change. Or people should remember that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” and not strike out at words. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/116 "2012-04-12T19:04:49Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Regardless, I still opine that if Zimmerman was the first to initiate physical contact, then the stand your ground law applies to Trayvon and allows him to use physical force to defend himself. Of course. Yet the law applies to Zimmerman as well. > [@](#): > > I also think that if Trayvon was the first to initiate physical contact, the use of the stand your ground law to protect Zimmerman goes against the spirit and original intent of the law. The law was written to protect “\*A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be \*\”. Up to the physical confrontation, neither Martin nor Zimmerman were “engaged in an unlawful activity”, and both were “in a place where they had a right to be”. > [@](#): > > To me, the consequence of a successful defense using the stand your ground law in this case is that I could go to Florida and intimidate someone until they struck out at me and then I could legally shoot them and claim self defense under the law. Do you really think this is a good use of the law? If at the time you shot them you were in reasonable fear for your life or great bodily harm, yes, I think this is a good use of the law. Forget about this particular case. Do you think that if you slap someone, he knocks you to the ground and starts beating you up to the point where you reasonably fear for your life, you should not be able to apply deadly force to prevent him killing you? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/117 "2012-04-12T19:07:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I disagree. The law is not able to protect people who, after following following and pursuing innocent people walking through neighborhoods, initiate a physical confrontation with that innocent person. But the law certainly protects someone who follows an innocent person and approaches them to ask a question. > > To be plain: if it turns out that Zimmerman had a camcorder running the whole time, and so we have more or less undeniable evidence of the sequence of events, let’s say that the video shows: > > Zimmerman following Martin. Zimmerman approaching Martin and saying, “Hey - what are you doing here? What’s your business in this neighborhood?” Martin responding by striking Zimmerman repeatedly in the face, knocking him down and continuing to punch him. Zimmerman pulling his gun and shooting Martin. > > Zimmerman is entitled to use deadly force, and cannot be convicted. > > Do you agree or disagree? > > (Note: I’m not saying that’s actually what happened, for the hypo-impaired). I agree. As I said up thread, I totally believe people should be able to use force to defend themselves, even deadly force if the situation calls for it. I, however, believe the law is stupid in that it says you have no duty to retreat. Force, especially lethal force, should only be used as a last resort and you should try to escape the situation if you can. Of course, this may or may not apply to this case. [QUOTE=Bricker] Then the law should change. Or people should remember that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” and not strike out at words. [/quote] The problem is that this is not name calling or verbal harassment, this is a seventeen year old adult being followed through a neighborhood by another adult male. I am in my 40s and I would be seriously intimidated if I was being followed through a neighborhood by some guy in a SUV. At 17 I would have been terrified. It’s a stupid law and it should change. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/118 "2012-04-12T19:16:05Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > It’s a stupid law and it should change. I wholeheartedly agree. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/119 "2012-04-12T19:21:56Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > “Insight”. And no, they don’t. They have “insight” into whether they _wanted_ it to apply when they wrote it. But if the clear language of the law says absolutely nothing that would support their statement that it doesn’t apply, then no, their opinion doesn’t mean anything. This is very correct. Legislatures do not pass “intentions” (and it is a fair question whether a legislature, a body composed of several members, all of whom have their own individual intentions, can be said to have “an” intention), they pass statutes. And where a statute is not ambiguous, and “having an actual and reasonable fear that one faces an imminent threat of serious bodily harm” is not an ambiguous designation (even if it is sometimes difficult to determine the fact of the matter as to whether any particular individual actually and reasonably was so fearful), there is no need to solicit any member of the legislature or exectuvie branch’s thoughts on how they thought the law might be applied. To do otherwise would collapse impermissibly the judicial function into one of the coordinate branches. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504/120 "2012-04-12T19:22:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Of course. Yet the law applies to Zimmerman as well. > Up to the physical confrontation, neither Martin nor Zimmerman were “engaged in an unlawful activity”, and both were “in a place where they had a right to be”. > If at the time you shot them you were in reasonable fear for your life or great bodily harm, yes, I think this is a good use of the law. You are wrong. If Zimmerman initiated physical contact with Trayvon, he would be engaged in an unlawful activity. At this point Trayvon would be able to defend himself with force. If Zimmerman defending himself with lethal force, he would not be protected under this law as he assaulted Martin. Zimmerman is not a cop, he has no right to detain, grab, slap, or even touch Trayvon. You are right that there is no law that forbids him from following Trayvon or pursuing him when Trayvon ran. > [@Terr](#): > > Forget about this particular case. Do you think that if you slap someone, he knocks you to the ground and starts beating you up to the point where you reasonably fear for your life, you should not be able to apply deadly force to prevent him killing you? Not under this law. By slapping the person I committed assault and the law no longer protects me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-the-trayvon-martin-case/618504.md?page=7)