I know I know. Just trying not to go there and concentrate on the fact he was a kid
Do we know that this for sure? Is it possible that Trayvon reacted to being followed by confronting and threatening his pursuer?
I think there are several reasons: Primarily because there were no charges filed and the appearance that the shooters’ word was taken as a truthful account. Secondly, the release of the 911 tapes where you can actually hear the gunshot and then the release of the video of Zimmerman at the police station just 37 minutes after the incident showing none the worse for wear.
I think it’s pretty easy to see why the media would jump all over this given the material they’ve had to work with.
Well, this contradicts the girls testimony which, I believe, is credible. We also have the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car which is pretty damning, IMHO, with regards to who confronted who. But, again, nobody knows exactly what happened that night except for Zimmerman. Whatever happened, whether the shooting was justified or not, I do hope that Zimmerman feels remorse. Even if the shooting was justified as self defense, he created the situation and an innocent teenager is dead due to his actions.
I think it is likely that Trayvon reacted to being followed by confronting and attacking George. If this is what happened then, in my opinion, Trayvon was the only one acting reasonably that evening, even if he was also the only one that night who commited a crime. It is a pretty natural and predictable young male reaction to turn and confront someone who is following you.
You think it was reasonable for him to stop his car and get out while being confronted by Trayvon? Pretty stupid in my book. If he really thought Trayvon was a burgler or another type of criminal and Trayvon was approaching his car and confronting him for following him, Zimmerman should have backed off and waited for the police, not escalated the situation with a potentially armed potential criminal. Reasonable my ass.
Also reasonable: He’s confronted by an armed man who is not the police who tries to detain him and is shot while(from Trayvon’s viewpoint) fighting for his life.
Oops, strike that. I misread your post Hank. Apologies.
The thing is, according to the stupid stand your ground law, Trayvon would not be committing a crime turning around and physically confronting george.
Is there evidence he tried to detain Trayvon?
As already said though, that’s not how it actually works out in real life.
Which part of the law – and your reading – makes you say that someone has the right to respond with force against “aggressive harassment?” Which part says that someone may punch if confronted?
Specifically?
I agree he had no duty to retreat. Where do you get that he had a license to respond to being asked a question – even aggressively - with a punch?
If the confrontation is such as to cause a reasonable person to believe he is under imminent threat of greivous bodily harm, then he may legally punch the confronter in the face.
But the jury didn’t agree.
For one thing, black homeowner McNeil told the police that Epp came at him with a knife, but the knife was found folded in Epp’s pocket. I notice you didn’t mention that, and I assume it’s because the Salon.com article you linked to describes the event in this way:
Why do you suppose the author of the Salon article left out the false claim made by McNeil to police?
The jury is entitled to conclude that since McNeil lied, his report of the remainder of the scene was also self-serving.
The Salon.com article says, “After a neighbor across the street who witnessed the encounter corroborated McNeil’s account, police determined that it was a case of self-defense and did not charge him in the death.”
But in fact, the neighbor testified that when Epp increased his speed toward McNeil and McNeil raised his gun and fired at Epp’s head, Epp’s hands were at his sides, and the neighbor did not see Epp raise his hands or see any weapons in Epp’s hands.
Why do you suppose the author of that article left out those facts?
Yes.
Very true.
But not simply “when he was confronted.”
You’re exactly right: the ‘confrontation’ has to be such that would cause a reasonable person to believe he is under imminent threat of greivous bodily harm.
Was it?
I don’t know. And if anyone other than a member of the legal team that has seen all the evidence says they do know, they are mistaken.
Well, I guess Zimmerman knows, too. But unless you’re employed by the state of Florida or your name is Zimmerman, you don’t know what that confrontation consisted of.
What in the law gives Zimmerman license to respond to a punch with a bullet?
A punch that bloodies the nose is “serious bodily harm.” I cited the caselaw for that back in the IMHO thread - do you want it again?
considering he’s been arrested at this point for it, to you and your “knowledge” of the law i say don’t quit your day job.
armchair wikipedia laws and trying to philosophically apply them however you want.
he’s in jail for this now.
Exactly as it should be. And now a jury can decide if it believes Zimmerman’s story.
The outrage was (at least for me) because for quite some time it appeared that Zimmerman’s story would never be tested by a jury of his peers but merely taken as true by the investigators.
I hadn’t thought of applying SYG to Trayvon’s actions, but I think you’re right. Unfortunately, that just means that Trayvon couldn’t be prosecuted for punching Zimmerman, and it may still apply to protect Zimmerman from prosecution for shooting Martin.
That seems to be a major problem with the law - it allows you to escalate the severity of the situation, and could possibly end up with a dead teenager and no one having broken the law.