One thing I’m curious about – what was the basis for Zimmerman to call 911?
My take… from what I gather there were no basic conditions (oh, yes, that right there is a debate itself, eh?) met to call 911.
The reason I ask, the fact that he called 911 for no reason whatsoever tells me that he was in quite a different mindset than it would be commonly expected (it’s all in his head). In other words, he was certainly agitated - again, for no reason at all - and that agitation only spiralled into out of control mindset. Everything afterwards was kind of “normal” course of action; normal in a sense if he was agitated enough to call 911 on the kid who did nothing to justify the call, Zimmerman already saw himself as local saviour from “them” as he called the kid and certainly at that point decided to take it all the way.
There had apparently been some recent burglaries by black guys. Zimmerman felt Martin fit the description and judged that he was on drugs and looked like he was up to no good. Martin was, I think, passing near some homes as he went back to his father’s fiancee’s place.
I think Bricker is a consummate professional and dontbesojumpy was unfairly characterising him. I’d be interested to know how Bricker would word the law to better prevent similar scenarios arising in the future.
Say Zimmerman presented his weapon and ordered Martin to stop, would that not constitute assault? I think battery is a proportionate response to assault (especially when retreating seems like it would be more dangerous than attempting to defend one’s life by disarming the person making the assault) and that shooting someone is a disproportionate response to battery.
It depends. As I said, it’s a question of fact for the jury, and it depends on the injury involved. If the evidence showed four punches with injury beyond mere bruising, and the jury convicted, would it survive appeal for sufficiency of the evidence?
Yes, most likely it would. Great bodily harm defines itself and means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, or minor harm. Beyond that, we can simply look at the kinds of harm in previous cases. But the finder of fact, at trial, would be the one to answer the question.
Well, not for zero reason, but for little reason for sure. What I noiticed in Z’man’s call was the way he assumed Treyvon was guilty of something with nothing to go on except his appearence. Yes, they’d had some breakins and that’s reason enough to call and report someone you don’t know who is walking slowly and might possibly be checking out the local homes. But the leap to on drugs, up to no good, and “these a-holes always get away” crosses the line from reasonable suspicion to somewhat irrational IMO. Especially when you live in neighborhood with black neighbors. I’ve also read that Z’man’s own neighbors had complained about him being over zealous and following and questioning people when as NW he has zero authority to do. I haven’t seen that substantiated.
I also wonder if he’d been drinking but apparently he wasn’t tested that night.
Just to stir the pot more regarding “Stand Your Ground”…You may be aware of the random shooting of five black citizens in Tulsa, OK over the weekend. Police there arrested two white men on Monday and contend the shootings may have been revenge (emphasis mine):
So what does this have to do with “Stand Your Ground”? Columnist Tommy Christopher over at Mediaite reviewed newspaper accounts of the shooting death of Carl England–Jake England’s father–in 2010. England was shot by Pernell Jefferson in what was first reported as a break-in attempt by Jefferson, but as Christopher reviewed later details he found this interesting police account (emphasis mine):
Christopher notes that Oklahoma has a stand you ground law, staing this was probably why Jefferson was not charged for the shooting (from the police account, it sure looks like the law would apply here). Jefferson was instead prosecuted and convicted for attempted burglary and firearms possession (he was on probation for a previous firearms-related conviction) and is serving a six-year term.
So, could “Stand Your Ground” have been a factor here? Was the motive for Jake England’s shooting spree the fact that his father’s killer was not charged for it and “got off” with a relatively light sentence? Given the other factors involved, that’s a leap I would not want to make in this particular case–let me be clear on that point–but it isn’t hard to speculate how such laws could encourage an increase in Wild West-style “frontier justice”.
The son, La’Ron, not the daughter. And yes, he testified that the man had a knife.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that this is a Georgia case, not a Florida case, so everything I’ve said about the nuances of Florida law may not apply here. For example, I have no idea what Georgia law says specifically about the duty to retreat.
The nature of that initial confrontation is what we don’t know. Z’man and his defenders says Martin approached him aggressively but we don’t know. If Z’man’s reported history of being overly zealous and occasionaly too aggressive are true it’s very possible he questioned Martin aggresively and perhaps trtied to detain him. If he grabbed his arm or even put his hand on his gun to intimidate , then Martin punching him could be self defense.
Right. Whew, the details and nuances, even points of law from state to state are a bitch.
It seems that if he was on his own property , and felt the guy was a serious threat to both him and his kids, that would have a lot of weight. And he got life in prison? WTH? He certainly didn’t go looking for the guy to shoot him.
I don’t think confronting and assualting are a reasonable response to being followed, if that’s what happened.
You don’t get to assualt someone just because they followed you. They aren’t a serious threat that you need defending from if they’ve made no move to actually approach you.
If Martin reacted aggressively and violently to being followed then he was the aggressor and Z’man was defending himself. I don’t think that’s what happened.
I think it’s possible Z’man was the aggressor in questioning Martin and who knows what else. I think his call and getting out of his vehicle shows a little aggression which may have escalated when they were face to face. It will be interesting to see if they have any significant evidence to address who was the aggressor that night.
Hmm? It seems the “great bodily harm” is essentially a term without real meaning if you’re leaving it up to the jury. If bruising, edema, and a bloody nose constitute great bodily harm, a hard slap to the face would justify lethal force. I’m not arguing that’s not the correct legal interpretation. Just seems ridiculous on the face of it.
Here’s an honest question: Someone once took a swing at me while drunk (him more than me). He didn’t land a clean shot but if he had, it would have likely resulted in findings similar to those described in Owens v State. In Florida, would I be justified in killing him at that point? Or do I have to wait for him to land one, then kill him? Or does it depend on my state of mind, which if I recall was something like “I am angry at this individual and wish to cause him… great bodily harm”. Obviously, the jury would be the finder of fact, but would current case law support any of those scenarios? Or perhaps more to the point, would there be any grounds for appeal if the jury decided to find in my favor?
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”
At one point in his call Z’man says he doesn’t know where Martin is, indicating he lost him. There are a few more seconds of him talking to dispatch before he hangs up and the confrontation happens right after that.
Martin’s girlfriend says she heard “Why are you following me” and Someone say “What are you doing here?” and then the call ends. That doesn’t quite make sense to me because it indicates some physical contact right after those two sentences.
Either way, it doesn’t address who appraoched who.
My questions to her would be, “Did Martin say he was going to confront Z’man?” “Did he say Z-man appraoched or was approaching him” “Did he sound angry?” etc.
It does? Can you point out the part of the law that requires the defendant to present evidence in support of his fear in order to invoke immunity? I must have missed it
Citing an article in a newspaper is not citing the law. There is nothing in the law that requires the defendant to bring any evidence.
In the hearing, the prosecutor will present her reasons to the judge to think that the immunity doesn’t apply. If she doesn’t, or if the judge considers those reasons/evidence insufficient Zimmerman walks. If she does, yes, Zimmerman will have to show her wrong or the immunity doesn’t exist. But first, she has to present the damning evidence. Without it, Zimmerman is not required to present anything other than his say so.
And true, judges in some cases, according to the article, ignore the law. But what can you do.