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.
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?
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.
Absolutely yes.
If Zimmerman was the first to initiate physical contact, then you are absolutely correct.
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.
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.
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.
And in Zimmerman’s case it is set for May 29th.
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, it looks like his current lawyer is going to use it (from here):
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.
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 *<snip>”.
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?
Damn auto correct.
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).
Yes. Absolutely right.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I wholeheartedly agree.
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.
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.
Not under this law. By slapping the person I committed assault and the law no longer protects me.