Yes, obviously.
Regards,
Shodan
Okay, so let’s compare two situations.
Zimmerman saw a guy he didn’t know walking down a public street. Zimmerman felt this was reasonable grounds to believe this guy was going to commit a crime.
Martin was being followed on a public street by a guy he didn’t know. Martin felt this was reasonable grounds to believe the guy was going to commit a crime.
So where do people fall on the reasonable grounds issues here? Which option most closely matches your own.
- I think both Martin and Zimmerman had reasonable grounds.
- I think Martin had reasonable grounds and Zimmerman did not.
- I think Zimmerman had reasonable grounds and Martin did not.
- I think neither Martin or Zimmerman had reasonable grounds.
Keep in mind, this is only about reasonable grounds for believing somebody was going to commit a crime. This isn’t about how either man acted on his beliefs and whether their response was reasonable.
If this is all we are going on, then neither had reasonable suspicion.
However, this is obviously not the whole story. The greater circumstances add to the likelihood that Zimmerman’s suspicion was reasonable - not that that’s the threshold for calling the police, necessarily.
Following someone is not, in and of itself, a threat. Martin had, based on the evidence we’ve seen so far, no reason to suspect Zimmerman would commit a crime. Again, though, whether Martin had reason to fear Zimmerman is irrelevant to the case.
What were the greater circumstances?
but this question has no legal relevance.
Several years ago, I was walking from point A to point B. Some woman was walking from C to D. She was in front of me. I walk fast, so I was gaining on her. From her behavior, it was obvious to me that she was afraid of me. Did she have the right to shoot my ass? She was obviously afraid, I was walking fast behind her. I was aware of her fear, but didn’t alter my behavior when I became aware of that fear. I had somewhere to go. Can she shoot me? You seem to be arguing that she could. Her fear gives her the right to shoot the guy behind her, just because she’s afraid, regardless of the fact that I had no criminal intent. I was just walking home. Is that your contention? It’s the inevitable result from your argument, here.
Another hypothetical. Let’s take Martin and Zimmerman out of the picture. Let’s use two hypothetical people; Bob Jones and Joe Smith.
Joe Smith’s a mugger. He walks around looking for potential targets. He carries a concealed gun. When he sees somebody he plans on robbing he follows them until he gets them in an isolated spot. He then pulls out his gun and uses that as a threat to make people give him their wallet and other valuables.
Bob Jones is walking down the street one day and he sees Joe Smith is following him. Jones thinks it’s suspicious that Smith is following him and believes Smith is a criminal. Jones confronts Smith and then punches Smith, knocking Smith down. Smith, at this time, pulls out his gun and shoots Jones.
Based on this scenario, would you say that Smith had a legal right to shoot Jones in self-defense?
As has been stated numerous times in this thread and others, it is unreasonable to punch someone because you feel that they are following you. Smith could have just as easily said, “Hey buddy, you dropped your wallet back there, and here it is.”
Just because in your hypo, Jones was subjectively right doesn’t make it any better.
If I pull out a gun and shoot someone at a bus stop for no particular reason, should I not be punished if it was later found out that the guy I shot was about to commit a murder?
That there had been a series of burglaries in the area by young black men (according to reports), and Martin was walking around slowly looking at the houses in the area. I’d consider that it was reasonable to call the police in those circumstances.
But Zimmerman wasn’t just walking home, he was following Martin. Martin had no idea why.
Are you really having this much trouble grasping this?
OK.
*Joe Smith’s a mugger. He walks around looking for potential targets. He carries a concealed gun. When he sees somebody he plans on robbing he follows them until he gets them in an isolated spot. He then pulls out his gun and uses that as a threat to make people give him their wallet and other valuables. *
So far, so good.
*Bob Jones is walking down the street one day and he sees Joe Smith is following him. *
Fine.
*Jones thinks it’s suspicious that Smith is following him and believes Smith is a criminal. *
Fine. He’s even right, an added bonus.
Jones confronts Smith and then punches Smith, knocking Smith down.
BZZT. Not fine. Jones cannot legally punch Smith at this point. Regardless of Jones’ suspicions, Smith has done nothing illegal, and most particularly has not threatened Jones. Jones’ actions are a battery against Smith.
Smith, at this time, pulls out his gun and shoots Jones.
This one is highly dependent on the particular jurisdiction in which Smith and Jones find themselves.
In some states, there is an explicit requirement that force may be met with only equal force. In others, the focus is much more on the type of injury reasonably feared by the person first attacked. And the manner by which Smith must prove his fear is also highly dependent on the laws of the jurisdiction.
However, there’s no question that at the moment Smith is knocked down, he is the victim of a crime, and Jones was not acting lawfully. Smith is entitled to respond with force.
If you want to pick a state, we can examine its laws and figure out what Smith’s legal options are.
Okay, so there’s seems to be a consensus that Martin was wrong for having punched Zimmerman.
What should he have done then? I’m not saying walking away wouldn’t have been a better plan. After all, confronting Zimmerman got Martin killed. But I thought that was the whole point of “stand your ground” - that it said that a person doesn’t have a duty to retreat.
So what is it that Martin could legally do in a SYG state that he couldn’t do in a non-SYG state? Are SYG laws meaningless?
**If **he punched first, without being threatened.
Walk away, tell Zimmerman to piss off, call 911 and report someone following him - there are any number of legal things he could and should have done.
You don’t have a duty to retreat if you are attacked.
Stand his ground if he was attacked.
If Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin would be entirely within his rights to stand his ground without retreating. It wouldn’t be very smart, since Zimmerman had a gun, but legally Martin would be in the right if Zimmerman attacked first.
If Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would be entirely within his rights to stand his ground without retreating. If Zimmerman’s account is true, then Zimmerman did not have the opportunity to retreat - it is hard to run with someone sitting on your chest bashing your head on the ground.
SYG does not give anyone the right to punch someone in the face when they ask you a question, nor does it give the right to draw a gun on a stranger in your neighborhood because you suspect he might be up to something.
That is why it is important to establish, if possible, who was the first to attack. If it was Martin, then Martin was in the wrong. If it was Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was in the wrong.
As far as I know, the only application of SYG in this case is that it shifts the burden of proof to the state to show that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.
Regards,
Shodan
What Martin should have done, if he felt threatened, is call the police. What he was entitled to do was to walk where he liked, say (almost) whatever he wanted, and respond with force to any actual threat Zimmerman presented. SYG is irrelevant if Zimmerman didn’t threaten or attack Martin.
Once again, following someone and speaking to them is not a threat.
Wait a second. There’s only a consensus for that statement if it’s true that Martin punched Zimmerman as the first assault. If Martin punched Zimmerman in reaction to, say, Zimmerman grabbing his arm and saying, “You’re not going anywhere, thief!” then he is absolutely justified.
Correct. A better plan would have been to call the police and continue to go about his business.
And the woman in my story thought I was following her. She was wrong. Martin had no way of knowing if Zimmerman was doing something equally innocent. And in fact, he was. Asking a suspicious person to account for himself is not an illegal act.
If it makes you feel any better, Little Nemo, I don’t know if Martin was wrong for punching Zimmerman. I think it’s plausible that Zimmerman was acting in defense and I don’t think the prosecution is going to be able to prove otherwise. But then I don’t have access to all the evidence so maybe the prosecution will surprise me somehow.
Obviously these were options. But are you saying he was legally obligated to do these things?
Now you’ve got me more confused. Are you saying there is a duty to retreat if you’re not being attacked? How would that work?
I’m guessing what you mean is that you have to retreat if you feel threatened but the threat isn’t genuine. Is that correct?
But if so, how is a person supposed to distinguish between a threat that they only think is genuine and a threat that actually is genuine? Wouldn’t they feel exactly the same?
So are you saying that Martin’s race was a factor that made him suspicious?
No. He didn’t have to retreat. He had, simply, to not attack or threaten Zimmerman. I’m not sure where you get the idea of a genuine threat from, though. What matters is that it’s reasonable that he feels threatened - not that Zimmerman is actually acting in a threatening way. If it is reasonable, he may defend himself. If not, he should continue going about his lawful business, involving Zimmerman or not as he chooses.