But you feel it wasn’t reasonable for Martin to feel like Zimmerman was going to commit a crime?
Martin wasn’t legally obligated to do anything except abide by the law.
Don’t be ridiculous.
See above.
We don’t know of any evidence that Zimmerman was going to commit a crime, at least to date.
Regards,
Shodan
Based on what I know, no. That is, if the story as presented is substantially true, then Martin had no reason to fear that, and indeed Zimmerman did not commit any crime.
Now if, for example, Zimmerman threatened to restrain Martin, or actually attempted to do so, then Martin would have been entitled to use some level of force. However, we don’t have much in the way of evidence that that happened.
I don’t quite get why you’re so concerned about this, as it has no bearing on the case.
Apparently I misunderstood you. When you wrote: “You don’t have a duty to retreat if you are attacked” I thought you were making a distinction based on the fact that there was an attack (which did seem strange so I questioned it). Was your actual meaning more like “You don’t have a duty to retreat if you are attacked or if you are not attacked”? In other words, you do not have a duty to retreat in general.
Shodan, I’m wondering if you could respond to the question I asked earlier:
Bricker says he thinks #4 is correct. And Steophan apparently feels $3 is correct.
I feel it’s a major issue. Zimmerman’s defense rests on the claim that he was acting in self-defense against a crime, yes? So obviously the issue of whether or not Martin was committing a crime is important. If you shoot a person committing a crime, you’re acting in self-defense. If you shoot a person who isn’t committing a crime, then you’re committing manslaughter.
Now let’s concede, for the moment, that Martin confronted Zimmerman and punched Zimmerman first. Does that clearly constitute a crime?
I don’t think so. Several people have said that you can use force first if you’re defending yourself from a threat of a crime. So if Martin punched Zimmerman because he thought Zimmerman was threatening to commit a crime then Martin was acting in self-defense and not committing a crime.
So the question now is, did Martin have reasonable ground to think Zimmerman was threatening to commit a crime?
You’ve already answered this question. You said that while Zimmerman had reasonable grounds to think Martin was threatening to commit a crime (because he was a young black man and other young black men had committed crimes in the area) Martin did not have reasonable grounds to think Zimmerman was threatening to commit a crime.
This is a point we disagree on. I don’t think the race of other people is a relevant issue. I think the issue should be based on what these two individuals did on that day. Martin walked down a street and Zimmerman followed Martin as he walked down the street. In my opinion, I think Zimmerman’s behavior was more suspicious than Martin’s. Following somebody is more suspicious than walking down the street.
That said, Bricker’s pointed out a third option. Maybe neither man’s actions rose to the level of reasonable grounds. It’s possible that neither man acted in a suspicious manner that gave reasonable grounds to think the other was going to commit a crime. I won’t say Bricker is wrong. He makes a plausible argument. And if his argument is correct, the issue is closed.
Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s a closed issue yet. It’s possible that other people might feel differently than Bricker does. They may feel that following somebody is suspicious enough behavior to give reasonable grounds that they’re going to commit a crime.
But I think I’ve shown that this issue does have a bearing on this case and it is at least possible that Zimmerman committed a crime.
No. The issue is not simply “a crime.”
I don’t know who has said that. I have, in post 57, quoted the precise language that is applicable here.
If Zimmerman committed an intentional threat by word or act to do violence to the person of Martin, and did some act which creates a well-founded fear in Martin that such violence was imminent, THEN Martin can strike him first.
That’s not the question.
No, you have not. Because there’s no relevance whatsoever to the question, generically, of whether following someone is suspicious enough behavior to give reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.
That’s why, after I answered your question, I said:
(emphasis added)
It is completely unimportant if people “feel” that Zimmerman’s behavior was suspicious. That has nothing to do with anything.
Please acknowledge that you have read and understood this standard:
If Zimmerman committed an intentional threat by word or act to do violence to the person of Martin, and did some act which creates a well-founded fear in Martin that such violence was imminent, THEN Martin can strike him first.
AFAICT, based on the evidence to date, it’s #4.
But I don’t see the relevance. Zimmerman did not shoot Martin because he suspected Martin was about to commit a crime - he shot him (if his story is true) because Martin was sitting on his chest bashing his head against the ground. Martin may have punched and bashed Zimmerman because he was in fear of his life, but that is not reasonable.
Like I said earlier, if Zimmerman drew first, or otherwise threatened Martin in some way, then Martin would be reasonable in concluding that he was in danger. And he could have struck first.
I just haven’t seen evidence yet that that was the case.
Regards,
Shodan
No. That has nothing to do with it, at all. Bricker has explained it fully, so I wont reiterate, other than to say it makes the rest of your post irrelevant.
Also, leave of the implications of racism. There is nothing racist about calling the police on a young black man who is acting suspiciously if there have been reports of young black men committing crimes in the area - indeed, it would be a bad thing not to. Please note the “acting suspiciously” part.
Okay, if it bothers you that much, I’ll substitute “a threat to commit violence against him” for “crime”. I thought it was pretty obvious that threatening to commit violence against somebody was the particular crime we were discussing.
I don’t see how you can possibly reconcile these claims.
You say that if Zimmerman “committed an intentional threat by word or act to do violence to the person of Martin” then Martin could strike him first.
But then you turn around and say it isn’t relevant what people think about Zimmerman’s actions.
How can you say people’s opinions about Zimmerman’s actions aren’t relevant in a discussion about whether or not those actions constituted an intentional threat?
Isn’t that exactly what Zimmerman did? He shot Martin because he thought Martin was committing the crime of assault (or maybe homicide) against him.
I didn’t bring the issue of Martin’s race into the conversation. You did. You said that the fact that Martin was a young black man was part of the situation that made his actions suspicious.
You having introduced race into the debate, I’ll address the issue. However, I did not accuse you of racism.
If Martin had successfully killed Zimmerman by pounding his head into the concrete as is alleged, is there any story that he could tell that would exonerate him from a charge of murder?
What if he told the police that he was frightened by this man following him. That there was nothing to indicate that this man was an authority of any sort. No decal on his car, no uniform. Let’s say he tells them he saw a weapon, whether it was drawn or not. Let’s say he adds that he tried to run, but being new to the neighborhood, he got turned around and ended up face to face with the scary man with the gun. He then felt in reasonable fear for his life and took action.
Would something like that exonerate Martin?
Because here are the sentences I was responding to:
When we substitute “committed an intentional threat by word or act to do violence to the person of Martin” then we see the problem: as a matter of law, simply following someone is NOT suspicious enough behavior to conclude that “an intentional threat by word or act to do violence to the person of Martin” has happened.
I agree that it’s possible someone might feel that it does, but that is legally insufficient to reach that conclusion.
Yes. But the difference is: according to the facts Zimmerman relates, he is allowed to draw that conclusion. He thought Martin was committing assault against him because the facts he relates correctly scribe the crime of assault.
According to the facts we know, we cannot say the same of Martin’s belief about Zimmerman.
Nor can we – and by “we” I really mean the jury – guess. We cannot pick a scenario that we feel may have happened. There has to be evidence in the record to support the finding.
That’s the issue we’re debating here.
Look at Zimmerman. He shot Martin and killed him. If that’s all there was to it, then Zimmerman committed murder. But the whole point is that in some circumstances, you can shoot and kill a person but not commit any crime.
The same argument applies to Martin. He punched Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground. If that’s all there was, then Martin committed assault. But just like above, in some circumstances, you can punch a person and knock them down but not commit a crime.
The issue of this thread is when those circumstances exist and whether they may have existed in this particular incident.
Okay, we’re making progress. I asked this question a week ago - “Is being followed a threat? Is being followed a threat in some circumstances but not others? What are those circumstances?” - and you avoided answering it until now.
So you’re saying now that following a person does not constitute a threatening act. Where was that established? Was it in a statute? Was it established by precedent? Or does it just fail the reasonable person text?
So why, in my story, did the woman not have a right to shoot my ass (other than the fact that this is NY, and she had a duty to retreat)? She felt threatened.
Here’s the difference. What she felt was unreasonable. There were plenty of innocent possibilities, and one of them was actually true. If she’d shot my ass, she would have killed a totally innocent person. Because she felt threatened. Martin could no more slug Zimmerman, because of his feelings, than she could have shot me.
His feelings were only important, if they were actually accurate assessments of reality. You are not allowed to slug someone, legally, unless they are an actual threat to you. How you feel about the situation is irrelevant.
No, it isn’t. Murder requires malice and intent. It is not enough to simply prove that someone killed someone to prove murder.
You are using the word murder, like the term self defence, without actually knowing what it means in a legal context.