# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 114
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2261 "2013-07-16T08:41:35Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Did you even read the article, or do you just pull shit out of your ass? The article does not accurately and completely summarize Florida law. Even an initial aggressor is entitled to use deadly force if he: > [@](#): > > …reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant… Florida Stat 776.041 > [@](#): > > In other words - if the jury believed that Zimmerman, by following Martin for a quarter of a mile, in his car then on foot, for over five minutes, essentially provoked any physical response from Martin, the jury could then conclude that Zimmerman can’t claim self defense. No. The jury would also have to conclude that Zimmerman had not exhausted every reasonable means of escape. Based on the comments of one juror only, the jury did NOT believe that Zimmerman had a reasonable means of escape. Again: in Florida, even an initial aggressor can use deadly force if he can’t retreat and reasonably fears great bodily harm. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2262 "2013-07-16T12:19:40Z")
Nor is there any evidence that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, or that his conduct provoked force against him. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2263 "2013-07-16T12:55:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Nor is there any evidence that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, or that his conduct provoked force against him. Well, no, that’s not a true statement. I had hoped that my gentle spankings would have begun to cure people of this broad “no evidence” thing. Now I see why the manual recommends a cattle prod. Jeantel testified that she heard “a little bit” of Trayvon saying, “Get off, get off.” A finder of fact can believe that. And a finder of fact may make the following permissible inference: since Martin was saying, “Get off,” Zimmerman was “on” him in a way that constituted unwanted touching. Unwanted touching is a battery. And that would make Zimmerman the aggressor. That’s what we call “evidence.” Now, according to one juror’s interview, the jury did not find Jeantel credible. But that doesn’t destroy the fact the her testimony was evidence. It just means that for those particular finders of fact, it wasn’t credible evidence. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2264 "2013-07-16T13:14:31Z")
Team Trayvon’s latest argument seems to be as follows: 1. Zimmerman admittedly pursued Martin. 2. This pursuit terrified Martin and provoked him into attacking Zimmerman. 3. Since Zimmerman provoked the attack, he waived any right to use lethal force in self defense. My response to this argument is as follows: 1. This doesn’t seem to be the law in Florida. 2. Even if it were, common sense says that not any conduct which results in an attack qualifies as a “provocation.” For example, let’s suppose I am in a movie theater and a thuggish-looking young man is making noise and I shush him and he attacks me. While it was poor judgment of me to shush him, common sense says I have not waived my right to use lethal force to defend myself if it would otherwise be justifiable. Fundamentally, I don’t see any difference between this and following a strange person who is wandering in your neighborhood. I haven’t seen any case law interpreting this statute, but I have a feeling what the legislature was driving at is provocative conduct which is aimed at producing a violent reaction. For example, if you follow someone around, taunting them with ethnic slurs, hoping that they will attack you so you can shoot and kill them, it makes sense that you should be convicted of some kind of homicide crime. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2265 "2013-07-16T13:21:48Z")
OK, then there isn’t any credible evidence. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2266 "2013-07-16T13:55:06Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I haven’t seen any case law interpreting this statute, but I have a feeling what the legislature was driving at is provocative conduct which is aimed at producing a violent reaction. For example, if you follow someone around, taunting them with ethnic slurs, hoping that they will attack you so you can shoot and kill them, it makes sense that you should be convicted of some kind of homicide crime. In that case, you would only be justified in shooting them if you’d exhausted every reasonable means of escape _and_ were in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm; or if you’d withdrawn from physical contact with your assailant and indicated clearly that you wished to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continued anyway. Which is only good sense. Taunting with ethnic slurs, pushing people, hitting them with a snowball, etc, are all bad things to do, but they shouldn’t be punished by death, and such a person shouldn’t be forced to either lay there and hope their beating didn’t cripple or kill them, or defend themselves and go to prison. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2267 "2013-07-16T14:06:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 1. Even if it were, common sense says that not any conduct which results in an attack qualifies as a “provocation.” So Martin’s big mistake was in not turning white. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2268 "2013-07-16T14:08:56Z")
No, his big mistake was turning Zimmerman’s face red. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mr-Pookie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed655f/32.png) [@Mr-Pookie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr-Pookie)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2269 "2013-07-16T14:18:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, his big mistake was turning Zimmerman’s face red. > > Regards, > Shodan No, Martin’s big mistake was his choice of defensive weapon. A gun shot to Zimmerman’s heart would have been much more legal and effective. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2270 "2013-07-16T14:22:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > So Martin’s big mistake was in not turning white. I have no idea what your point is here, but anyway, Martin’s big mistake – which a lot of young men make – was responding violently to a situation which threatened his male ego. More simply, what **Shodan** said. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2271 "2013-07-16T14:24:11Z")
> [@Mr-Pookie](#): > > No, Martin’s big mistake was his choice of defensive weapon. A gun shot to Zimmerman’s heart would have been much more legal and effective. Maybe more effective, but no, not legal. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2272 "2013-07-16T14:27:02Z")
> [@Mr-Pookie](#): > > No, Martin’s big mistake was his choice of defensive weapon. A gun shot to Zimmerman’s heart would have been much more legal and effective. You think you can legally shoot someone in the heart for following you? (Setting aside that it’s disputed whether Zimmerman followed Martin until the confrontation, or whether he’d stopped following him). ---
**Author:** ![Mr-Pookie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed655f/32.png) [@Mr-Pookie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr-Pookie)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2273 "2013-07-16T14:28:26Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I have no idea what your point is here, but anyway, Martin’s big mistake – which a lot of young men make – was responding violently to a situation which threatened his male ego. More simply, what **Shodan** said. Certainly, if that is what Trayvon told you was the reason he punched Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Mr-Pookie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed655f/32.png) [@Mr-Pookie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr-Pookie)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2274 "2013-07-16T14:31:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > You think you can legally shoot someone in the heart for following you? > > (Setting aside that it’s disputed whether Zimmerman followed Martin until the confrontation, or whether he’d stopped following him). Nope, but if you then say he reached for my gun, or he reached for his own gun, or he grabbed my arm and wouldn’t let go. And he said “You’re gonna die tonight, mother fucker”. You were just minding your own business. Who is going to refute your statement? The dead guy? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2275 "2013-07-16T14:31:44Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I have no idea what your point is here, but anyway, Martin’s big mistake – which a lot of young men make – was responding violently to a situation which threatened his male ego. He was a young black man in Florida being confronted by a vigilante with a gun. He should have killed Zimmerman, not just “responded violently”. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2276 "2013-07-16T14:33:41Z")
> [@Mr-Pookie](#): > > Nope, but if you then say he reached for my gun, or he reached for his own gun, or he grabbed my arm and wouldn’t let go. And he said “You’re gonna die tonight, mother fucker”. You were just minding your own business. Who is going to refute your statement? The dead guy? That’s not what “legally” means. If I trafficked in cocaine, but the state failed to prove it, would you say it was legal for me to do so? As for refuting the statement…forensic evidence and witnesses are typical examples. ---
**Author:** ![Tollhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e99b99/32.png) [@Tollhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tollhouse)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2277 "2013-07-16T14:35:52Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I have no idea what your point is here, Exactly…you’ve got no idea. ---
**Author:** ![Mr-Pookie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ed655f/32.png) [@Mr-Pookie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr-Pookie)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2278 "2013-07-16T14:35:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s not what “legally” means. If I trafficked in cocaine, but the state failed to prove it, would you say it was legal for me to do so? Fair enough, I’ll amend my statement to Trayvon would be “much more likely to be alive and out of jail today” if he used a gun instead of a fist. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2279 "2013-07-16T14:37:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > He was a young black man in Florida being confronted by a vigilante with a gun. He should have killed Zimmerman, not just “responded violently”. And here we see the truth about you. You’re happy to see people killed for no reason, as long as they’re not on your side. Zimmerman was not a vigilante. Vigilantes don’t call the police. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/2280 "2013-07-16T14:38:00Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > He was a young black man in Florida being confronted by a vigilante with a gun. He should have killed Zimmerman, not just “responded violently”. This bizarre double-think has cropped up a bit in discussions of this case. Normally peaceful leftists, who norally decry violence and vigilantism, suddenly advocate for escalating a mere argument or confrontation into a fight with a stranger as the sensible and morally right thing to do. Responding violently to anything less than an imminent threat of harm is stupid, wrong, and illegal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=113) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=115)