I was just pointing this out to emphasize that that particular clause (committing forcible felony one) has no relevance to this case and the prosecution cannot rely on it.
The autopsy found traces of THC in Martin’s system. Maybe he’d come down since smoking, maybe not. Or, I guess, maybe he had simply been around someone else smoking.
I should state for the record that I think marijuana being illegal is a stupid law. I don’t like the stuff personally, but I smoked enough of it to at least know that it does, in fact, inhibit your judgment.
Ask for a cite and ye shall receive a scholarly journal article:
The effect of marijuana on judgment and analogical reasoning.
Bourassa, Maurice
International Review of Applied Psychology, Vol 26(1), Apr 1977, 21-29. doi:
(As I’m in academia, I have database access to the full article, but here’s the abstract:)
*Tested 60 male volunteer students 21–30 yrs old, who were in good physical and mental health and had not previously experienced marihuana. In 3 sessions of psychometric measurement, each under a different experimental condition (marihuana, no marihuana, and placebo), each S was administered the Raven Progressive Matrices, the Judgment subtest of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, and the Lavoie-Laurendeau intelligence test. ANOVA indicated that marihuana had a highly significant effect, while placebo effects were nonsignificant. Marihuana disturbed the Ss’ judgment to varying degrees. Difficulty was experienced in discerning the important elements of a complex situation in trying to adapt to it. It also appears that under the influence of marihuana the intelligence is less capable of reasoning logically and systematically. (22 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record © 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
*
And, I have to put this out there: Trayvon Martin had, on at least one occasion, tried to find a connection for RX Codeine syrup on his Facebook page. The night he died, he had the traditional makings of “sizzurp” on his person. Round here, folks put Jolly Ranchers in their lean instead of Skittles, but…Trayvon did have a history of at least talking about drug use (including that he ‘needed some plant’). So Zimmerman’s suspicion that he might be high…well…might have been correct.
My question to you is this. What would be unreasonable in that situation? The range of “reasonable” behaviors when suddenly confronted with a gun in your face span the gamut from freezing in place to fighting for your life.
If Martin had been armed, and Zimmerman grabbed him and stuck his gun out him, Martin would have been justified in shooting him right then and there on the spot. No questions asked.
So what are you really trying to get at with this question?
No, we actually don’t know this. I know it’s tempting to believe it, but as long as there was some other way for Zimmerman to have gotten those injuries (like falling and hitting his head against a sprinkler during the scuffle), we don’t have to assume Martin hit him.
I don’t know if TM hit him or not. Wouldn’t swear that he didn’t, but that doesn’t mean I assume he did.To me, the injuries are so mild, it doesn’t matter whether Martin inflicted them or not. They are not life-threatening injuries and I don’t believe Zimmerman was in reasonable fear when he shot the kid. I believe it was the kid who yelling for help on the 911 tape. Not smothering Zimmerman or issuing threats.
Jumping out of the bushes ain’t hiding. When Jason’s after the blonde, and she hides behind a tree, does she jump out to confront Jason? Course not–because the smart thing to do is to continue to hide.
So…we just want to handwave away the THC entirely? As I’m sure you know, each of us will have a different tolerance based upon chronic use of the chronic, anyway, so for me, the same “trace” might make me high, while it didn’t inhibit Trayvon at all. Or vice versa.
I just want this to be clarified: the autopsy found traces of THC, yes? And it’s your assertion that this had nothing to do with what ultimately happened?
I think I might be willing to put up money betting against that.
Gotta part company with you there. I do think that when your mistakes end up with someone dead, the circumstances should be scrutinized aggressively and in the absence of clear-cut evidence for justifiable killing it should be given to a jury to decide.
Can I ask why? I’m not making anything up that hasn’t been testified to by witnesses.
Well, It’s tough for me envision a scenario in which Martin is facing east, pummeling Zimmerman’s head in cement, but then winds up facedown in the grass, with his head pointed northwest, and his feet yards away from the sidewalk.
So I guess we both have imagination problems.
Another interesting thing about this trial - the jury knows a lot of “humanizing” tidbits about Zimmerman from the trial. They know about his wanting to be an attorney and a prosecutor, about his applications for the police academy, about his constipation (FFS!) and pains, about his being a good student in one class and an indifferent one in another, about his theological soul-searching after the killing, they saw IIRC a couple of hours of him speaking and describing the incident etc.
Yet the jury has no such “humanizing” experience of Trayvon Martin. The prosecution is deathly afraid to mention anything at all from Martin’s previous life because that would “open the door” to his multiple school suspensions, his drug use, his “gangsta” pretensions, the jewelry that was found on him that he claimed he “found” (yeah, right) etc. etc.
Granted, the defense doesn’t want Zimmerman’s past history entered either - but the “humanizing” info about him has been introduced into the trial by the prosecution, so they don’t have to worry about it.
What I’m trying to get at with it is that the “reasonable person” thing is the crux of Florida’s law, and you’re right that it’s really tough to nail down.
I think it’s unreasonable to engage EITHER a potentially-armed person (which is what I believe Martin believed Zimmerman was at this point, as I don’t believe Zimmerman drew his weapon until the moment before he fired it) OR a person with superior firepower. If I’m faced with a guy with a knife, and I can run, I don’t engage him. Knife beats fists. If I see a gun and know I don’t have one, I run if I can. I’m damn sure not making a grab for it, as there’s a 99% chance the guy pulls the trigger before I can do anything about it.
But I’m 32. I know that what we see in the movies isn’t how it happens in real life. At 17, I probably would’ve reacted differently (and probably would have gotten killed as a result.)
Actually, I completely agree. I’d no-bill Martin for the shooting itself, although he’d have to be charged with unlawfully carrying the handgun.
Fair enough. I appreciate the honest clarification. I do think TM inflicted the wounds, and if he did, then I’d say Zimmerman was justified in shooting–even if the wounds later turned out to be insignificant. In the heat of the moment, you don’t really know what the next hit will do to you. If it’s me, I’m scared that I’ll be knocked out and my own gun will be used against me.
Just a guess but I’d bet that most folks would prefer their “lean” to actually contain drugs even if they choose Skittles over Jolly Ranchers.
He had the traditional makings of “sizzurp” on his person in the same way that a sheet of rolling paper and a fire source are a joint.
CMC fnord!
Are you saying you think that should be the law, or that it is the law in Florida? Because that is, as I understand it, the law in a lot of places, but not there - there the evidence needs to show at least probable cause that the killing was not justifiable before it should go to the jury.
I fully agree that any killing should be carefully investigated, and I doubt you’ll find many people who think that shouldn’t be the case.
I’m just saying he had a history of trying to procure codeine, and it’s not outside the realm of possibility that he had some at the house, but needed the drank and candy to add to it. PURE speculation, yes. But if the purple stuff is as common there as it is here…
And lookit–it’s no more speculative than painting Zimmerman as a mall ninja. In the 40-odd calls he’d made prior to this one, how many people did he beat up or shoot?
Now, there is a gal with a face for radio! 
How about we not. Contrary to appearances, it causes me to wince everytime you express confidence in something that is clearly wrong. The manslaughter thing is a perfect example of this.
The aggressor instructions is another.
Actually, if Zimmerman had not had a gun both of them would be alive, because the incident would never have happened in the first place.
Zimmerman having the gun is part and parcel of his overall fascination with playing cop, and in the same way it makes you feel more secure and confident about being able to handle violence, it made him feel more secure and confident about handling violence. He took that feeling of security and confidence with him into the world, allowing him to choose to focus on Trayvon Martin and see him as a potential threat. The gun gave him the confidence to *make the choice *to follow Martin in the dark and the rain.
Moreover, and beyond any mere speculation about how much “gun-confidence” motivated his choices,science tells usthat Zimmerman’s ***actual perception ***itself was almost certainly influenced towards believing Martin was a threat simply because Zimmerman was carrying a gun. His belief/fear that Martin was himself armed (NEN call, various descriptions of the arm-spreading behavior explained as checking for weapons) was enhanced, if not actually created by the fact he was carrying a gun.
So I respectfully disagree with your holding up Zimmerman as an example of how valuable carrying a gun is for self-preservation, because I am certain that his carrying a gun was precisely the factor that led to Martin’s death, and that if he had not been carrying a gun, both of them would absolutely be alive today.
None of which should be construed as my stumping for any kind of laws. Horse left long ago. It’s just about education and personal choices. And the United States of America would be a much safer, less deadly place if more people would choose to leave the guns to the pros.
That’s great and all, but when suddenly confronted with a potential deadly situation, most people go into fight or flight mode. What is unreasonable is expecting humans to deviate from thousands of years of instinct when put in harm’s way.
That’s why the totality of Zimmerman’s actions that night matter. He knew the kid recognized that he was being followed, and he knew the kid tried to get away from him by running. At that point, it was unreasonable for Zimmerman to do anything except cease and desist his pursuit, because to continue to follow would be to escalate a situation in which a reasonable person (Martin) would likely think he was endangered. The second Martin ran is when that situation was created.
If Zimmerman continued his pursuit of the kid and approached him in a hostile “I’m not letting you get away, asshole” fashion, Martin would have been justified in thinking something bad was about to happen to him. By Zimmerman’s own admission, he never explained why he was following him or identified himself. So when they encountered each other, how was Martin supposed to know his intentions were noble?
The question we should consider is whether there is evidence Zimmerman would have permitted the the kid free passage at the point they encountered each other. Does this evidence lead one to believe GZ would have attempted to detain the kid against his will? If the answer to that question is yes, then the other question is this: Was Martin justified in standing his ground in response? The answer to that is of course. This is what the jury will have to think about.
The other thing is this: Only one of the two had a flashlight that night. Martin was not one of them. It was pretty close to pitch black where the fight took place. How was Martin in a position to ambush Zimmerman when he wasn’t the one with the light source? Are we really supposed to believe the 200-lb MMA enthusiast carrying the loaded gun and the flashlight was overtaken by the 158-lb kid preoccupied with his phone and carrying nothing but snacks? This is where critical thinking is important. I really hope the jury is strong in this area.
It’s not your age that matters. It’s that you’re trying to analyze a fight-or-flight situation based on what makes rational sense to you. That is a crazy. Stabbing victims are often found with slashed fingers because they instinctually try to reach out and stop the knife with hands. That is about as “unreasonable” as you can get, but it’s a very common finding. People, when they are seconds away from death, aren’t always thinking about what makes sense. They are just trying to survive.
Before I respond, let me say thank you for the way you handled your response. I myself have been guilty of letting my frustration get the better of me here, so I really appreciate the measured quality of what you’re saying here.
I do want to put up a retort vis-a-vis the flashlight that maybe you haven’t considered.
Why do soldiers not use flashlights in combat conditions?
The answer, of course, is that for the person using the flashlight, it illuminates a short distance ahead of you. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a few feet.
However, a person can see your flashlight waving around at a far greater distance–a mile away, even.
Zimmerman having the flashlight actually served as a beacon to his location that anyone, Trayvon or otherwise, could see long before the light would have been of any use to Zimmerman.
So I do hope the jury takes it into consideration, but it needs to be considered both ways, right?
ETA: As for the stabbing victims and defensive woulds, I agree. However I’d think that in those cases, we’re probably looking at people stabbed inside, or people cornered in alleyways. Given the layout of the complex and the “T” in the sidewalk, there was plenty of room for “flight”. My suspicion is that Trayvon didn’t precisely because of his age and subculture: running makes you look like a wuss. As a 32-year old, I know that’s not the case–it takes a bigger man to walk away than fight. But at 17? Just MHO.
Setting aside your inflammatory and untrue characterization of Martin’s behavior…your expectations are yours to have and hold, you are entitled to expect whatever you like, but I recommend expecting to be disappointed along with your other expectations, since you are mistaken.
Factually speaking, Trayvon Martin was 4-8 years away from full brain maturity, and the stage of development his brain was in at the time of his death was about the most vulnerable possible, in terms of dealing with the scary white guy following him.
So there’s that.
Martin was a kid, in every sense of the word, and with everything thing that implies. Precisely because he was 17 rather than 14. If he had been 14 he probably would have dealt with his fear of the guy following him with his flight, rather than fight response.
So neurologically speaking, which means ethically and morally and legally speaking as well, Martin was even less responsible for what happened than we already knew he was. Zimmerman was the grownup who should have known better.
But of course, Zimmerman’s brain was under the influence of the gun in his pocket...
I accurately described his behaviour. He attacked and beat someone he had no reason to even be near.
No, it does not. 17 year olds know that they are not supposed to attack and beat people for no reason, or indeed for just about any reason. What he did was no less (or more) wrong than if he’d done it at age 12*, or 32, or 102. The fact that teenagers may have less ability to judge right or wrong doesn’t mean they have less ability to know what the law is, and what they are or are not allowed to do. Disliking a law doesn’t justify breaking it.
And? Assuming that someone is armed in a state where guns are legal and common is, far from being unreasonable, sensible and cautious.
*12 being the highest age in the US for the start of criminal responsibility, I’ve not checked the specific age in Florida. It may not even have one.
I don’t know about that…be an interesting thing to test. Make Martin a 17 year old girl. Make Zimmerman a convicted rapist. It’s dark and rainy. She’s trying to get away, but suddenly he comes around a corner. “Why are you following me?” she says.
“Because I want to fuck you” he says.
She hauls off and with all her might punches him right in the face. He falls down, she stomps his face with her boot, then hits him again with her umbrella and runs off. He has a broken nose, a concussion, etc.
The cops come, she’s charged with assault and she pleads not guilty.
The whole thing was captured on videotape by a nosy neighbor, and it went down exactly like that.
What would be the result? What SHOULD be the result? His language was crude but he didn’t threaten to rape her and he didn’t touch her. Did she have a right to defend herself because she was terrified of him? Would a reasonable person have been terrified of him?
If the answers is yes, she had a right, then what exactly is the line that makes it ok for her to defend herself with force from someone who has done nothing but follow her, because she is sincerely scared of him, and Martin?
I’m asking because I don’t know.