But all this hand-waving you did in this post says nothing about how Martin’s fear plays into this. Explain, if Martin actually had “as much to fear” or didn’t have “as much to fear” - how exactly these two possibilities play a role in determining whether Zimmerman’s shooting Martin was in self-defense.
First, look at your fantasy scenario with the “Martin had just as much to fear” as a premise. Then, look at it with “Martin didn’t have as much to fear”. Does anything, from the legal point of view, change?
Maybe Bricker or someone can help here, but I believe that most states have exactly the same self defense requirements as Florida (minus the SYG law which wasn’t used in this case).
The majority rule is that once the defendant gives some colorable version of self-defense, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The investigators looked at this case and said that there is no way in hell we can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would imagine in most jurisdictions in this country, charges wouldn’t not have been sought under similar circumstances. Maybe present the evidence to a grand jury in a neutral fashion and let them decide, and they probably wouldn’t indict.
This demonization of Florida is misplaced because the self defense law applied there (again, IIRC) is the majority rule.
Florida goes further than other states. I don’t know if other states laws read like others. Florida has a separate statute for self defense. Many states just mention self defense can be used as an affirmative defense. Florida states you will be immune from prosecution.
None of it, because it all refers to what Martin objectively had to fear. As has been forcefully pointed out multiple times, that is not what matters. What matters is Martin’s subjective experience of fear, did he fear? Yes. After that the only question is whether it was a reasonable fear, and that is a different discussion. (But one which we’ve also had and reasonable people can readily see how Martin could be afraid of the guy following him around.)
Martin was afraid, this is known, and as a result he had the right to use force to defend himself from what he perceived as a threat.
And at whatever stage he laid eyes on the gun, he could use whatever force necessary, just like Zimmerman, including lethal force. So again…if Zimmerman’s gun came out even the slightest bit earlier than he claims, when martin punched him a couple times, perhaps, then if Martin stepped it up to head bashing, he was 100% within his rights to do so, having been confronted with GZs gun and the fact that he has as much to fear in very real terms as it is possible for a person to have. Seeing as how his fear came true and all.
If because I missed some other, separate part of this and as a result imperfectly understood the actual discussion that was being had in some way that changes my point, please direct my attention. I’m jumping around, too much stuff!
Not necessarily, no. It’s clear you still don’t understand how self defence works. He must be in fear, it must be reasonable, and importantly, and what you’re missing, the threat must be imminent. A generalised fear of someone following you doesn’t justify self defence. An imminent fear that (to pick a random example) they may follow up having punched you and bashed your head against the ground with further punches and bashes, would.
Do you believe that if Martin could have legally made an argument for self defense that Zimmerman would be precluded from doing so? I mean legally, by Florida statute. Not morally or otherwise.
Since they are both alive, I guess we’re figuring out who gets charged with assault? Does it ever happen that two people who fight are charged with assault against each other?
Under the scenario I’ve given as the one where Martin’s fear causes him to strike Zimmerman and is justified, Zimmerman begins with battery, by touching Martin to stop him from leaving, which triggers Martin’s punch. At that point, Martin has self-defense, Zimmerman does not. Not lethal force, because the threat was not that grave.
Then they are fighting (this is the movement from T to the shot…struggling, punching, hitting, whatever…) and Zimmerman mistakenly believes he can pull out his gun to save himself from this, not realizing he is at fault, and escalates the threat to Martin to a lethal one, allowing Martin to step it up. Then Zim shoots and wounds instead of kills, so we get Martin’s side directly from him.
Zim is guilty of aggravated assault and battery. Self defense is only Martin’s.
It seems tricky, though… Martin got to hit because of fear, but if his justifiable use of non-lethal force becomes excessive so that Zimmerman feels his life is at stake…
But I would hazard a guess that in this scenario, the severity of Zimmerman’s injuries would play a much bigger part legally- he’d have to be seriously, unmistakably battered to be able to say that using the gun was justified, and the issue of him identifying himself and his failure to make any attempt to communicate with Martin at any point would be a bigger deal as well…why should Martin stop when you haven’t made any attempt to explain anything to try and stop him?
I mean, if I put myself in Zimmerman’s shoes, and Martin starts wailing on me, I dont’ fight, I don’t get out my gun, I don’t scream hysterically, I roll into a ball and cover my head and frantically start trying to tell Martin I didn’t mean him any harm and will he stop so we can straighten this out, please? It ultimately may fail because Martin is psychotic who was hoping for just such an opportunity to try and kill someone with his bare hands, but before I decide my only choice is to shoot him, I at least TRY.
Having been the victim of battery does not entitle one to use self defence. It’s clear you still don’t understand how self defence works. It does not entitle one to get revenge. It doesn’t authorise use of force against someone who is scaring you in a general way, with no imminent threat of violence.
If your rather vague post is to suggest that, if Zimmerman grabbed Martin’s shoulder or clothing, then Martin was entitled to defend himself, you’re wrong. That act would not allow him to do that - there would have to be reason to fear future harm.
If, for example, I punch you in the face, and break your nose, then clearly say “I’m done with you”, and walk away, you have no right to use force against me. I am no threat at that point. However if, in Florida, I walk up to you and say “I’m going to break your nose”, and stand there, you may shoot me.
Being the victim of a battery is neither necessary nor sufficient to allow self defence. The only reason that Zimmerman having been such a victim is relevant is because the attack was ongoing at the point he shot Martin.
Jesus fucking christ…TRACK! TRACK! TRACK! Fear of imminent harm to self permits force to defend oneself.
[ul]
[li]creepy guy follows you = scary [/li][li]creepy guy doesn’t answer about why he’s following = very scary[/li][li]creepy guy touches you to stop you when you leave = gigantic fear that creepy guy that has just totally violated your personal space and person is IMMINENTLY going to continue touching you in a manner that will somehow be HARMFUL.[/li][/ul]
= *YOU GET TO PUNCH CREEPY GUY IN THE FACE
*
Just because you try the turtle defense doesn’t mean anyone or everyone is obligated to do the same. It may work. It may get you killed.
But this thread isn’t about what could possibly happen. Or what could have possibly happened to Martin and Zimmerman. Did the prosecutor make a case against self defense and did he prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
I can’t speak to what doubt may or may not exist in the minds of the jurors, but from what I’ve heard, no. I haven’t watched the close yet, will later.
What are you talking about? Did Martin follow Zimmerman, fail to answer a reasonable question asked of him, then reach out and touch him against his will? No, to all of the above.
For fucks’s sake, stop acting like the way self-defense functions is not understood by me or anyone else. ***We all get it. *** The issue is that the story supporting Zimmerman’s claim is not believable, starting with the fact that he did continue looking for Martin, which undermines his defense because it makes him the aggressor even if Martin threw the first punch, and blah and blah and blah about all the details after, including the issue of “well, he still was in imminent danger!” and “Yeah, and what means of ending it did he exhaust?”
So stop explaining it. The issue is the whether the TRUE FACTS of what actually happened allowed him to shoot Martin to death to defend himself, not whether we understand what the law is.
No he didn’t make his case? I agree.
As I’ve stated before, in my state I would have had no problem charging manslaughter and I’m confident there would have been a conviction. But I’m in a state in which it takes an act of god to get a carry permit. Florida’s self defense statute is much stricter.
No, it does not. You, once again, are factually wrong. That is not the standard, at least under Florida law, or any law I’m familiar with. Which makes the rest of your post worthless, as it’s a false conclusion drawn from an incorrect premise.
You don’t understand self defence. You don’t understand the law. You don’t understand the evidence in this case, and you don’t understand the difference between speculation, inference, and fact.
Why, when you’ve been shown repeatedly how wrong you are about everything you post, do you continue to embarrass yourself?
Considering the incident started six minutes after Zimmerman stated that Martin was running, and the short distance from Zimmerman’s truck where the body was found, there is still no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher suggested he not do so. It’s just conjecture.
The evidence, provided by the prosecution, suggests yes to most of them, and that he didn’t follow him, but returned to where Zimmerman was standing.
No, you don’t. You constantly misstate the conditions needed for self defence, and in contradictory ways. You conflate laws from different jurisdictions, and the laws which apply in different situations, without a care for which apply.
You still have provided no evidence for that, and are reduced to appealing for a “neutral European” to support your point, on the retarded assumption that we are all either idiots or, well, frankly I’ve no idea why you expect someone from a different continent to you to hear something in a tape that isn’t there.
No, it does not. THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY OR MORALLY WRONG WITH FOLLOWING SOMEBIDY, WHETHER OR NOT YOU’RE ARMED. This discussion about whether or not he continued following is a red herring, and only useful because it shows how wrong you are about how evidence should be interpreted.
I… don’t even know what this means. Are you really saying that it doesn’t matter what happened during the fight? Then you really don’t understand the law.
The only way you can determine what the true facts allow is by understanding the law. The law you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, AND REFUSE TO LEARN.
The facts are that Zimmerman stopped following Martin, Martin returned home, a few moments later they started fighting at a point Martin returned to from his home, Zimmerman was injured and Martin not, Zimmerman shot Martin.
Self defence. No crime. Acquittal. Plenty of money for Zimmerman from suing the various authorities when he shows he is immune from arrest and prosecution.
And more incoherent screeds from you, taking the formatting abilities of bbcode to previously unprecedented heights.