Whether he feared, and whether his fear was reasonable, has, legally, absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether Zimmerman’s shooting him was in self-defense.
Again, irrelevant to Zimmerman’s self-defense.
Just like Zimmerman. So Zimmerman had the right to use lethal force. And he did. And Martin’s fear has no relevance whatsoever.
Goodness gracious. Such intensity. Very Stoidian of you. And silly, since we’ve had the discussion a thousand times, and just because you want to make it about whether following is legal or not vs. how Martin might be feeling and how that would affect his actions…well, that’s your particular set of self-applied blinders.
Yeah, no surprise you don’t know what it means, since it refers to the actual, complete law of justifiable use of force and how it works...in detail, and your loathing of details has been a big topic for us today because of the way it stops you from taking in so much information.
So, since you prefer words and phrases to whole sentences and paragraphs:
Aggressor. Provoke. Not available. Escape. Reasonable. Withdraw.
(Read the whole law, all the words, all the parts. Helps enormously with comprehending these pesky details.)
Oh I have done, indeed I’ve repeatedly explained how, if Zimmerman provoked the attack, he was only allowed to shoot Martin if he had no other means of escape. Fortunately, several of the prosecution witnesses testified that he was beneath Martin when he shot him, leading one to the inescapable (ha) conclusion that it was legal.
Yes, I think this is a good point. There is no inherent reason why a situation could not arise where two people each behave reasonably and due to a tragic misunderstanding, each one has the right to use lethal force against the other.
So whether Martin had a legal right to use force against Zimmerman is irrelevant, as far as I can tell.
This statement in the state’s closing bothers me the most. It ignores the fact that Marin was only a hundred yards or so from his house. He could have easily gone inside and avoided the fight.
I hope the defense brings up that point in their closing.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/verdict-zimmerman-trial-could-be-reached-weeks-end/nYmY5/?ref=cbTopWidget
I’m sorry, Steophan, this question makes no sense. You have never shown me anything at all. You have never cited any kind of authority for anything you have ever said to me, and you have never made a reasoned argument.
What you do with remarkable regularity is assemble strings of declarative sentences making statements about everything imaginable: the law, the facts, the evidence, reality itself. Then you assemble strings of declarative sentences stating that your statements about everything else are factual, proven, unassailable, and perfect representations of The Truth.
Then, when your strings of declarative sentences making statements defining Truth are not received as such, you become infuriated and rude. Which does show me something, but not any of the things you think you have shown me.
Just like George Zimmerman could have kept his ass in his truck, right?
Exactly. Both men could have avoided the fight by acting more rationally. I’ve always agreed that getting out of the truck was stupid. I’ve also questioned why Trayvon ran away and then hung around to confront Zimmerman. That was also a stupid decision.
This tragedy was so unnecessary. But neither man broke the law until after the fight started. Stupid decisions aren’t usually illegal.
Even more, why didn’t George Zimmerman say “Hey, there’s been a lot of break-ins in the area, I’m from the Neighborhood Watch”. He’s been repeating that mantra over and over again ad nauseum for years. Why didn’t George introduce himself to diffuse the situation? Why wouldn’t that be the first damned thing he says to the guy?
[QUOTE=Steophan]
THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY OR MORALLY WRONG WITH FOLLOWING SOMEBIDY, WHETHER OR NOT YOU’RE ARMED.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, where do you live? Seriously. Please give me the opportunity to follow you around and let’s see how you react. I’d be scared shitless if I felt someone was following me in the dark for an extended period of time. I’m curious though: how would you react if Trayvon were 17 year old girl? If she was followed in the rain by a “creepy” guy, on her phone with her boyfriend, and had just came back from purchasing candy from the store? Let me guess: being followed by a man wouldn’t make her afraid, right? I figured as much.
-Honesty
Yes, but as I pointed out, Zimmerman was the “adult” both biologically and lawfully, the onerous was on him. I cannot possibly imagine an instance where I would get into a fist-fight with a 17 year old kid. Can you? Really. Can you? Have you ever got into a fight with a minor child as an adult? I just don’t see adults - real adults - acting in a manner that would facilitate a physical confrontation against a child. I’m sorry, I just don’t see it.
I don’t know if Trayvon “confronted” Zimmerman, not sure why you believe that, but likely because Zimmerman (the liar) said it. Let me guess: Trayvon jumped out the bushes and said “Why u follwn me bro?” Then when Trayvon was shot, he said “You got me” then said “Ow ow ow”(after he was shot) as Zimmerman spread Trayvon’s arms apart? Then, mysteriously, before Manalo arrived, Trayvon (who has been shot in the heart) folds his arms inward toward his chest? Yeah, right. That’s pure, unadulterated comic book fiction and I don’t believe a word of it.
By the way, a couple of real pearls from the prosecution’s closing statements:
“And all he had on him were some Skittles and a Watermelon Arizona Drink or whatever … that he didn’t even STEAL!!!”
“Nobody knows if Rachel Jeantel is telling the truth but her.”
Does anyone believe that de la Rionda scored any points with the jury in his closing argument by yelling at them?
Would anyone here find a closing argument more believable if it was delivered in a loud, angry voice?
Personally, I think de la Rionda was guilty of over-acting but that’s not illegal in Florida. hehehe.
(shortened because I felt like it)
It’s possible that you don’t know if Trayvon “confronted” Zimmerman and are not sure why people believe that because you reject Rachel Jeantel’s testimony that TM was by his daddy’s fiance house at the time GZ was over 100 yds away by the “T”?
Since the final confrontation took place by the “T”, TM would have had to return to the “T” to meet GZ.
I’m suspicious of the “you got me” line, but the rest is certainly plausible given the nature of how people die in real life ( versus what is portrayed in TV and Movies) when suffering catastrophic damage to the heart. Especially if the arms weren’t “spread out”, but only moved away from the body some short distance.
Would you be a little more specific for me? I’m not finding
Anywhere in the Statutes linked.
At least not the words “imminent” and “harm” side by side like that.
I do see those two words several times, but they are separated by the words “death or great bodily”. Which seems an important distinction in phrase. No?
Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. Not guilty of 2nd degree murder. I hate prosecutions that over-charge, because it forces them to reach to make a case for the charge that they can’t reasonably make.
I think there is more than enough evidence to convict on manslaughter, but I suspect the jury will just remember how inept the State was in trying to prove the 2nd degree charge.
Zimmerman will walk, but I hope the guy that said he ‘didn’t regret’ anything and ‘wouldn’t do anything differently’ gets his ass thrown in front of a civil trial and faces a massive fine that he has to spend the rest of his life working to pay off.
Couldn’t he just claim bankrupcy? He probably doesn’t have much money left after paying for the lawyers anyway.
I plump for self defence, but who knows what pressure there is on the jury to find him guilty of something?
Don’t find yourself suffering from the same thing friend Steophan suffers from, friend Hbns. S l o w d o w n a n d r e a d a l l t h e w o r d s a n d l e t e n l i g h t e n m e n t w a s h o v e r y o u l i k e a c o o l r a i n.
Once again, your own cite proves you wrong. You claimed that being in fear of imminent harm allows one to use force in self defence. Your cite shows that is not true.
You are, once again, demonstrably the one who is either not reading or not understanding what is written.
You ignore the fact that the fear must be reasonable, and you ignore the fact that the standards for self defence are either imminent use of unlawful force or imminent death or great bodily harm.
Being in fear of imminent harm is, per the statute you cite, insufficient to trigger legitimate self defence.
I don’t know. What I do know is that there’s no reason he should have done that, as apart from anything else, he wasn’t on patrol at that time.
It might very well make me, or you, or a hypothetical female, scared shitless. What’s your point? Simply being scared, even to the level of shitlessness, doesn’t allow one to use violence. In that situation, you can either get away (as Martin did, then inexplicably came back), or you call the police. What you don’t do, if you are scared and want to avoid a confrontation, is go out of your way to find that person and confront them.
If you still think that someone may use violence against someone simply following them, please read the cite Stoid so helpfully provided a couple of posts ago. Then realise that following someone is not an imminent threat of anything, no matter how terrifying it is, and then admit you’re wrong.