Right, that’s what I’ve been saying. He’s referring to 2(a) and 2(b). But there’s nothing about Goetz having to reasonably believe both that he was being robbed, and that deadly force was the only way to prevent the robbery. The threat of robbery appears to be sufficient.
And that is your position, correct? That deadly force is justified in preventing a robbery, but only if the person reasonably believed it was the only way to prevent said robbery?
Majority on the board, or out in the world? Because I participated in a few of the long-running Martin/Zimmerman threads, and I’d put the number I’d call motivated by racism at about 3-5 out of several dozen.
Well, in that case there’d almost certainly be much less - or no - national attention, so there’d be much less support available for either party purely on that basis.
If that’s true - and it could be - it’s an indictment of racial bias in the criminal justice system, but not evidence that Zimmerman should have been convicted. No one should be convicted on evidence as weak as that brought against Zimmerman.
I think that’s true, as far as I understand what you’re saying. That is, that the statute seems permit you to use deadly force if you reasonbly believe it to be necessary to defend yourself against what you reasonably believe to be a robbery.
Are you saying that you can run afoul of the law by using unreasonably disproportionate force in response to a robbery, kidnapping, or rape? Probably. But I think that analysis goes the same way as it would if you used deadly force in response to deadly force, but there is a claim that you could have used lesser force.
Not that deadly force was the only way to prevent the robbery, but that the threat of deadly physical force existed along with threat of robbery. That’s what the judge said.
Now I’m really confused. Justice Crane, as reported in that piece, said there were two grounds on which Goetz’s use of force would be justifiable: if he were being robbed (“the threat of robbery”), or if he his life were in danger (“the threat of deadly physical force”). That’s 2(a) and 2(b), from the statute. Clearly, the threat of deadly physical force doesn’t also have to exist, or 2(b) makes no sense.
Again: Your position is that deadly force is justified in preventing a robbery, but only if the person reasonably believed it was the only way to prevent the robbery?
That can’t be right. Otherwise the statute makes no sense. I think what it means by two grounds was that it was justified if either there was a threat of robbery or threat of deadly force. Each ground would be independently sufficient.
This position is how I read the statute. (well, assuming that “only way” means the same thing as “reasonably believes is necessary to defend”).
So then to be very clear, what you’re saying is that all of the jurors who voted to acquit Zimmerman were racist against blacks, including the Puerto Rican juror.
I say that because there is no other reasonable interpretation of your claim other than that because how else can one interpret the claim that the jury would have convicted a George Zimmerman with his mother’s skin tone for killing a white Trayvon Martin.
Scenario #1: While seated in a cramped subway car, 4 young healthy males (of any color) invade your personal space, position themselves so you can’t leave, and ask if you have any money to spare. A reasonable person would clearly feel threatened and that a robbery was about to occur.
Scenario #2: You see one individual walking towards you on foot from a distance.
If we ever hold that scenario #2 justifies the use of any type of force, then we’ve made most general human interaction illegal. I hope I never need: to ask directions, emergency assistance, or discuss something if it means that the person on the other end is allowed to punch me for walking up to them. Sure, your heart rate might increase and you might be on guard for the next step, but the simple act of approaching a person cannot be the basis for force.
Yes, this is what I was trying to say. In the various Martin threads, I said that I felt threatened the way Martin did, would probably react the way he did. I was very quickly told I would be in the wrong if I did.
In the Goetz thread, some of the same people are now saying that since Goetz felt threatened, he was totally justified in doing any thing to defend himself.
There was one statement on that Goetz thread, posted by casdave that really got me going, but I’m not sure how to quote it here properly. I’ll copy and paste it here:
[QUOTE]
casdave[/And why should he retreat, give up his wallet or merely threaten with the gun instead of use it - this is simply judging the real offenders on a different standard to the victim.
The offenders could just as easily not tried to rob anyone, there is little risk in not robbing people.
QUOTE]
Now Zimmerman could have just as easily not tried to follow Martin around for no reason.
It was a little more than just some person walking towards him. He was basically being stalked by a random person in a car, and from my understanding he even asked Zimmerman who he was and what did he want, and got no answer.
That’s threating to me. You’re making sound like people don’t know the difference between a person looking for help and someone stalking you.
The problem is that we really don’t know what happened between when Zimmerman started following Martin to the point that they were wrestling on the ground and Zimmerman shot him.
Martin is dead so we don’t know his version of events. Zimmerman, for obvious reasons, is going to tell the police and the courts whatever he think will keep himself out of jail, and Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel has told several dramatically different accounts of what she heard and with her media appearances since the trial seems a bit too concerned with stretching out her fifteen minutes as well as displaying the intelligence and maturity of someone who’s nineteen and still in high school.
So, while we know a verbal confrontation was quickly escalated to a physical confrontation, and Martin seemed to be getting the better of it, we don’t know who escalated it or why.
You’ve matter-of-factly stated Martin attacked Zimmerman and several posters on this site have matter-of-factly insisted Martin was responsible for what happened because he threw the first punch, but we don’t know that.
Is it possible that Martin decided to jump Zimmerman, yelled out "you’re gonna die tonight, and beat Zimmerman to death(as Zimmerman alleges), and then when shot, looked down at his chest said “you got me” and then plopped over dead.
Sure, though it sounds a bit too much like a badly written western.
Is it also possible that Zimmerman, who made it clear he thought Martin was a criminal, a “punk” and an “asshole”, upon being confronted by the boy he thought was a criminal panicked and reached for his gun precipitating the fight?
Is it also possible that Trayvon decided to walk away and Zimmerman tried to grab him or otherwise restrain him and the fight then ensued.
Is it also possible that Zimmerman threw the first punch or shoved him.
Sure to all of those.
However the prosecution couldn’t disprove the defense’s version of events so the jury did what any reasonable jury would have done and acquitted him.
To use an extreme example where you wouldn’t be, people who are mentally ill are not “morally justified” in shooting their neighbor if they think he’s an alien from the planet Zargon who’s trying to kidnap him and take him back to Zargonfor scientific experiments .
Generally, any forcible felony will do: rape, kidnapping, manslaughter, robbery, arson, murder, carjacking, etc.
The “anything you want” varies, New York seems to have a “if it’s reasonably necessary” requirement, and pretty much everywhere distinguishes between physical force and deadly force.
You understand that robbery, by definition, includes the use or threat of force, right?
[Quote=split p&j]
I can follow someone around all I want, and they can’t do anything, but if I say give me your shoes, or give me some money, then they can shoot me?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, as long as the demand was accompanied by the use or threat of force.
Really, how could it be otherwise? If self-defense against forcible felonies is outlawed, then every person must make the awful choice between being a victim (or corpse) or a criminal, whenever anyone attacks them. If self-defense is altered to cover subjective fear alone (“he was following me!” “He gave me a nasty look!” “He had no business being in my neighborhood!”), then you’ve just legalized murder.
No, you are not. I challenge you to make a moral argument to the contrary.
Right, that’s what I’ve been saying. He’s referring to 2(a) and 2(b). But there’s nothing about Goetz having to reasonably believe both that he was being robbed, and that deadly force was the only way to prevent the robbery. The threat of robbery appears to be sufficient.