The distinction is: Zimmerman’s testimony established the necessary evidence in the record for the jury to conclude that Martin was the aggressor. He said, “Martin punched me in the nose.”
What did the jury have in front of it to conclude that Zimmerman was the aggressor? And remember the rule against adding inference to inference.
You mean the rule she’s repeatedly claimed doesn’t apply to her? Good luck…
Something I’ve brought up in a few other threads, but which is often ignored, is this question:
Do you think it is typical for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in either a murder or manslaughter case in which the accused is the only witness to the crime, the accused had no prior relationship with the victim (and thus could not establish motive or anything), the accused asserts self defense and the accused presents a narrative that is not contradicted by any evidence and said narrative outlines a reasonable self defense scenario?
I’m asking that as an exploratory question. Not being a prosecutor, not having access to the statistics, I would highly suspect that the answer to that question is “no” and that in fact most prosecutors would probably try to plea it or decline to charge a difficult case like that.
Self defense cases are hard, you guys often present very little points here and there and I think fail to recognize how minor they would be at trial or how effectively defense could counter them. Google, “Larry Keaton murder.” It covers a case recently concluded in Huntington, WV.
A 27 year old man by the name of Aaron Searls was drinking at a bar (“The Lounge”) in Huntington, WV. The bartender working that night said Searls would be “fine one minute and crazy the next” and that he had been erratically behaving throughout the night. Larry Keaton, 45, at one point during the night when Searls was out of control and threatened with ejection, told Searls to calm down. Searls responded angrily that it was “none of his business.”
A surveillance video inside the bar shows Searls yelling at Keaton at one point in the evening, and it later shows Searls and another man leave the bar together. The other man eventually returns, and then Keaton and his girlfriend leave.
Once outside, a confrontation between Keaton and Searls ensues in which Searls shoots Keaton three times, killing him. There are two living witnesses to the crime, Searls himself and Keaton’s girlfriend. Keaton’s girlfriend says that Searls started the confrontation and asked if Keaton was armed. When Keaton replied in the negative, Searls pulled his handgun (equipped with laser sight) and pointed it at Keaton. At this point (as per her testimony), Keaton punches Searls once in the face, Searls is knocked back but quickly rights himself and fires three shots at Keaton.
So we have a bartender who testified that Searls was abrasive, drunk, erratic, and angry. He gets into a verbal argument with Keaton because Keaton at one point asks him to settle down at the bar. We have an eye witness who claims that Searls first pulled his gun on Keaton, and Keaton responded by hitting him at which point Searls shot him three times.
Charged with first degree murder, Searls and his attorney assert that Keaton’s girlfriend is a liar. That Keaton confronted Searls because he was angry that Searls had “eyed” his girlfriend. Keaton was painted as drunk and belligerent (only Searls was described as such by any of the witnesses), and as the aggressor. Keaton was much bigger than Searls, Searls defense attorney says that Keaton’s blow was so powerful it left Searls unable to think or breathe and knocked his glasses across the parking lot. The defense attorney argued that Searls only option was to fire in self defense.
Verdict: Not guilty.
You cannot “establish” that. You can theorize it, but on very tenuous grounds. There is also evidence that was not in the trial that would point more towards the “thug” theory. The text messages boasting of hitting someone in the nose till he bled. Boasting of swinging on a bus driver. The 12 pieces of jewelry that the police found in his bag at school that (yeah right) a “friend” gave to him. (this one did come out at trial) Deedee being nonchalant about it being “just a fight”…
“Aggressor” meaning initial aggressor. Whether Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life has nothing to do with who was the initial aggressor.
I have my own reasons for being appalled by the Zimmerman verdict. My rule of thumb for what the law should accomplish - for what should and shouldn’t be punished - is “what if it happened to me?” Putting myself in the position of every player, what would I expect to happen?
In Zimmerman’s position, - seeing a suspicious character on the street - I cannot imagine doing what he did. If I see something illegal, I’ll call the police. If I see something that’s a likely prelude to something illegal, maybe I’ll call, based on exactly what it is, and whether there’s some other likely explanation. Following people is simply outrageous.
In Martin’s position - someone is following me - I’d start out doing exactly what Zimmerman says Martin did. I’d speed up, then run, then evade. Though I almost certainly wouldn’t, I’d be sorely tempted to circle back, get the drop on my pursuer, and deliver a beatdown. The reason why I wouldn’t is that I’m hopeless in a fight, and don’t want him coming back at me, and delivering a beating from behind that’s severe enough to guarantee that he can’t retaliate would probably land me in jail. But I don’t like living in a world where confronting a pursuer, demanding his business, and handing him a well-deserved bloodying is such a heinous act that he can kill me and not even be punished for it.
That’s why people are outraged - it’s not about evidence, or what kind of person Martin was, or reasonable perception of threat. It’s about Zimmerman behaving in an insulting, threatening, outrageous manner, and Martin reacting predictably and righteously. Martin’s dead, and Zimmerman’s free, and that’s fucking wrong.
Well, then there’s the rub.
Just because you or I would’ve wanted to deliver a beatdown to some asshole following us, is no reason to imagine that it’s actually a righteous act. Whoever escalated the confrontation to include physical violence was breaking the law, and (unfortunately, perhaps) there’s no actual evidence that Zimmerman was that person.
None of that information - assuming it’s even accurate - negates Martin’s right to defend himself.
Growing up in an environment where casual violence is commonplace is a reality for many children and teenagers. This does not make them all thugs, and again, does not negate their right to defend themselves.
Your relentless need to vilify this teenager says more about your personal issues, which, considering the time and effort you’ve put in, this case has obviously touched on. All I can say is, you must have been a very gullible child if you believed every boast made by another boy.
Yep. Thugs have the right to defend themselves in the right circumstances. But since we don’t know if he was defending himself…
You’re talking about behaving in an uncivilized way that we as a society should not want you to behave. I don’t think anyone should believe it is okay to assault someone just because that person was following them, that is well beyond the norms of the law and socially acceptable behavior. Note that Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch, people involved in that sort of thing are intentionally looking for suspicious activity. Their following someone is no more inappropriate than a police officer following a suspicious driver or suspicious person on the street.
Where the line is crossed is when someone transitions from appropriate neighborhood watch behavior (observe safely from a distance, report to police) into inappropriate behavior (try to catch, carry firearm.) Zimmerman did the wrong thing when he jumped out of his car to run toward Martin after Martin fled out of the view of his car, but he did nothing illegal. There would be no justification for you or anyone else to circle back around and beat someone up.
I can genuinely understand only really one type of outrage on this case. Those who believe that Zimmerman’s story is a lie, and that at the initial confrontation (before it became a physical altercation) Zimmerman either did a lot more to antagonize Martin or Zimmerman himself actually started the fight. See, that all could have happened, but because we have no evidence of what happened we’ll never prove it. But if you believe that (and it’s a reasonable belief), I can understand being upset.
What I can’t understand is someone like you that basically thinks it is okay to behave like a thug (which is what you’d be in your hypothetical) and that non-violent behavior should result in a “deserved bloodying.” That’s thuggery.
Is " thuggery" the right wing talking point for today? I didn’t know the memo was published on Sundays.
Do you really disagree with how I used that word? Nametag posited a scenario in which he was safely at his home, but felt it would be “justified” to run back out behind someone (who had not assaulted them or harmed them in any way in his scenario) and then administer a “deserved bloodying.”
Do you seriously believe that is acceptable behavior?
I guess since there is growing understanding we do not know what happened that night, and that lack of knowledge means the State could not effectively prosecute, people have instead decided to distort Zimmerman’s account (which is a pretty well put together story of self defense, and why I suspect he “massaged it” to make it so) or accept Zimmerman’s account and say in such a scenario Martin was totally blameless. I’m just confused I guess.
I’m someone who thinks we never heard the full truth from Zimmerman. I don’t think Martin was in the right or in the wrong, because I don’t know how the fight started or what lead up to it. But I also know Zimmerman’s story was plausible given the evidence and could not be countered by anything, meaning the jury had to acquit. But some people aren’t comfortable with that, so they have to vilify Zimmerman.
I understand there are people who have been vilifying Martin since day one–something I have never done. But I think it strange those some people who get so upset at the vilifiers of Martin feel it’s okay to go overboard and do the same thing to Zimmerman.
We can agree Zimmerman was a wannabe cop, we can agree he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun and he should have stayed in his car. But I don’t see how you can argue (like Nametag did) that because Zimmerman followed Martin in his car Martin was justified in circling around the neighborhood and jumping Zimmerman and initiating an assault on him. After all the uproar over “Stand Your Ground?” In that scenario Martin literally had already fled and then returned for a fight, and the same people that are up in arms over SYG are okay with that scenario? I was hoping Nametag was a lone nut, but it looks like he has defenders.
Sorry, Martin, it wasn’t just you using the word, so I didn’t mean to single you out. But read his post again. He didn’t say he’d do it, just that he was sorely tempted. He was speaking out of frustration, which as you know is also not illegal.
I’m certainly not advocating violence, but I think we need to recognize that casual violence is a commonplace reality for a lot of people in our society, and however wrong (and rightly punishable) it is, it is excessive to be punished for it with a death sentence.
Do you really doubt there are large numbers of people who have been engaged in a fistfight or scuffle, without intending or expecting the result to be death? And they are not all what you would consider “thugs”.
My post wasn’t about the actual case, I was using it to demonstrate the idea of provocation, whether true or not, in response to Terr’s claim that the person’s perception has nothing to do with it. Kimmy pointed him at “reasonable belief” and he said something nonsensical about defining aggressors.
It began with Camille’s question about why Martin couldn’t be acting in self-defense if he was afraid of Zimmerman due to Zimmerman’s behavior that made him feel afraid. It seemed clear to me she was trying to understand how the law itself works, not rehashing the exact details of this case. Therefore, hypothetically using a version of the scenario that raises this question as a way to explain how it might work:
GZ follows Martin in car, then on foot.
Barely 17 year old Martin is afraid…who is this guy, why is he following me? Does he wanna rape me? Commit a hate crime against me?
Asks GZ: why are you following me?
GZ: Why are you here?
Martin: Aw, screw you, man, I don’t have to answer your question!
Then:
Zimmerman reaches out and puts a hand on his shoulder, causing already fearful Martin to react violently to defend himself against this man who has not explained himself.
OR
Zimmerman says: You’d better not go anywhere, then lifts his jacket to show him his gun, Martin tackles him
OR
Zimmerman grabs him forcefully by the arm, Martin tackles him
OR
Zimmerman says something vaguely ominous, like “you aren’t going anywhere yet”, and reaches into his jacket…Martin tackles him.
Etc. etc. Of course a jury would decide if the evidence proved these things, and if a reasonable person in Martin’s position could feel threatened by whatever thing Zimmerman did that felt threatening to Martin, but that’s the general outline.
And at that point, Martin is acting in self-defense against a perceived threat of harm to himself because Zimmerman’s actions have provoked him to do so, making Zimmerman the “aggressor”.
Next step in hypothetical for the purpose of illustration:
If Martin is responding to something more ambiguous or less blatantly terrifying than the actual gun being waved around, and goes batshit on Zimmerman, bashing his head into the ground in the manner Zimmerman claimed, smothering and choking and threatening to kill him, he is in the realm of lethal force and that’s excessive and then positions switch, even though Zimmerman provoked Martin into defending himself, his self-defense is too aggressive and GZ feels he has to respond with lethal force to save himself (because presumably he has exhausted all alternatives).
But, if Martin has attacked GZ because GZ’s threat was reasonably perceived as potentially lethal (such as waving the gun or making threats about/with the gun) then Martin can reasonably feel his life is threatened and his potentially lethal actions taken in self-defense (head-bashing, etc.) are his legal right in the face of lethal threat, and if that is the case (and assuming it can be properly proven), then GZ would not be able to claim self-defense because he would have provoked Martin into his potentially lethal actions.
In this case, assuming the defense’ story is true (in light of aquittal for the purpose of this illustration), Martin provoked Zimmerman to lethal force in self-defense. Making Martin the aggressor.
But provoking someone into defending themselves and thereby being the (legal) aggressor does not have to be by being the actual physical attacker, it can also be by speech and/or actions which can be reasonably perceived as the preamble to actions which will somehow bring harm.
And yes, Bricker, read the case a long time ago and again yesterday, and no, provocation cannot be any ol’ thing someone doesn’t like. If someone in the the discussion starts suggesting that sticking out your tongue at someone or calling them an asshole can be provocation, that case will be important. But I’m pretty sure we all understand that “provocation” that doesn’t include actual physical attacks means doing something that makes the other person believe that an attack is imminent.
So that’s all I was saying. If you provoke, by actual violence or by other actions which can be perceived as leading to violence/harm/force if they are not prevented, then you are the aggressor and you don’t get to claim self defense.
In the most obvious, simplest hypothetical:
Zimmerman walks up to Martin, already scared, and says: hey, you thieving little asshole, I got you now, hope you’re ready to get your ass kicked nine ways from sunday! Then reaches for his gun, (or his cellphone, doesn’t matter, what matters is that Martin has a reasonable belief he’s reaching for something to hurt him with,) Martin jumps him and starts pummeling, Zimmerman shoots. Zimmerman is the aggressor. He provoked. No self-defense.
You can’t provoke someone into attacking you (by making them scared of you, not just mad at you) then kill them and claim self-defense. Period.
And some of the ludicrous parsing that has happened in these debates is just so fucking tiresome. It’s like people suddenly don’t speak English. Which is what Terr was doing.
And as an aside calling back to Camile’s question and the real case, which, again, was not my point: lots and lots and lots of people (including yours truly, of course) believe that Zimmerman was in fact exactly that: the aggressor. He threatened Martin, I believe very clearly. I think the gun was out long before he used it. Therefore Martin’s use of force, no matter how severe, was entirely justified. And Zimmerman made no attempts of any kind to end the conflict without using lethal force of his own, therefore he did not or should not have had self-defense available.[And as an aside to that: the altercation happened in a very short space of time, and Zimmerman has been remarkably free of details about what occurred between Martin’s spontaneous face-punch and the final seconds before the shot. He doesn’t remember, doesn’t know, doesn’t know anything, including whether he did anything at all to try and escape or end the conflict before resorting to his gun. But of course if he made that an issue then he’d be acknowledging his responsibility… sigh…)
I think you’re the one who needs to go back and read that post. He was saying it should be OK to do it, and you should not be able to use deadly force to stop that person. It should be legal to beat up someone who was following you:
Yeah, don’t put your insane bullshit in tiny type assuming no-one will read it.
You have no evidence - literally, zero - that Zimmerman threatened Martin, or had his gun out before he claimed. If you actually believe that, you are delusional, and should probably see a mental health professional. Your fantasy life is taking over your real life, and that’s not a good thing.
Also, the law does not state that Zimmerman has to attempt any other means of escape before using lethal force, even if he provoked the attack, if no such means are available. They were not, so it was justified even if he started it.
Zimmerman has no duty to explain to you, or anyone, what happened. He is, as we’ve been through exhaustively, innocent until proven guilty. As the attempt to prove that failed, he is innocent (legally speaking), and has no reason to explain his (legal) actions.
Actually, you’re right. Whether Zimmerman feared for his life doesn’t have diddly squat to do with who was the initial aggressor.
But it has everything to do with Zimmerman’s right to claim that that fear allowed him to use lethal force. And I cannot believe that we are here a year and a half later and a bazillion cites to the law and you are still saying this!
If Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, either by applying physical force against Martin directly, or provoking Martin into fearing him via other means,(and "fearing him can be alternately expressed as “reasonably believes…” before you go there…) Martin had a right to use force or lethal force, depending on the nature of Zimmerman’s actions and if they could reasonably be perceived as potentially lethal themselves. (Grabbing his arm vs. waving his gun).
Then the only way Zimmerman can claim self defense is if he can show that he made every attempt to end the conflict without killing Martin. Otherwise, no go.
Also, if Martin DID punch him in the face and was therefore the initial aggressor using non-lethal force, provoking Zimmerman to respond, if Zimmerman’s response was to pull out his GUN, that is not a proportionate response to a punch in the face, he’s now threatening Martin’s life, and given Martin the right to do everything he can to defend himself against a gun. So in that scenario, same thing: no self defense for Zimmerman.
Who started it AND/OR who escalated it to a lethal conflict both matter in the final result of who gets to claim self-defense.
I think we all ought to be able to recite it from memory by now:
What you believe about what happened has nothing to do with the way the law works in a given set of circumstances, so you can go right ahead and believe whatever the hell you like about who provoked, who hit, who escalated - recognizing that this is the way the law works doesn’t mean you are agreeing that George Zimmerman was in fact the initial aggressor, so why do you keep fighting the facts about the law?
Jezus.
Can I ask a legal question? Because I’m really not sure here, but would like to know.
Lets say, arguendo, for the purposes of the scenario, Martin was in fear of his life because Zimmerman was following him or whatever and led him to attack Zimmerman, which he did. And so he gets on top of Zimmerman and starts pounding Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk. This puts Zimmerman in fear of his life. So, Zimmerman takes out his gun and shoots Martin, killing him.
So, in that case, IS Zimmerman precluded from self defense? It seems like that’s what you’re arguing, Stoid, but is it true? Also, when Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him pounding his head, isn’t that “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;”
Couching it as “I don’t like living in a world where…” isn’t my idea of advocating something. As I’ve said, I read it as him speaking out of frustration. I know you like to parse these things, but it distracts from the larger point of what I am saying. Anyway, I shouldn’t speak for** Nametag**, so let him come back and clarify his post, if he chooses to.
If you want to parse what I’ve said about this subject, feel free.
I don’t assume no one will read it, Steophan, I assume they will understand that I am setting it apart from the rest of the post as my personal opinion as it relates to the post and how the law works, and I clearly designated it as exactly that. If I didn’t want people to read it, or assumed they wouldn’t, I can’t imagine why I would bother writing it at all. As you well know, since you never miss an opportunity to rant at me about it, I have no shame about my opinion, so no need or desire to hide it, and especially not by putting right out there where anyone can read it.
I do understand that you feel repeatedly insulted by my continued failure to accept your declarations regarding what is fact and truth and reality. And that as a result of these feelings of insult, you probably believe, in spite of knowing better, that I should feel ashamed and so your knee jerk reaction is assume that I do and this would be my reason for using small type. But of course you know better now.
I also understand that you feel driven to react to it every single time, without fail, no matter what the context. I recognize that this is your process, and I respect it. It’s stupid and boring and weird, but you’re entitled to it.