Didn’t Bricker already answer that? The jury would have to decide if “that guy followed me” rises to the level of “I was afraid for my life”. If I were a juror, I doubt I’d accept that.
I’m not arguing that Martin was in fear of his life, and that’s a big sticking point in the discussions we’ve had, one I tried to separate in my post. There’s force, then there’s lethal force. Absent the gun, either the threat of it, the threat of using it, the sight of it, I would think that Martin’s reasonable fear would be limited to harm, theft, rape, etc. He would be entitled to use force, but not automatically lethal force. He can punch someone in the nose, but not react to any and all fear by trying to kill Zimmerman.
But if Zimmerman responded to Martin’s nose punch by pulling out the gun, THEN Martin would have a right to pound his head in the sidewalk, which is lethal-level force.
Or if Zimmerman pulled out the gun right at the start, then Martin would have the same right.
And if Martin DID go to lethal force against a much lower level of force against Zimmerman (which is essentially his claim) then Zimmerman has a right to self-defense that overrides Martin’s because Martin’s is disproportionate.
As has been discussed, almost anything CAN be deadly, even a punch in the nose, so I would imagine there have been a lot of interesting cases and discussions about how to define who is disproportionately responding to whom in various scenarios, but that’s what juries and case law and argument are for.
Me neither. But “that guy followed me” absolutely rises to the level of “I didn’t have any idea what his plans were, but I was afraid he might be trying to rape me or hurt me somehow. Since I didn’t want to find out I punched him.” for me.
And if “that guy” then reached into his holster and pulled out his gun, THEN “I was scared shitless and did everything I could think of to stop him from using it and I didn’t care if he died, it was him or me.” would be A-OK.
As several have explained, generally in the scenario you laid out Zimmerman’s actions don’t reach legal grounds for “provocation” meaning Martin’s assault was wholly illegal and there are really no concerns about Zimmerman’s legal use of self defense.
In Florida, even if Zimmerman provoked Martin, SYG actually says he can still use self defense if the force used against him reaches a point of violence where it puts him in fear for his life or great bodily harm.
In other States, if Zimmerman had provoked Martin, then he would potentially be unable to use self defense or it would only serve as an “imperfect defense.” Meaning it would mitigate his crime, but not excuse it. Self-defense law is really variable from the States. This scenario in some States would meet the definition of “imperfect self-defense”, meaning it was justified self defense except that the defendant was the aggressor–so it is an imperfect defense. In other States imperfect self-defense is self-defense in which a jury believes the defendant genuinely feared for his life but determines that his belief was unreasonable. States with any form of imperfect self-defense doctrine, it mitigates the crime but doesn’t form an absolute defense to it.
Again, for the Nth time, since we have evidence that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman beating him up (and we have zero evidence otherwise), the “attempt to end the conflict” thing is moot.
Zimmerman is not guilty. Live with it.
Insulted? No. I’m quite content that your bullshit won’t affect me, but there’s people reading who might see what looks like a coherent, cited post (to be fair, when you cease the frothing you’re a good writer, and you have an ability to find relevant cites, just not interpret them), and pointing out how catastrophically wrong you are is, well, basically the point of this board - see the subheader.
You still seem wedded to the idea that there can be different truths for different people. Whilst that is a somewhat useful idea in metaphysics, it is not just useless but actively dangerous when discussing the law, or actual events in the world.
And yes, I will declare as a fact that you have no (real world) evidence for your beliefs that Zimmerman assaulted Martin, or drew his gun before he claimed, as no such evidence is in the public domain, and you have failed to produce anything that you are privy to that the rest of us haven’t seen. That your delusions tell you otherwise doesn’t make it real.
See, if you actually did respect it, you would back up what you say, or show me where I’m wrong, instead of spreading more lies and misinformation. Such as you again do about 3 posts ago, where you cite Florida law and claim it says something entirely opposite to both the plain reading of it, and the way it has been applied in practice, and ignore that there are specific definitions of “provocation” and “initial aggressor” that have been repeatedly cited, and differ wildly from yours. I can only presume your definitions are derived from the same delusions that make you think you have evidence Zimmerman attacked first, or pulled his gun before he claims.
So, if I’m wrong, show the fucking evidence. Go on, embarrass me. I’m sure you’d love to do that. Your failed, pathetic attempts to belittle me every time I prove you wrong demonstrate that.
Not sure if you’re aware of the Stoid situation, but Captain Amazing if you start a post with “Can I ask a legal question?” and Stoid responds to it as she’s just done here just skim past it, the post has no value and will make you dumber for having read it. There are people on the forums who are lawyers and can give you good information, and even ordinary posters can contribute good stuff as well. But Stoid is a special class of person, whose legal knowledge has been definitively proven repeatedly to be so lacking as to render any comment from her on any legal matter essentially irrelevant.
This is actually why I quoted her response to Captain Amazing. It’s because yes, she actually uses the right formatting and pulls statutes and even tries to interpret case law sometimes. All in a way that to the casual observer means she deserves to be heard on legal issues. But the history of her posting on these boards on legal matters, from a massive clusterfuck involving her personal life through to literally hundreds of terrible posts on the Zimmerman case have shown to any impartial observer that she has no idea how to interpret or understand the actual law.
When she is told the correct way, she comes back again and again with her own version of how it is, even though it stands at stark contrast to what all courts in the country hold as acceptable law. That’s a dangerous type of poster in terms of spreading ignorance, and it needed addressed.
Here’s a stunning example of you being utterly wrong. Zimmerman, at the trial, had to do absolutely nothing to claim self defence. The necessary trigger for self defence to be included is a scintilla of evidence provided for it, and the prosecution provided that.
Zimmerman has to show nothing. The prosecution have to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was not self defence. He is presumed innocent. The benefit of the doubt goes to him.
Let me put it another way. If there is a scintilla, that is, any amount no matter how small, of evidence that it was self defence, it is presumed that it was justified self defence unless the prosecution proves otherwise.
This is how we can say Zimmerman is innocent, this is how we can say there was no murder. Unless it’s proved beyond reasonable doubt, it did not happen.
Doesn’t rise to that level for me. You don’t get to punch someone just because they were following you. You call the cops, or go somewhere safe (like your home, which TM was near to). Perhaps if someone followed you into a dark alley with no exit, but that was certainly not the case in in the TM/GZ case.
Once a gun is pulled, all bets are off, as far as I’m concerned.
:rolleyes:
He had incorrectly stated what I had said
I have no doubt the legal folks will come along and correct anything I said about the law that needs correcting, but the only person completely qualified to correct an incorrect characterization of my argument is me.
Of course that pulled gun exists only in Stoid’s fantasies.
I think what I find continually amazing, is people just are convinced the Zimmerman case were special. I posted a description of a case upthread that was a lot more egregious:
- Eye witness to the shooting that said the defendant was the aggressor
- Eye witness who saw the defendant before the shooting, said he was drunk and belligerent, and had a verbal altercation with the man he shot
- Defendant is in fact drinking while carrying a gun in a bar
- Defendant is acquitted
Zimmerman had zero eye witnesses to the shooting, zero eye witnesses to the events leading up to the shooting, and only “ear witnesses” to the events prior to what happened before that. He also had clear evidence of being hit multiple times, the guy in my story only claims he was hit once, but says the hit was “so devastating” it put him in instant fear of his life, requiring him to shoot the other guy to death (he shot three times versus Zimmerman’s one.)
If that guy walks (and by the way, West Virginia is a SYG state), I find it strange people remain so convinced it was legally improper to acquit Zimmerman who had a far more believable self defense story and far less evidence against him.
I wanted to acknowledge this. It’s a good point, and I’d also like to know how often it happens.
I’m still reading about the Keating murder, and was struck by the allegation that the jury was influenced by the Zimmerman acquittal. But it’s difficult to get a sense of exactly what led to an acquittal without following the trial closely as was done with Zimmerman.
Yes. Your word.
As for the rest, like I said: stupid, boring, and weird. (Especially at this stage.) I have no doubt whatsoever that you shall persist in your perceived function of being the Truth, The Light, and The Way.
And I leave to each individual to decide for themselves, using their own good brains, what the truth actually is.
The problem with your belief is that the jury can’t reach it as a finding of fact, because no one testified that it happened, and no physical evidence established that it happened, and no evidence allows the jury to reach it unless they pile inference upon inference.
Even if I were to say that your theory may have happened, or probably happened, it doesn’t get us past that point.
Yeah, we won’t ever know as much about that case unless we travel to Huntington, WV and request court records :D, because it’s just obviously not national news. I can’t remember how I first heard about it, but I heard about it before the verdict. It was just today I remembered the case and did a search to see if there had been a decision yet. From what I can tell from the news articles I’d say the defense probably successfully painted Keaton’s girlfriend as a liar, and as the only eyewitness to the actual shooting that puts the prosecution in a situation at least similar to the Zimmerman prosecution, a totally discredited eye witness isn’t that great.
But given the other stuff, like the witnesses inside the bar and the fact Keaton only threw one punch–the outcome still seems a bit more out of whack with what people would expect than Zimmerman.
And of course, Searls and Keaton are and were (respectively), from what I can tell, “rednecks” to put that as nice as possible. Neither is ever going to be media darlings, the victim was also ran through the mud since OxyContin was found in his system and etc.
Well, Zimmerman himself was concerned about saying his address out loud in case Martin could hear, so it’s not so strange that Martin might not want to go home: it’s not as though home has some magical shield to protect you no matter what. Home invasion anyone?
Secondly… would you be as dismissive if Martin were a woman? Because as a woman, I can tell you that Zimmerman’s behavior would have freaked me out completely, and if I asked him flat out “why are you following me?” and the best he could do in reply was “why are you here” it would send a chill down my spine because I would read it as avoidance, and that he had an agenda. If I were a young black male I can see feeling exactly the same.
Yeah, I’m aware of that, but we both know that many guilty people have gone free because of insufficient evidence to establish the fact, and I’m very sure that’s what happened here, for the reasons that I posted a couple of days ago that, very surprisingly, no one attacked. Nice change of pace for a second. 
That also goes back to why I initially was less than convinced that the decision not to charge Zimmerman was racially motivated. That was the basis for the first long threads on this case. I had followed enough local news here in Virginia that I had heard of cases, not exactly like, but similar to Zimmerman and the other one I brought up. Cases where prosecutions were either never done or lost, so I had some baseline to expect a self defense case with no eye witnesses are hard to prosecute.
One case I know of, two basically alcoholic/drug addict men who shared a room together got into a vicious fight one night and one of them died. I believe the survivor says it was “gay panic” because the other man tried to rape him, and he lost control of himself and in a state of rage/panic had to beat the other man to death. The jury totally rejected that argument, and I think it would take a really bad story or some key piece of physical evidence to convict a guy who claims self defense when there are no witnesses. It’s also different when it’s two people who know each other, if you stab your spouse to death and say they were trying to attack you I think that is a harder narrative to sell.
From what I can tell, while the Sanford police are not amazing at investigations (were slow, didn’t do a great job with chain of custody etc) they weren’t racists. The investigator who interviewed Zimmerman didn’t buy his story and wanted to charge him, that doesn’t really sound like something a racist who is trying to wash away the murder of a black kid would do.
Norm Wolfinger, the State’s Attorney who initially decided not to prosecute the case had a long career, and there are no indications he was racist. His opinion was that the evidence wasn’t there for a conviction on manslaughter, I think to some degree he’s been vindicated.
I guess what the Sanford PD probably did, and why this got to where it did, is they were horrible at informing Martin’s parents of anything. It took a really long time for them to even find out their son was dead. They gave little to no explanation at all to the parents, I think that put the parents into the position of having to basically become publicists for this matter, until bigger forces picked the story up. I think if the Sanford PD had found a way to communicate more effectively with the Martin parents early on, things wouldn’t have gone the way they did in terms of public awareness of this case.