There is a definition. An initial aggressor only loses the right of self-defense if he provokes “by force or threat of force.”
That definition comes from Gibbs v. State, 789 So. 2d 443 (Fl. DCA 2001).
What evidence is there that Zimmerman used, or threatened to use, force against Martin?
You might imagine a scenario in which he did. But where’s the evidence that takes it out of supposition and says, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no other scenario happened except that one?
How does any of that show that Zimmerman used force against Martin first?
Or vice versa. There’s lots of “evidence” in the case, but none that tells us who started the fight. None, except the testimony by Zimmerman.
And it often happens that someone ends up dead yet no one committed a crime.
It’s not entirely a silly question. In Illinois, an affirmative defense* of imperfect justification (i.e., a real subjective fear of serious bodily harm that, in the circumstances, is not objectively reasonable) has to be proven by the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 720 ILCS 5/9-2.
They certainly can, but they don’t have to.
You forgot step 6a. “Then a miracle happens”. I’m sure you’re familiar with that old joke about the to guy trying to explain his mathematical proof or the derivation of his equation and includes that step. I think you’ve done the equivalent here.
Yes, I saw a the 14 year old picture on the news this morning and rolled my eyes.
Moral outrage often leads to change. Often not the right change. That comes from critical thinking. No one expects the parents of Martin to not be outraged. But I don’t think they are members here.
No, he did not. You don’t understand how the legal system works.
They would be correct in thinking that killing someone is not a criminal act. Murder, manslaughter, reckless homicide, and others, are crimes. Killing is not. I’ve challenged people before in these discussion to show me a law, anywhere in the world, where the only element of the crime is “killing”. No-one, unsurprisingly, has done.
Killing someone, by itself, is neither illegal or wrong. Whilst it is very often accompanied by something that does make it wrong, there is very little evidence in this case that it was/.
3 is demonstrably false, 7 is unsupported by any evidence, and Zimmerman does not need a reason to do any of the things you suggest he did, they are all acceptable things to do.
They may choose to disbelieve anything they like, but they may not infer from that disbelief that the opposite is true.
He didn’t call 911. He claims he was reaching for his phone to do so when Martin punched him.
Lol, your statement is insulting to idiots. Evil Economist is worse than an idiot since he uses what intelligence he has to fool himself into believing destructive lies in order to feel and display faux moral superiority.
They can “reject” it by not believing it. Sure.
What they can’t do is believe something else did happen.
Zimmerman says, “I did not threaten Martin.”
Jury can disbelieve him.
Jury CANNOT, because of this, find that he did threaten Martin.
In an ideal world, sure. But politicians neither encourage nor respond to critical thinking (and arguably, barely practice it). I’m not going to keep quiet because my idea of the right change doesn’t match yours. I suspect a lot of the “outrage over the outrage” is really the concern that sustained protests will lead to changes that don’t serve their interests.
By that standard, the only people who should care about what the Zimmerman critics are saying are his family, and they don’t post here either. Now what?
We can believe or disbelieve what Zimmerman said. But can we please accurately talk about what he said? Jesus.
I’ll give you the correct timeline since you obviously failed to find it yourself.
Not “don’t do that.” But “we don’t need you to do that.”
Several more question/answer are exchanged before Zimmerman says, “I don’t know where this kid is.” It’s obvious thus, that Martin has now lost Zimmerman, and Zimmerman has no idea where he is. End call.
Zimmerman claims he is returning to his vehicle, so that he can meet with the police that the dispatcher has told him will be arriving at the clubhouse. After meeting the police at the clubhouse, Zimmerman is to take them to where he lost Martin.
Zimmerman claims Martin “comes out of nowhere” and accosts him, demanding to know what his problem is.
Zimmerman responds the he “has no problem.”
Zimmerman then claims Martin starts hitting him unprovoked, knocks him tot he ground, and has him pinned there punching him. Zimmerman claims he is yelling for help continuously, “like fifty times” during the beating.
Zimmerman claims Martin sees the gun in his waistband and goes for it, and says “you’re gonna die tonight.”
Zimmerman says they struggle for the gun, Zimmerman gains control of the gun and fires it once. He says Martin seems to “fall off or back from him.” Zimmerman says he is not sure he shot Martin, he gets over to Martin because he is still talking and he isn’t sure Martin is shot. Around this time the first bystander arrives with a flash light.
I’ll contrast this with your erroneous reading of the events:
“Discernible legitimate reason” is editorializing. Zimmerman says he saw Martin walking around just looking at the houses and he found that suspicious. He tried to follow Martin in his car as he was talking with police dispatch.
While Zimmerman is driving, the police officer never instructs him “we don’t need you to do that.”
No, again, the police did not say “we don’t need you to do that” while Zimmerman was in his car.
No. Zimmerman exited the vehicle because Martin had ran away on foot. Zimmerman was trying to find out where he had went. During this time, the dispatcher apparently has heard the car door open and Zimmerman running–however he had asked several more questions of Zimmerman after that before finally asking Zimmerman if he was following Martin. Zimmerman says yes, and at that point (after he had already gone a distance from his vehicle) he is told “we don’t need you to do that.” Since by Zimmerman’s telling he had actually already “lost” Martin, and was trying to run to where he last saw him so he could get sight of him again, his story is not that he got out of his vehicle to confront Martin.
Essentially. But you skip the part where in Zimmerman’s story, he had completely lost sight of Trayvon and Martin came out of “nowhere” or “jumped him” and surprised him. Zimmerman was still startled when Martin asked that question, as he had “come out of nowhere.”
Zimmerman said his answer was “no.” And that he immediately got punched. Is that a particularly unreasonable answer? Or one that justifies Martin hitting Zimmerman?
Because a guy who he snuck up on did not answer his question, he was justified in attacking him?
It looks like what Chronos is actually doing is taking each step in Zimmerman’s story and deciding what he believes actually happened. The jury can either reject Zimmerman’s story in whole or in part. But they are not allowed to create a scenario of what they “believe” happened unless the prosecution has presented such a scenario and supported it with evidence.
Zimmerman’s self defense claim legally can fail two ways:
They believe the facts of Zimmerman’s story. However, they find that his use of force was not justified. For that to be true, they’d have to believe that Zimmerman did not have a reasonable belief that he needed to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm. Given the facts of Zimmerman’s story, if the jury believed those facts I do not in fact think a reasonable jury could have found him guilty of any crime. (One of the jurors has said they essentially believed Zimmerman’s story by the way.)
They do not believe the facts of Zimmerman’s story. However, if they do not believe the facts of Zimmerman’s story, the prosecution still has to explain and prove the crime that Zimmerman committed. I would assert that even if you do not believe Zimmerman’s story, if you look at the jury instructions for Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter, it is hard to reasonably conclude the prosecution actually built a case beyond reasonable doubt on either charge. So even if the jury 100% disbelieved Zimmerman’s story, it would not have been easy to convict, and may have even be reversible error.
Yes of course. After all, Zimmerman is a Racist and a Gun Lover.
But seriously, if somebody was following you, and you confront them and ask their business, and they don’t answer, it is not morally or legally justifiable to attack them and administer a beating.
But even if it were, it does not necessarily follow that the recipient of the beating has no right to defend himself.
Of course all of this is lost on Chronos since what matters to him is showing tribal membership and demonstrating his faux moral superiority.
When I suggested that certain people should be locked in a room with a large pile of Where’s Waldo books, I hadn’t realized that my statement would be carefully parsed to understand who exactly would have to be locked up. I can only think of one reason why this knowledge would be essential, so I’d like to personally thank you for taking this task on, and please permit me to contribute to your book fund.
No, because a stranger who’d been following him refused to identify himself or explain why he was following him, and then makes a move to into his pocket. Detective Serino explains it in the interview (my emphasis):
If a LEO could reasonably perceive it as a threat that justified a defensive move, why can’t an unarmed teenager?
Oh good,
Brazil84 heard his name called. If Zimmerman walking free is proof of injustice on a large scale, brazil84 still having posting privileges to the SDMB is proof of injustice on a small scale. Shouldn’t you be off somewhere protesting interracial marriages?
I’ll defer to the expert on industrial grade stupidity.
Serious question; do you think you ended up the way your parents had hoped?