Bricker stated above that according to FL law, the “provocation” sufficient to be an “aggressor” has to come from “force or threat of force”. The “force or threat of force”. There is no question of perception, it’s a question of fact. Whereas in the self-defense statutes, it talks about “reasonable fear”, which is definitely a matter of perception. Actual threat is not required if reasonable fear is found to be valid.
Even so, I don’t think mere reaching into your pocket would usually be accepted by the jury as a cause for “reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury” unless it was accompanied by some other indications, like a verbal threat.
The threat of (deadly) force is the perception (as a reasonable person would perceive in like circumstances) of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, made by another who is capable of imminently carrying it out, accompanied by behavior supporting the belief that the aggressor means to carry it out.
But, I think all this “Maybe it was Trayvon Martin standing his ground!” is pretty misbegotten. The prosecution would have to prove up that Martin was threatened with death/serious bodily harm by Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had not adequately renounced the aggression, and all of this proven beyond reasonable doubt. There’s nowhere near enough evidence to do that.
It was accepted in a few cases I can think of involving the NYPD shooting unarmed suspects who made no other threats (accepted by jurors; not necessarily the public). Is there a different standard for LEO justifiable use of force?
How do people form reasonable fears of an imminent danger of the infliction of death or serious bodily harm absent perceiving such a threat?
If a person says, “I didn’t percieve nothin’, I just had this reasonable fear of imminent infliction of death or serious bodily harm, straight outta the clear blue sky,” do you think their defense succeeds or fails?
“Reasonable fear” is definitely a matter of perception - of a reasonable person. “Force or threat of force” formulation does not have any mention of “reasonable” or “fear” in it.
Diallo – and others similarly situated, I suspect – were shot after reaching into their pockets, yes. But the evidence showed that prior to that pocket reach, police officers yelled, “Police,” and “Show your hands!”
If you know of any police officer who escaped punishment after shooting an unarmed person, who did NOT warn the person in advance, let me know. But reaching into a pocket, by itself, does not communicate a threat of physical force. Reaching into a pocket after police have told you to show your hands does.
You just posted proof of what I said. “Reasonable fear” (or “reasonable belief”) is, in fact, a matter of perception. Perception of a reasonable person is what self-defense is based on. That is what I said from the beginning. You seem to be confused about what the argument is. camille was not asking about what self-defense is based on. She was asking about what the determination of an “aggressor” was based on.
OK, that’s fine. I just wanted to point out that what a person could “reasonably believe” turns on perception, at least in the sense of “What would a video camera have recorded if it were in the same place as the person contending self-defense; and would a reasonable person, who saw, as one in the self-defender’s place, what was recorded have formed a reasonable belief that death/serious bodily harm was imminent.”
That is, “perception” in the strict sense of “perceived by the five senses.” The person contending self-defense has to be able to point to some perceptible actions by the aggressor that gave rise to the reasonable belief. (You couldn’t say, “Well, I just had a bad feeling about this dude.”)
If you took perception as “one’s personal interpretation of some events,” then you are right, perception in this subjective sense is not the test: That interpretation must also be objectively reasonable.
Okay, thanks. But what about non-LEO altercations. Do you agree with Terr’s explanation? Could Martin have used that pocket reach as a valid self defense claim? Has anyone tried to argue it in a non-LEO case as a threat of force? If it is not a sufficient threat on its own, then is the law saying you must wait until a weapon is fully drawn before initiating a defense?
Let me admit right from the start that I haven’t read the thread. Too many Zimmerman threads going on and most of them are just shouting the same things over and over. But I read the OP and I wanted to respond to that.
I agree that there is a difference between justice and legality. But part of what society is supposed to do is work on reducing that difference. We should never accept the argument that something was legal as an excuse for injustice. If the law creates unjust results, we should change the law so that it does not produce those unjust results in the future.
The problem I see with Florida’s current laws is they encourage confrontation. George Zimmerman felt threatened by Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin felt threatened by George Zimmerman. And the law told both of these men that they didn’t have to back down from a threat. They were given legal permission to defend themselves in a threatening situation. And the result is one of them killed the other. In different circumstances it could have been Martin who was in court explaining why he killed Zimmerman. But that would have been just as much a tragedy as what happened.
Neither man wanted to commit a crime that morning. Certainly neither of them wanted to kill the other one. The law shouldn’t have any problems preventing situations that nobody wants to happen. The law should have essentially told these guys to back off before one of them ended up dead.
The law should now be changed. Not only to protect people from ending up like Trayvon Martin but also to protect people from ending up like George Zimmerman.
I’d like to point out that I said he could have used it as a claim but I very much doubt it would have been bought by a jury as “reasonable fear” unless there was a lot more to it than just a reach into the pocket.
The problem with your argument is that it is based on the two men having studied the laws, extensively, having fully internalized all the implications of the laws, and being able to recall, in seconds, all the pros and cons of their subsequent behavior based on the law.
Unless there was a big poster right near where they met saying, in big fluorescent (it was dark) letters: “The law says you have to back off”, I don’t see how the law could have “told these guys” anything.
It’s a question of fact for the jury. (Or for the judge at a bench trial).
In other words, if you wish, you can say to the jury, “he reached into his pocket, and that alone gave me a fear of serious bodily injury.” The jury’s acquittal can’t be appealed.
But I would be very surprised to see such a claim work.
I think most people have a general awareness are of what the law is where they live. People talk about crimes in their area and a general knowledge of what’s legal or illegal emerges from that. For example, I think most people are going to know whether their state follows a “stand your ground” or a “duty to retreat” doctrine.
But it wouldn’t have been that alone. What about the circumstances leading up to the reach (following, refusing to identify or explain)? What would be a reasonable alternative (non-threatening) perception, other than that it was an imminent threat (reaching for a weapon) under those precise circumstances? And remember, we’re talking about a minor, being followed by a strange man. Wouldn’t that also be a factor in what is a reasonable perception?
I don’t really understand how whether Martin had a valid or semi-valid self-defense claim is relevant to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. Martin’s self-defense claim does not make Zimmerman an “aggressor” - the criteria are different.