So are you saying that any age should be irrelevant? I could shoot a 12-year-old and claim self-defense? A 10-year-old? How about an 8-year-old?
Just because you’ve never seen a case, doesn’t mean age should be irrelevant. In this case, I get the impression that 17-year-old is sometimes used as a shorthand to mean a young boy who was smaller and of a slighter build than the person that shot him.
“Ignores the whole situation?”
That’s precisely the point. You don’t know what the whole situation was. You don’t know how Zimmerman approached Martin. If you don’t know that, you’re not entitled to assume that Zimmerman “goes after him” in any way that constitutes a threat, and unless Martin was actually assaulted, he is not legally entitled to punch Zimmerman.
You said “there is no other conclusion.”
Suppose Zimmerman exited his car, approached Martin and said, “Hey, you! You don’t look like you belong in this neighborhood, boy. What’re you doing here, stealing shit? Selling drugs?”
That’s another conclusion, isn’t it, other than yours? Right?
Martin is not entitled to strike Zimmerman in the nose in response.
So, then you agree. It doesn’t matter that the kid was 17. Either it was right for Zimmerman to act as he did, or it was wrong, regardless of whether the kid was 17 or 21.
I’m not suggesting Zimmerman should be hung from the nearest tree, but it is upsetting to me that he wasn’t arrested. Self-defense is a defense; it should be proved in court. From what I’ve read, it seems a pretty weak defense in this case. Zimmerman was told by police dispatch “we don’t need you to do that” when he said he was following the kid. He did it anyway. That’s not breaking any laws, but it shows he didn’t care about the advice of law enforcement personnel. He claims he got out of his truck to check a street sign? In an area where he is Neighborhood Watch Captain? I find that really difficult to believe.
What it boils down to is that an unarmed teenager, who had every right to be where he was, was shot and killed. The police seem to be taking the claim of self-defense as a proven fact instead of something to be proved. The young man is dead. If I were his parents I’d be pretty upset, too.
“I mean, it’s not like he was 4yo riding a tricycle.”
You do know that often 17yo boys can be just as big or even bigger as a 21yo adult, right?
Correct. A hoodie is not a ski mask, which is perfectly acceptable cold-weather wear but donned in summer makes one wary. The hoodie has no bearing on this case.
Out of all the details of this case, out of all the relevant and irrelevant dimensions of the two individuals involved, out of all the facts that have come out in recent days…why are you so hung up on Martin’s age?
But you’re right. 17, 24, or 59. It doesn’t matter legally speaking. But generally we consider it especially tragic when a young person dies. OMG, how crazy is that?
I can honestly tell you I would not consider it assault. Because, you see, I can read the English language and see how the state of Florida defines “assault.”
I would probably consider it harassment, as discussed by FSA § 784.048, engagement in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
But of course I would change my mind if I learned of some legitimate purpose for the action.
No, I think this is incorrect. Being chased (particularly by a stranger) I think falls well within the common law definition of assault—a voluntary act by the tortfeasor that arouses a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The quarry is entitled to use non-deadly force to repel the feared contact.
Obviously yes if you are defending yourself.
Holding him at gunpoint would have been illegal.
Florida has abrogated the common-law definition of assault by statute.
Beautiful. Pointing a gun at him would have been illegal, but pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger is perfectly hunky-dory.
Would it be assault to mace a complete stranger who chases you on the street for reasons unbeknowst to you?
The only reason I’m asking you this is to watch what kind of tortuous logic you throw at me.
Like I said, the law is an ass. If murdering someone is less risky from a legal standpoint than detaining them at gunpoint, then the law needs to be changed. Or we need to get the guns out of people’s hands in the first place.
It’s not crazy at all. But the age of the “attacker” does not affect the defense of the “victim”. Either Zimmerman acted in self-defense or he didn’t. Myself, I think that Zimmerman’s claims are shaky. But using the age of the kid against Zimmerman is not fair. A 17 yo kid can certainly be as much a threat as a 21 yo adult. Zimmerman could have felt just as threatened either way.
No.
Assault is a threat. Completing the threat by actually attacking is a battery. One could be charged with both crimes but the two convictions would merge into one for sentencing purposes.
Wow, I’d never even noticed that while reading through the thread. I gotta ask, Martin Hyde, what makes this 17 year old boy a nobody? He has no criminal record, nothing bad has been said about him other than that he wore a hoodie and might’ve been on a skittles sugar high, so…?
If it gets down to 40 and you put on a ski mask, don’t get shocked when people call 911. Anything that conceals your face is going to make people trust you less.
It is like the SOP when you are pulled over by the police. Turn on the interior light, get out your ID and put both hands on the steering wheel and make sure you make you make eye contact with the police officer. Pulling up your hoodie after you know the guy is looking at you is asking to be stopped.
Putatively, in their penal code. The tort of assault remains.
I add that reading Fla. Stat. § 784.011 (An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent) does not change my mind. The threat is communicated by the act of chasing (as the statutes plainly contemplates, threats do not need to be vocalized).
At any rate, self-defense may be used to repel either tortious or criminal assault.