"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is 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"
Yes, that one. Now can you show me, in the law, the part (of course, as I said, considering that Zimmerman thought he was in “imminent danger of death or great bodily harm” at the time that he shot Trayvon) that would make it relevant whether it was Zimmerman who attacked Martin first, threatened him with violence before the altercation, or used racial slurs.
I think there would be people clamoring for the charges to be dropped against him, because his story, on the face of it, would not beg many questions.
I think if the tables were turned, Martin would have been arrested on the scene, that night, and there would have been no comments from the police expressing his glowing credibility. Presumably, the lawyers here would be in agreement that even though the officers had probable cause for arrest, it doesn’t appear that they have a winnable case at this point in time and that pressing charges against Martin would be doing more harm than good.
I don’t have any axe to grind. I’m not someone who rails against Al Sharpton or various “black causes” that come and go everytime someone gets beat up by police or shot by police. Probably the only time I really have an axe to grind is when it involves actual rioting from anyone be they black, white, Hispanic or etc. I have no tolerance for outright riots (ala Rodney King) and if I ran the country rioters would be shot en masse on sight until all of them were dead or dispersed. But would you really deny that instances of “black outrage” are not politically important? More important than many other types of “outrage.” Politicians barely even seem to care when gays protest something as a group, for example.
Obviously black people are essentially slaves to the Democratic party and thus totally irrelevant to any other politicians, but that doesn’t mean Republican politicians can just openly come out as being racists, or even allow themselves to be cast in a racist light. That can turn off the 45% or so of women (especially the housewives and such) who vote GOP and who aren’t comfortable with “open racism.” So there is strong political motivation for even conservative politicians to not appear openly racist.
I like that you totally dodge the key point of my post: it is intrinsically wrong for someone to receive harsher treatment from his peers by the supposedly impartial justice system just because the public demands it. Giving people equal treatment under the law and protecting them from the random anger of mobs is supposed to be why we have a criminal justice system in the first place.
You seem to have no problem with this sort of thing as long as the victim is black. I wonder if you’d be concerned at all if the shooter was black and people were protesting to see him sent away to prison?
So it would not be evidence that Zimmerman had a motive other than self defense for the killing if he was shouting racial slurs while he chased Martin?
Since you are answering a question with a question, I will do the same. Can you show me, in the law, the part (of course, as I said, considering that Zimmerman thought he was in “imminent danger of death or great bodily harm” at the time that he shot Trayvon) that would make it relevant whether it was Zimmerman who attacked Martin first, threatened him with violence before the altercation, or used racial slurs?
First, there is already evidence out there that Zimmerman did provoke the confrontation. If his own 911 call where he was clearly following him, plus the obvious bullshit CYA in his statement that he only got out of the car in the first place “to look at a street sign” weren’t enough, there is the statement from Martin’s girlfriend that she heard Zimmerman confront him, followed by Martin’s cellphone headset falling to the ground. Headsets don’t just fall off on their own.
So there is plenty of reason to believe that we are already in the second situation as described by the law, where Zimmerman has provoked the confrontation. That brings the “immediate fear for life, no escape” clause into play. Martin was unarmed, substantially lighter than Zimmerman, and the worst he seems to have managed to do to him before getting shot was induce a cut on the back of Zimmerman’s head, presumably though not definitely from Martin managing at some point to get Zimmerman on the ground. There is no description of something serious and imminent like Martin being about to strangle him or something. There is not even any description of major bruising as if Zimmerman was suffering a beating. (And no description whatsoever of Martin’s own injuries, gunshot wound aside – he was drug tested (and Zimmerman not!), but was he otherwise even autopsied? Who knows.)
Given the known evidence is it possible Zimmerman could be justified under the law in shooting to kill? There’s nothing at all in the evidence to suggest it was necessarily so. How’s about he get arrested and prove it to a jury?
I think your laat sentence puts lie to your first. I’d be very interested to see any evidence that you could provide that would indicate that monstro or anyone else involved in this discussion would be okay with some guy getting out of his car to hunt down another person who was simply walking home, as long as the shooter was black.
Can you do that? Because otherwise it just looks like the kind of thing that someone with an agenda, and with an incapacity for perspective taking, typically says.
Where is the evidence that Zimmerman did think anything of the sort, Terr, other than his own words? Where is the evidence that he could not have and should not have, given his weight advantage and the huge advantage of the gun, manage to effect an escape?
And, frankly, correcting you will mean that I post detail about the law that will be leapt on and misconstrued by those wanting Zimmerman’s head on a platter.
I wonder what the phrase “I wonder” means. Try rereading the part of my post you’ve quoted and contrast that with how you respond and maybe you’ll see what an inane question it is that you’ve asked me.
It depends on Zimmerman’s exact story. If Zimmerman was the aggressor, he had to exhaust ALL “reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death” before shooting.
I am assuming (perhaps wrongly) that in his story Zimmerman did not detail all of these attempts to escape he made before resorting to lethal force.
You’re assuming the most critical part of the analysis is true, and then acting like you can’t understand why everyone else doesn’t see it. Self defense is a defense, which means he has to prove it. And you also don’t seem to think it’s particularly important that the word “reasonable” is in there. It is. You can’t just say “I thought I was in imminent danger” and everyone sits around with their thumbs up their asses, taking you at your word. Well, actually, that is what happens, but not because that’s what the law says.
Why was it reasonable for him to believe he was in imminent danger such that he had exhausted every other reasonable means of escape? What amount of force did the child he shot to death put him in imminent fear of, and how? Why was the amount of force necessary a lethal amount of force? In what particular way did the child foil Zimmerman’s legally-required attempt to withdraw from the situation?
And so on. If you don’t see the ways the other facts about Zimmerman’s conduct could bear on those questions, it’s because you’re deliberately ignoring them.
Since Martin was out of area, his call might have gotten routed to FHP or the Lake Mary PD or the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department, instead of the Sanford PD. Misdirection of cell phone 911 calls is still a problem.
“I wonder” connotes belief or suspicion about a possible outcome that has some plausible possibility of occurring. Thus, you might hear someone say “I wonder if it might rain today?” or “I wonder if you could sink a basket from the free throw line backwards?” You would not hear some say “I wonder if I’ll visit Neptune before dinner tonight?” or “I wonder if you could kick the basketball through the window, down the hall and into the toilet backwards?”
In this context, “I wonder” is kind of a weasely way to make an implication about someone’s integrity while anticipating some wiggle room when called out for it.
The only thing it would help would be in satisfying our curiosity, it would not help the case against Zimmerman and possibly could immensely harm any chance of him seeing a conviction if that is what he deserves.
You’re right, it would certainly not be helpful in terms of figuring out what happened if we had a desciption of the event from the perspective of the young black murder victim. Where would tbe truth value be in that information?