I have no idea. If I knew the sequence of events, and the physical evidence, and what Zimmerman has already said to the police, and what the other witness statements reveal, I believe I could offer an informed opinion about how wise a strategy that is.
Since I don’t, I can’t.
Terr, do you have “and” blindness? I’ve heard about this.
What’s the status of the grand jury investigation?
If you prefer, revision:
Thank you for proving once again that if Zimmerman reasonably believed at the time he shot Martin that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and couldn’t reasonably escape, it is irrelevant to the law whether Martin was acting in self-defense or not.
Considering that Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him up at the time, the “and” escape part is kinda moot.
So if you are the agressor and your victim fights back, you can justifiably kill them? No.
is what you said.
Once again, if the situation meets the standards set in the law, yes, you can. Justifiably.
In the portion of the law that was being discussed. Namely, the “unless” portion.
The city clarifies some things: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
The grand jury is still looking at this issue. From what I have read thus far it is not clear cut. Why was the youth being followed? Have the 911 tapes been released? Who attacked whom first? Is there a “mystery witness” who has yet to be disclosed?
The physical evidence that I have seen so far in this case is that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head. The obvious conclusion is that Martin punched him in the nose, and Zimmerman fell hard enough on his head to cut it. So the evidence shows that Zimmerman was in a fight sufficient enough to think he was in some amount of danger.
The question becomes who started the physical altercation. Following someone isn’t starting a physical altercation. Asking what they are doing in a neighborhood isn’t starting a physical altercation. So where is your evidence? Where is your evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch, so to speak. This is America, where you are innocent until proven guilty. So where’s your evidence?
So Martin is dead because of Zimmerman’s actions.
They seriously need to start releasing more professional documents. A major typo in the last paragraph on the second page where they confuse Zimmerman and Martin.
Ah, the old “gun owners are afraid” argument. Why not accuse them of having tiny penises while you’re at it?
I see.
Well, then I can say something similar: if Martin’s family had remembered to buy Skittles, he would never have gone out. So Martin is dead because of their action, right?
Of course not. There are hundreds of events that led to Martin being at that place and time. Change any one of them and Martin is alive. But we would never say that Martin is dead because his family failed to stock Skittles. Why not?
Because they are not obligated to stock Skittles. They did not fail in some essential duty, or perform some illegal action. So while their action was part of the long chain of causes that led to the death, it is not imputed to them in any blameworthy way.
Now, Zimmerman. So far as I know, the same thing can be said of Zimmerman’s actions. He did nothing illegal, that I know of,when deciding to call 911 or deciding to follow Martin. So, while his action was part of the long chain of causes that led to the death, it is not imputed to him in any blameworthy way.
You obvious want this to not be true. You want the law to assign blame to him. But unless he did something against the law, you can’t simply point to the fact that he was part of the chain of events as though that proves something.
Because I don’t know that they have tiny penises.
No, I want it to be investigated and all I’ve done is show how Zimmerman could be held at least partially responsible for Martin’s. death.
logic dictates that there was no reason for Martin to talk to Zimmerman let alone attack him. Zimmerman had the motive to confront him and we know a fight ensued.
Wow. The butterfly flaps its wings is your counterargument? The Skittle stockboy didn’t also end up shooting Trayvon. Your argument is essentially that if Trayvon hadn’t been allowed out, he wouldn’t have encountered the guy who killed him.
I’m thankful for our learned colleagues and their willingness to help novices understand the complexities of the law.
Nice try. Go back and read what Stoid wrote about covering your face while someone is beating you.
Nicely put.
I think the question is not (yet) who started the physical altercation, because that is an assumption about the meaning of the physical altercation. I think the question is rather: in these circumstances, who can be said to be aggressor and/ or provocateur? What is the correct way to define it?
Many people (including the SYG authors) feel that Zimmerman’s actions define him as the aggressor, whether Martin threw the first punch or not. Provoking someone else to violence and then shooting them when they resort to it is defined as being the aggressor in most of the laws I’ve been reading.
In my earlier example of the serial killer, I erred in a couple of ways, so let me re-do it with an extreme example of our players:
Jeffrey Dahmer has a victim in his house that he has lured there for a drink. He’s feeling cocky. He has not yet laid a finger on the victim, but he decides to tell the man his intentions, with visuals. Positioned between the man and the exit, he goes in the freezer and pulls out a frozen head and shows it to his guest and tells him: “I am going to kill you and eat you now.” Victim pees himself and starts looking for a weapon, finds a heavy object and begins swinging, landing some seriously painful blows, one of which breaks Dahmer’s nose. He has Dahmer on the floor, punching him frantically. Dahmer very legitimately believes he’s going be killed, so he shoves his victim off, reaches in his pocket and gets a knife and plunges it into his victim’s heart, killing him instantly.
So… Dahmer did not lay a finger on the man before the man started to beat the shit out of Dahmer, but there’s no question that he provoked the man into acting violently to defend himself from the threat he had been presented with. There’s also no question that the man was presenting a very real threat to the life of Dahmer, and whatever Dahmer had originally planned, his plan right then was to stop the man from killing him.
So. Does it matter who landed the first blow, or does it matter who scared the living fuck out of whom, provoking them to behave a defensive manner that resulted in a broken nose?
The question becomes whether Zimmerman’s actions were in fact sufficiently threatening to make it reasonable for Martin to be so fearful that he hit first. If the answer is yes, then Martin was acting within the definition of the self-defense law and Zimmerman was the aggressor. At which point, Zimmerman’s choice to respond to the violence he had provoked with the enormous degree of force that he did put him squarely outside any kind of self-defense, with or without SYG.
(And of course, the question is also: is acting like a cop with a loaded gun in your pocket when you are not a cop a reasonable way to behave, or does it create a dangerous situation that disregards human life? I vote B.)