I am hoping that someone on the opposite side of the issue from me will step up and defend my post from this comment.
I don’t think this is a great instance to pick to complain about Bricker’s donnish tone. The point he’s making is a pretty important one and one that you’d almost certainly acknowledge in different circumstances.
You can’t put a guy in jail for starting a conversation he didn’t need to start. You can put him in jail for shooting a guy he didn’t need to shoot, but starting the conversation isn’t the part of that transaction you need to focus on to get to that conclusion. If what Magiver is saying is a good foundation for a rule about how people interact with each other, what we’re saying is that Trayvon Martin could have popped one in Zimmerman just because Zimmerman confronted him about what he was doing. Which would be approximately as awful as (what I imagine) actually happened.
The point is that the butterfly flapping his wings is a shitty argument even when it’s the first step in a chain of events that ends in something terrible happening.
(on edit: hey, look at that!)
That was actually Bricker’s characerization of what life was like before SYG set people free to “stand their ground”.
You were saying that you shouldn’t have to hold your hands in front of your face and cower if someone hit you. SYG has nothing to do with that. States and countries that don’t have SYG laws do not say you have to cower before your attacker.
When two people are fighting, both are acting in self-defence. Always. How can they not be? You’re trying to hurt someone, but you’re also trying to stop them hurting you, right?
So legally it can only be self-defence if the other person starts the fight, or perhaps if they escalate it, depending on local laws. Otherwise the term ‘self-defence’ is meaningless.
Florida law seems to agree, based on cites provided earlier in this thread.
No, it’s not that simple or benign. We know for sure from the girlfriend that Martin was feeling sufficiently scared of the guy who was following him and watching him from his car that his girlfriend was also scared and encouragin him to run. He said he was going to walk fast. Next thing you know, guy in car is out of car and coming right up to you…what the hell does he want? Is a sick fuck pedo rapist looking to snatch me and fuck me and throw me in a ditch? Is he a member of the KKK looking to fuck me up just cuz?
As a woman, if I were in his shoes I would probably have been scared to death of the guy who has been stalking me from his car getting out of it and coming up to me (especially when I believed he’d finally gone away!) I have no reason to deny his right to be just as fearful.
Who said anything was benign?
The one who starts the physical confrontation. I can call you every name in the book, insult everyone you hold dear, and urinate on your favorite holy book. I’m an asshole, but if you sock me, you’ve started the physical fight, and I have every right to defend myself.
No, it isn’t. The only time you may legally use force is if you reasonably believe you’re in danger of being assaulted.
Uh, he threatened to kill him and showed him a severed head. If that doesn’t give someone a reasonable fear of being assaulted, I don’t know what does.
And besides, this all comes back to the same facts. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman said anything that would make Martin reasonably fear for his safety?
Zimmerman clealy wasn’t starting a conversation as he got off the 911 call muttering “fucking punks” (at best). Trayvon’s parents are as responsible for what happened as Lincoln’s were for the events at Ford’s Theater.
The confrontation was never necessary. The confrontation prevented nothing more than a 17 year old kid from getting home. The confrontation arose against the directives of others. The confrontation was initiated by Zimmerman. Zimmerman is responsible for the outcome.
No one used that term, but it’s being made to sound like Zimmerman was merely being dickish, vs. being scary.
Which was exactly my point- what the hell does name calling and insulting have to do with anything? I dont’ think nor did I suggest that Zimmerman provoked Martin to violence by angering Martin, I think he provoked violence by scaring Martin.
DING DING DING!!
I dont’ think that it’s anything Zimmerman said at all, I think it’s the way he behaved. I’ve said it a few times already: If I were in Martin’s shoes I would have been extremely scared and felt very threatened. Being a chick, I would not have responded with anything physical, but guys who are afraid often deal with that fear by hitting first, and I think that’s what Martin might have done, at most.
What I actually believe is more likely is that Martin was already afraid and stressed out because of the 250 pound stalker, and when the 250 pound stalker got out of his car and came up to him and he asked why he was being followed,and Zimmerman said why are you here, and then there was some kind of physical something that happened because Martin’s headset seem to have been knocked away from his head then his phone was cut off, I think Zimmerman pushed him in that way that guys do, that “Hey punk, you got a mouth you, huh?” kinda way and Martin swung.
In your mind, maybe. If you’re making a moral responsibility argument, go ahead. But it sure seems to me you’re saying because Zimmerman chose to follow Martin while armed, Zimmerman is criminally liable for the resulting death. That, you cannot do. The directives of others have no legal force. It is not legally relevant that the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow.
I’m saying that because he followed, got out, and ahot Trayvon, he is responsible for killing him.
Either that, or Trayvon’s death was the inevitable result of this one time that Napoleon farted.
He’s not “responsible for killing him” because he followed, or got out. He is responsible for killing him because he fired the shot that killed Trayvon. He doesn’t deny it. That’s just a trivial statement.
Now that you put responsibility aside, the question is, was Trayvon’s killing a crime.
Under Florida law, maybe not. Morally, as the armed vigilante adult stalking an innocent, it is bloody murder.
If Trayvon Martin shot Zimmerman right at the point he was muttering “coon,” we’d have to say that wasn’t OK. Zimmerman wasn’t assaulting or murdering the kid at that point.
If Zimmerman walked up to him and said “excuse me, sir, do you need help with anything,” or even if he said “you look like you’re in the wrong part of town, boy,” we’d still have to say don’t shoot him, Trayvon, shooting people is wrong. Morally speaking, I’m pretty comfortable saying don’t punch him in the face, either.
If Zimmerman gets in the kid’s face or puts his hands on the kid or points the gun at him, now we’re in scary territory and probably all bets are off. Defend yourself however you can. But the thing is that all three of these scenarios start the same way, so it’s really not a great idea to focus on the way that they start when it’s obviously the middle and end that are critical. Following and getting out are things that you can do, even if you’re a terrible person, and not actually do anything that harmful to the world. Fucking *shooting *people, that is the trouble with shooting people.
However, shooting the guy who’s on top of you punching you in the face is legitimate self defence, both morally and legally speaking, and that’s a scenario that fits the facts we have better than yours.
Whatever the actual facts of this case turn out to be, it’s quite clear that it was not vigilantism, and the only way it would (morally speaking) be murder was if Zimmerman left his house intending to find someone to shoot. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.
Morally, I still don’t agree and I don’t think it should be legal either. Fist fights happen thouands of times daily, they almost never need be settled with lethal weapons. Too much is being made about Martin being on top, as if he was permanently stationed there with Zimmerman unable to fight back with his own fists. It’s just a snapshot of a fight that did not begin in that spot. Nor should it be ignored that Zimmerman knew that help was on the way. I just don’t accept that he was in danger of grievous injury or death.
The entire tragedy was the result of his actions. Zimmerman was the adult. Zimmerman decided Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman had a permit to carry a lethal weapon. I see no reason not to believe the girlfriends account. I believe he intended to stop one of “these assholes” from getting away. I believe he saw the skinny teen and thought he could restrain him. I believe this is the most logical and credible scenario using the known facts. Vigilante. Murder.
Yes, Zimmerman is obviously the proximate cause of Martin’s death.
What I have been discussing is whether that act imputed criminal liability to Zimmerman, such that he should be arrested, tried, and convicted.
If you simply want to say that Zimmerman should have minded his own damn business and because he did not, a boy is tragically dead, I agree.
Yes. Second degree murder. Because Zimmerman’s actions (for the 57th time) from the start were unwise to the point of being reckless and dangerous and could more than reasonably be foreseen as reckless and dangerous and potentially lethal. That’s why Neghborhood watch guidelines say don’t carry weapons.That’s why the 911 operator said don’t follow the guy. Because reasonable people understand that Zimmerman’s intentions may have and probably were entirely positive, but his choices and behaviors in support of those intentions were foolish and dangerous. And the death of Trayvon Martin is the proof.
No, that’s not the only way it would be murder, see the previous. See the murder statute. Creating a dangerous situation that results in the death of another, no matter what you intended by it, is second degree murder.
Yes, he should, because he engaged in activities which by their very nature could and did lead to the death of an innocent human being, so he should be convicted of second degree murder.
You don’t even have to paint him as having an intention to murder anyone or shoot anyone to see his culpability. The idea of reckless disregard for human life can often come down to “being egregiously stupid”, not nefarious. And that’s what I think Zimmerman is guilty of. Egregious stupidity, foolishly disregarding the HUGE potential for creating exactly the situation he went on to create, with the horrible results of someone dying. Exactly what second degree murder is designed to deal with. You don’t get a pass for being THAT fucking stupid, you need to take responsiblity for being THAT fucking stupid and reckless and foolish and dangerous.
So lets change something up, and see how it seems.
So I’m a man driving around my neighborhood at night, its dark and pretty lonely.
When I see a woman walking, I don’t instantly recognize her and being a gender equality kind of dude I decide she could be up to no good, a burgler, etc.
I start following her in my car, I call 911 to report her as suspicious and get frustrated that a police cruiser isn’t seconds away and that she will be gone by the time anyone gets there. So I take my gun and start chasing her on foot, she starts running. Eventually I catch up to her and as I’m walking up to her yelling at her to explain herself she makes threatening movements and punches me and attacks me, well I’m not going to take any risks with my life so I pull out my gun and shoot her dead. She should have controlled her silly imagination and just calmly answered the questions of the guy chasing her down on a dark street.
How does that make you feel? Do you care that it is legal or do you feel I should be “blamed”? Does it feel just and right?
Stoid, walking up to someone to ask them what they are doing is not evidence of reckless disregard for human life, and without criminal intent it’s not murder.
So, not negligent homicide, and not murder. As I’ve repeatedly said, it’s probably manslaughter, but it’s unlikely that there is enough evidence to convict.