Trigger-happy Neighborhood Watch Kills Black Teenager

[MarkEsq]

I found the actual part of the Florida self defense statute that is the Stand Your Ground law. Here it is:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It looks like the critical element here is Zimmerman's claim to not have been doing any illegal activity and to have been attacked.

As I read it, there's another aspect of this law that may not work in Z's favor, the last clause. Not only must the actor (Z) not being doing anything illegal, but he must reasonably believe that he is about to suffer "death or great bodily harm" to use deadly force.

Now, if that's anything like the Texas "serious bodily injury" standard then it means, essentially, life-threatening or altering injury. A broken nose wouldn't qualify.

In summary: you can't bring a gun to a fist-fight, even if the other guy started the fist-fight.

 

[missesdash]

Michelle Malkin, conservative darling and all around slime, weighed in on her website, Twitchy

The reason you never saw that picture on the mainstream media is because it's not Treyvan Martin. It's a fake, and Malkin was forced to remove it and post a retraction.

It's not just a fake, they pulled the photos from the account of another kid named "Trayvon Martin." All of his photos were circulating at one point. When I first saw thelm, I actually laughed because it clearly wasn't him.

But then I realized how many people couldn't tell. The photo even ended up on business insider. And they all recanted saying "they were mistaken." I just have to wonder if they'd even LOOKED at the faces or just assumed they were the same kid because they were both skinny and black.

Ugh.

 

[Belle_91]

People are saying that Martin started the fight between the two. I don't know if that's true--I wasn't there--but I can see why he would have swung first.

Zimmerman was following him in his car for a few blocks--that would be too long for me. Naturally the kid was freaked out, and he even told his girlfriend that.

If someone was slowly going behind me in the car while I walked through a neighborhood--any neighborhood--I'd be freaked out.

If Martin was oh-so dangerous, why did Zimmerman feel like he needed to get out of the car?

Reguardless who threw the first punch, I think Zimmerman started everything. He was told not to follow Martin, but he did and ended up killing him.

That's what I can't get over. People saying Martin threw the first punch. If he did, I feel like he was in his right to. Zimmerman--whether he admits it or not--knew there was going to be an altercation. He followed the kid in his car, naturally scaring him. I think anybody would be scared.

Also, in reguards to the hoodie...IT WAS RAINING! Honestly, I just watched that interview with that guy from Fox, and I was just waiting for him to start twirling that big mustache and start laughing.

 

[robeiae]

As I read it, there's another aspect of this law that may not work in Z's favor, the last clause. Not only must the actor (Z) not being doing anything illegal, but he must reasonably believe that he is about to suffer "death or great bodily harm" to use deadly force.

Now, if that's anything like the Texas "serious bodily injury" standard then it means, essentially, life-threatening or altering injury. A broken nose wouldn't qualify.

In summary: you can't bring a gun to a fist-fight, even if the other guy started the fist-fight.

Right.

The "stand your ground law" sideshow--as I noted long ago--isn't worth delving into, imo, because it's not going to exonerate Zimmerman or the Sanford PD. The situation isn't--based on all that's out there--ripe for the use of that law, at all.

 

[RichardGarfinkle]

Right.

The "stand your ground law" sideshow--as I noted long ago--isn't worth delving into, imo, because it's not going to exonerate Zimmerman or the Sanford PD. The situation isn't--based on all that's out there--ripe for the use of that law, at all.

I hope you're right. I'm concerned that the delay in a proper investigation has removed too much evidence, so that the case will boil down to a He Said-- situation.

 

[Lyv]

That's what I can't get over. People saying Martin threw the first punch. If he did, I feel like he was in his right to. Zimmerman--whether he admits it or not--knew there was going to be an altercation. He followed the kid in his car, naturally scaring him. I think anybody would be scared.

I agree. Trayvon saw a strange adult male in an SUV staring at him and then following him. He didn't know what the man wanted (and by the girlfriend's account, just before she heard a scuffle, she heard Trayvon ask, "Why are you following me?"). What do we teach children to do in that case. Run away and if they come after you, kick, punch, scratch, do whatever it takes to get away. I think it's more likely Zimmerman was the first to put hands on Trayvon, but even if it were the other way around, I wouldn't blame Trayvon.

 

[LOG]

I didn't see it in the last 3 pages, but I may have missed it, but Zimmerman's lawyer ran away from an interview with Lawrence O'Donnell. He rips the lawyer and the police investigating this case a new one, though I'm not too sure about police leaks being some kind of PR tactic.

 

[Vince524]

People are saying that Martin started the fight between the two. I don't know if that's true--I wasn't there--but I can see why he would have swung first.

.

Well, on that note, here's a legal ? that maybe Mark can answer.

Lets assume for a moment that what happened was that Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow Martin. After a time, Martin did take the first swing. And maybe Zimmerman was really in fear of his life. Not saying that happened, just saying if thats how it went or if that's how Zimmerman says it went, then what?

If Zimmerman was doing something stupid but not illegal by following Martin, and then Martin turned on him, something Martin wouldn't have done if Zimmerman hadn't done what he did, can he still use deadly physical force?

In other words, imagine I'm on my property and I see a nieghbor I can't stand and I start saying things to him, maybe stuff that most people would agree with. I know this guy has a temper and he's likely to come after me, and he does, lets say with a bat, can I kill him in self defense without any legal reprecussion?

 

[Ken]

Well, on that note, here's a legal ? that maybe Mark can answer.

Lets assume for a moment that what happened was that Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow Martin. After a time, Martin did take the first swing. And maybe Zimmerman was really in fear of his life. Not saying that happened, just saying if thats how it went or if that's how Zimmerman says it went, then what?

If Zimmerman was doing something stupid but not illegal by following Martin, and then Martin turned on him, something Martin wouldn't have done if Zimmerman hadn't done what he did, can he still use deadly physical force?

In other words, imagine I'm on my property and I see a nieghbor I can't stand and I start saying things to him, maybe stuff that most people would agree with. I know this guy has a temper and he's likely to come after me, and he does, lets say with a bat, can I kill him in self defense without any legal reprecussion?

... your hypothetical scenario reminds me of the movie "Shane." Outlaw seated on a porch. Antagonized a homesteader to draw. Didn't have a chance. Outlaw shot him first. It was premeditated and most definitely murder, but still legal on the surface. Technically, the homesteader drew first. If the law is written correctly, such a technicality should not be legally defining. Otherwise, that stand your ground law allows a person to setup a person, without much difficulty, and get away with killing them!

-------------

Question, answered below. It's good the law stands as such. That's very sensible.

Its been said several times in this thread already, but the concept of self defense and the "stand your ground" law are really misunderstood.

There is a concept (its called different things in different states, but the idea is universal) of mutual combat. If you are enticing or provoking someone, whether verbally or physically, you lose all right to a self defense claim. You instead become a willing participant in the confrontation.

 

[Belle_91]

Well, on that note, here's a legal ? that maybe Mark can answer.

Lets assume for a moment that what happened was that Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow Martin. After a time, Martin did take the first swing. And maybe Zimmerman was really in fear of his life. Not saying that happened, just saying if thats how it went or if that's how Zimmerman says it went, then what?

QUOTE]

I was wondering the same thing. By all accounts, it sounds like Zimmerman was stirring up trouble. If you're scared and you attack, is it self-defense even if you swung first?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if Martin started the fight, would he have been protected under a self-defense stance if he had lived.

 

[James D. Macdonald]

Here's more on the smear campaign against Martin: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ar-campaign-against-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

As to who's behind the smears: I suspect the NRA is in it up to their necks. Why? Because the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law was one of their flagship pieces of legislation, and they're worried that maybe people might start asking whether having a bunch of untrained, unaccountable, trigger-happy civilians running around with the legal right to shoot anyone they think needs shooting is a good idea.

 

[Prozyan]

Its been said several times in this thread already, but the concept of self defense and the "stand your ground" law are really misunderstood.

There is a concept (its called different things in different states, but the idea is universal) of mutual combat. If you are enticing or provoking someone, whether verbally or physically, you lose all right to a self defense claim. You instead become a willing participant in the confrontation.

If Zimmerman ever appears in court, any self defense claim won't stand a chance. A second year law student could pick such a claim apart.

An interesting point is if this had turned out differently and Zimmerman was the party that was seriously injured or killed, Martin would have a strong "stand your ground" claim, as all things point to Martin being the person that was initially harassed.

 

[vsrenard]

It's not just a fake, they pulled the photos from the account of another kid named "Trayvon Martin." All of his photos were circulating at one point. When I first saw thelm, I actually laughed because it clearly wasn't him.

But then I realized how many people couldn't tell. The photo even ended up on business insider. And they all recanted saying "they were mistaken." I just have to wonder if they'd even LOOKED at the faces or just assumed they were the same kid because they were both skinny and black.

Ugh.

I can't tell from the picture here. The smile looks off but the photo's resolution is poor enough that I wouldn't definitively say it's not him. Then again, that photo of Zimmerman doesn't much look like him either. Maybe I'm just bad with faces.

 

[rugcat]

Its been said several times in this thread already, but the concept of self defense and the "stand your ground" law are really misunderstood. . .


. . .If Zimmerman ever appears in court, any self defense claim won't stand a chance. A second year law student could pick such a claim apart.

Well, i'm not misunderstanding it at all.

Let me lay out a defense strategy.

Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch captain. He observes a young man acting suspiciously -- walking slowly, stopping in front of houses with no lights, peering into windows.

He calls police, as he should, and follows the man. The dispatcher advises him not to, but there have been recent burglaries in the neighborhood, and he's afraid the suspect will vanish before police arrive.

The suspect notices Zimmerman following and turns on him. Zimmerman attempts to back off, but the suspect attacks him, knocks him to the ground, jumps on him, and begins to slam his head into the pavement.

Zimmerman calls for help, but no one responds. Zimmerman, quite rationally, is now in fear of serious bodily injury, at the least. He doesn't try to get away from the attacker; he has no obligation to do so. Instead, he pulls out his legally carried gun and shoots the suspect.

A tragic incident, but clearly self defense.

And note, there's nothing in this account that can be disproved, and some of the particulars are even supported by at least some of the witnesses.

 

[rwam]

Here's a legal question...even if Zimmerman should somehow get off scot-free, couldn't Martin's family file a "wrongful death lawsuit"? Sure seems like it to me.

 

[Vince524]

Agree with what rugcat said.

Also, I don't think I forfeit the claim of self defense if I provoke someone verbally.

Let's say I live next door to a man who I believe beats his wife & children. I've called the cops when I hear noise and suspect violence, but as is common, the wife and children deny anything happen, despite the bruises.

At one point, seeing him I yell out that he's a coward and that if he had a set of balls, he'd pick on someone his own size. Maybe throw in a comment or two about his his mother for good measure. He then grabs a bat and come at me.

Certainly I don't lose the ability to claim self defense if I kill him.

 

[Vince524]

Here's a legal question...even if Zimmerman should somehow get off scot-free, couldn't Martin's family file a "wrongful death lawsuit"? Sure seems like it to me.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say yes.

First off they can always sue.

2nd off, the burden of proof is lower.

 

[Kateness]

As I read it, there's another aspect of this law that may not work in Z's favor, the last clause. Not only must the actor (Z) not being doing anything illegal, but he must reasonably believe that he is about to suffer "death or great bodily harm" to use deadly force.

Now, if that's anything like the Texas "serious bodily injury" standard then it means, essentially, life-threatening or altering injury. A broken nose wouldn't qualify.

In summary: you can't bring a gun to a fist-fight, even if the other guy started the fist-fight.

Mark, question:

I can't remember off the top of my head, because I last looked at the SYG and regular self-defense Florida statutes several days ago, and I can't remember if the SYG one contains a duty to retreat.

Now that we're getting more eyewitnesses (for whatever their credibility is worth), that has Z on his back, with Trayvon beating him up. He can't retreat, as he can't fight back effectively. Couldn't it be argued that Z did nothing wrong because he couldn't retreat and was in fear for his life (however we want to define that)?

I'm not saying any of the above "facts" are necessarily true, but some variation on it is clearly the version of events Z and his legal team want out there. And because Trayvon is dead, isn't it arguably tough to get any other version of events?

I know the guy I've been discussing this with pulled up the statute in the state he practices, and although it's not his shtick, he isn't convinced that Z should be charged based on what's out there right now.

 

[rwam]

I stand corrected on what rwam was asserting. That, indeed would be racism.
Lyx

Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't recall actually asserting that...I think someone was asserting that I asserted it. But whateva.

 

[rugcat]

Here's a legal question...even if Zimmerman should somehow get off scot-free, couldn't Martin's family file a "wrongful death lawsuit"? Sure seems like it to me.

A subsection of Florida's stand your ground law:

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in … s. 776.013…is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force...


My bold.

 

[muravyets]

He should be given the benefit of the doubt because that is how our system operates. I don't have all of the information necessary to know if his crime was a crime, and if it was motivated by racism. I have beliefs, but that's not enough to convict on.

Fortunately you wouldn't have to. A murder conviction would suffice just as well, even without the hate-crime add-on.

 

[muravyets]

I'm not saying that he's definitely racist. I'm saying that in this situation he is the one who has to present the evidence in a way that shows him to be not guilty. That's the requirement of an affirmative defense.

And the question posed earlier about why people are being squeamish about the accusation of racism toward an admitted killer remains.

I'm not at all squeamish about calling him a racist. I even got into a fight over it. I happen to believe he's likely also mentally unsound, so any racism he may feel may not be motivated by the same kinds of things as the racism of, oh, say, the cops who let him walk without question.

But there's one thing I'd like to point out about all this quibbling over whether that dirtbag is a racist or not:

If Zimmerman acted in self-defense, then it doesn't matter whether he's a racist or not, because he acted in self-defense. (Of course, I don't believe he did.)

However, if Zimmerman did not act in self-defense then he's a murderer, and who gives a shit about his reputation then? If there is a possibility of attaching a hate crime charge to a murder charge in this case, then I say the question of Zimmerman's racism should be addressed openly and thoroughly because it will be an aspect of his trial.

I see no point in waffling and refusing to consider possibilities, as if racism couldn't possibly relevant. I'd much rather see people consider the evidence known so far and reach a conclusion one way or the other. My reason is that, while racism would be irrelevant to a self-defense case, it would be absolutely relevant to a murder case.

Aside from Zimmerman, there's also another party to this killing whose motives should be under scrutiny, even more so than Zimmerman's, in my opinion. That would be the cops who handled the shooting. I have no compunction whatsoever in putting their decisions right down to racism. No compunction at all.

 

[muravyets]

This law is pretty f*cked up. So basically anyone walking down a neighborhood street can be shot because the person with the gun saw them as a threat, shot them and claimed self defense. The dead person can't give their side of the story.

To the people seeking to demonize Trayvon Martin -- it's the typical blame the victim mentality that we've seen over and over again.

The fake poster just shows the desperate lengths Zimmerman's apologists are willing to go to. I'm not familiar with Malkin, but what a sick thing to do.

Now that you've seen that vicious lie, you are familiar with her. That's pretty much the only kind of thing she does.

 

[rwam]

A subsection of Florida's stand your ground law:

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in … s. 776.013…is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force...


My bold.

Well...um....crap. That would way much suck.

 

[benbradley]

Here's a legal question...even if Zimmerman should somehow get off scot-free, couldn't Martin's family file a "wrongful death lawsuit"? Sure seems like it to me.

A subsection of Florida's stand your ground law:

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in … s. 776.013…is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force...


My bold.

But (and IANAL, etc.) I suspect whether he was justified is still in question even if they never arrest him. Even if he's arrested on criminal charges, goes to court and is cleared (or more technically, not enough evidence is brought forward to convict him in the opinion of a judge or jury), I wonder if a civil case might still argue that he was NOT justified in his actions, and thus not immune from civil action. Attorneys earn their money by coming up with these things.

This case is so cantankerous (and the public attention so great) I can't imagine him being completely immune from civil action.