Predictably, a bunch of people who reflexively want to take the side of the shooter in a Stand Your Ground case are these days saying "George Zimmerman's side" of the Trayvon Martin's shooting is revealing more information.
I have said before, and reiterate again, Zimmerman's side of the story is essentially the same as it ever was and the fundamental facts of the case have not moved an inch. The story boils down to this: Zimmerman thought Trayvon looked suspicious and called police. He then tracked Martin down. Zimmerman claims the two got into an altercation and he felt he needed to use deadly force and kill Martin.
That was the Zimmerman side on day 1. Now, Daily Caller is looking at video which most people see as evidence there wasn't much of a scuffle and sees evidence that there was a fight. A growing number of people seem to think hearing Zimmerman claimed his nose was broken adds some new information to the basic facts.
But as people jump on this wagon, they need to consider something very clearly. SYG works both ways. If people say Martin needed to die for this, realize he had every right to kill George Zimmerman based on the very same law which Zimmerman is shielding himself with now.
Zimmerman stalked Martin in the streets and was brandishing a deadly weapon when he did it. Martin, by Zimmerman's own account, confronted Zimmerman from there. Was it not reasonable with a man stalking you in the streets with a handgun for you to feel threatened for your life? Indeed, even assuming everything Zimmerman is saying is the absolute truth, all Martin did was to stand his ground.
Now ask yourself, would police have responded do defensively to the defendant if that was the case? If a 17-year-old black kid in a hoodie had wrestled a gun away from the neighborhood watch guy and shot him in the streets near his home? According to SYG, that is exactly what should have happened.
Zimmerman created the confrontation. Zimmerman introduced the threat of deadly force. Zimmerman employed deadly force and killed a child, hoodie or no hoodie. And Zimmerman still has not been charged with a crime.
None of that changes with a broken nose or a laceration on the head. Zimmerman has yet to show he felt in danger of his life when he had a handgun and Martin had some iced tea. Martin, on the other hand, would be able to make a pretty good cade he had reason to fear for his life. We know that because he is dead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, "stalking" has a legal definition. FS 784.048: "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083." Certainly, Zimmerman was willful in following Martin. Some people have alleged that did so maliciously. But he did not do it repeatedly, and thus did not "stalk" Martin. He followed Martin, and was within his rights to do so.
ReplyDeleteSecond, "brandishing" has a regular definition, "to shake or wave menacingly; to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner." (I don't believe it has a specific legal definition; it doesn't appear in the Florida statutes or in an online legal dictionary.) As far as I know, there's no evidence that Zimmerman was "brandishing" the gun while following Martin.
So, your statement that "Zimmerman stalked Martin in the streets and was brandishing a deadly weapon when he did it" is incorrect, and prejudicial.
Further, I disagree with your claim that "SYG works both ways" in this case. FS 776.012 states,
"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
"(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
"(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."
Most of 776.013 deals with being in a residence; the only relevant part here 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."
I don't think that it is "reasonable" for Martin to believe that non-lethal force was "necessary" to defend against "imminent" unlawful force by Zimmerman if we assume that all Zimmerman was doing was following Martin. There are many plausible reasons for Zimmerman to be following which do not involve using force against Martin. Further, if we assume Zimmerman's account is truthful, Martin successfully evaded Zimmerman, and thus by definition, non-lethal force was not necessary. And unless Zimmerman was openly carrying his gun or was within striking distance, Martin certainly couldn't have expected "imminent" unlawful force.
Similarly, although to a greater degree, I don't think that it was "reasonable" to believe that *deadly* force was "necessary" to prevent "imminent" death or great bodily harm. Note that, for deadly force, you can meet the justification through 776.013 (3), which doesn't explicitly specify that death or great bodily harm must be "imminent", although 776.012 (2) does. Still, I don't think we can get to either "reasonable" or "necessary", and both are still required.
(continued)
The only exception here is if Zimmerman was threatening Martin with his gun. In that case, it's reasonable to believe that Zimmerman intends to shoot, and the threat is imminent. You can probably make a decent argument that the use of force in defense is necessary, because of the danger of being reacquired, and the fact that the interior of his home does not necessarily provide protection against a bullet. But there's no evidence that Martin had any knowledge that Zimmerman was armed during the "pursuit", much less that Zimmerman was using the gun to threaten Martin.
ReplyDeleteFurther, SYG only applies to the use of deadly force. Just because you can describe an action as "standing your ground" does not mean the "Stand Your Ground" law applies. Certainly you're aware that the title of an act is not the law, and is often deceiving as to the nature of the law (you might cite the Patriot act, or NCLB, for example).
If Zimmerman's account is truthful, his legal action of following Martin did not "cause the confrontation" any more than Martin's legal action of going for a walk in the rain caused the confrontation. If Zimmerman is to be believed, Martin throwing a punch was the first unlawful action. And merely having a gun does not "introduce the threat of deadly force". If Zimmerman believed during the attack that Martin was capable of and intended to use deadly force (such as by hitting his head against the ground), then Martin would have introduced the threat.
And as long as we're assuming that Zimmerman's account is truthful, I think it's important to note that he claims that he had given up following Martin, and that Martin then approached him. At that point, even if Martin might have had a claim to defend himself against a threat from Zimmerman following him, once Zimmerman stopped following, there's no longer a need for defense.
Note that, even if we accept the claim that Zimmerman was, by merely following Martin, the legal aggressor, thereby provoking Martin's use of force, F.S. 776.041 states that the self defense justification is still available to Zimmerman if Martin's use of force in self defense was "so great that [Zimmerman] 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 [Martin]."
Other than that, I agree with you 100%. Blogger had better not eat this.
--Tom
I am truly happy to glance at this web site posts which contains lots of valuable data, thanks for providing these statistics.
ReplyDeletehttp://193.251.187.181/groups/informationactive/wiki/db17c/penis_enlargement_remedies_found_in_pakistan.html
http://sibergems.com/node/2601