Support NeoGAF

[Kevtones]

Following someone with a loaded weapon is absolutely not a normal volunteer duty.

Is it legal for him to carry that firearm though? If it's legal, as a volunteer citizen watch member or not, does it affect his guilt? Obviously, it's the reason TM is dead but the point is moot to me if Zim became a civilian/non-provoker.


I look at it this way, if Zim has already given up his pursuit, he is an armed civilian (in his right) carrying a weapon. If TM instigates the violence and starts beating his head into the concrete, what rights do Zim (or any other civilian) have? If it is legal for him to carry that weapon, and if he's getting his ass beat, yelling for help while his head is hitting the pavement in the middle of the night - what are his rights as a civilian?


Again, initially he is not just a civilian, he is a pursuer and the sole source of instigation. However, does he become a non-instigator/escalator at a point? If and when does it become TM's responsibility for reigniting the conflict?


I guess the problem is that we don't reliably know how it happened.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Taking a moment away from the realities of the case...

So, Zim goes after Trayvon.

He left his truck and went after the kid on foot. Tray was fully aware of Zim's pursuit, which escalated an already threatening situation.

So even if Tray got the pre-emptive strike on Zim, why would Zim be able to get the self defense call, but Tray wouldn't?

In reality they met face to face, each exchanged a question, and then engaged so my scenario is moot. But I still want to know what the logic is here.

 

[Kettch]

Is it legal for him to carry that firearm though? If it's legal, as a volunteer citizen watch member or not, does it affect his guilt? Obviously, it's the reason TM is dead but the point is moot to me if Zim became a civilian/non-provoker.

Not really interested in a further discussion, I just wanted to correct you on normal neighborhood watch duties. Neighborhood watch volunteers are told to watch and not follow. They are also told to not carry weapons.

 

[Kevtones]

Not really interested in a further discussion, I just wanted to correct you on normal neighborhood watch duties. Neighborhood watch volunteers are told to watch and not follow. They are also told to not carry weapons.

Well that's kind of the point of what I posted. Is he also a civilian during his volunteering? Is his right to bear arms (as a civilian) somehow legally jeopardized by his volunteer watch status?

Feel like that's important, whether or not it's part of the guidelines.

 

[theignoramus]

Well if Trayvon did indeed start the physical part of the altercation (a question we don't know the answer to), Zimmerman's suspicions were vindicated.

Remorse wouldn't be warranted in that case, depending on the person.

fuck that. Zimmerman antagonized the shit out of him.

 

[not psycho]

Zim isn't culpable for being suspicious of TM (unless he is the escalator), he's enacting his normal volunteer duties without escalation and without violence

I know this has already been answered, but here are a few reasons why it wasn't Zimmerman's normal duty.

1. The program coordinator said she specifically told Zimmerman not to pursue suspicious people.
2. While it happened, he was told by the police they didn't need him to pursue.
3. The national neighborhood watch manual clearly states not to carry weapons or confront suspicious persons.

The manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, states: "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous...."

There is a reason for that: he can't identify himself as a cop since he isn't one, he is not trained or qualified to carry a weapon and pursue people, and horrible results can occur when he does.

It isn't illegal though. Just a bad thing to do, especially since it seems overwhelmingly likely that he was racially profiling.

I guess the problem is that we don't reliably know how it happened.

Yep.

My guess is that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin because he was afraid of Martin getting the gun and shooting him instead. Not because of any severe beating, which may have been over by the time they reached the grass and struggled for the gun, and which does not seem supported by the injuries. I may be wrong, but so can any of us. Only one person knows.

In that case, the question is: if I create a scary situation by going against every guideline and stalking someone while armed, can I then use the existence of the gun I brought as the reason why I'm so fearful I have to kill someone? Doesn't seem right, does it?

Which is probably why Zimmerman claims Martin said he was going to kill him. Zimmerman had to claim that Martin told him that, because otherwise he just shot a kid because he was afraid that if the kid got his gun he would shoot him. The thing is, I don't believe Zimmerman. But we'll never know.

 

[polyh3dron]

Is it legal for him to carry that firearm though? If it's legal, as a volunteer citizen watch member or not, does it affect his guilt? Obviously, it's the reason TM is dead but the point is moot to me if Zim became a civilian/non-provoker.


I look at it this way, if Zim has already given up his pursuit, he is an armed civilian (in his right) carrying a weapon. If TM instigates the violence and starts beating his head into the concrete, what rights do Zim (or any other civilian) have? If it is legal for him to carry that weapon, and if he's getting his ass beat, yelling for help while his head is hitting the pavement in the middle of the night - what are his rights as a civilian?


Again, initially he is not just a civilian, he is a pursuer and the sole source of instigation. However, does he become a non-instigator/escalator at a point? If and when does it become TM's responsibility for reigniting the conflict?


I guess the problem is that we don't reliably know how it happened.

If every murder case ever was held to this standard, there would be so few convictions.

 

[Kevtones]

I know this has already been answered, but here are a few reasons why it wasn't Zimmerman's normal duty.

1. The program coordinator said she specifically told Zimmerman not to pursue suspicious people.
2. While it happened, he was told by the police they didn't need him to pursue.
3. The national neighborhood watch manual clearly states not to carry weapons or confront suspicious persons.

Thank you, I'm not really up-to-date on this stuff and it does fill things out...

But again, I wonder how this affects his criminality in the case? Does he lose his civilian status? Do neighborhood watch guidelines establish a legal precedent? Can Zim hide behind his civilian right in this case without us really knowing what happened? Seems like that's what he's doing a bit..?

 

[Dali]

Background on Zimmerman and the 911 call arent actually relevant since Martin wouldnt have been aware of them. Please, try to follow what's going on. Your once a day drive by derp is getting a bit tiresome.

Omg you're being serious? So the 911 call isn't being used in this trail? Or wait they're playing it but just to keep the jury entertained. No the victim would not have been aware but what does that have to do with the circumstances that night or trying to identify some singular line where it's ok for one to feel threatened? I don't think I care to waste anymore time on this with you. I'm mean seriously your point of view is laughable. Your singleminded focus on one thing is moronic when the pure existence of these proceedings contradicts your assumption.

And because I don't have the time or inclination to post every 5 minutes does not mean I'm not following the case. I'm sure you feel you're an expert based on your very strong language so I'll leave you to yourself to stroke your ego with authority unimpeded.

 

[Dude Abides]

Omg you're being serious? So the 911 call isn't being used in this trail? Or wait they're playing it but just to keep the jury entertained. No the victim would not have been aware but what does that have to do with the circumstances that night or trying to identify some singular line where it's ok for one to feel threatened? I don't think I care to waste anymore time on this with you. I'm mean seriously your point of view is laughable. Your singleminded focus on one thing is moronic when the pure existence of these proceedings contradicts your assumption.

And because I don't have the time or inclination to post every 5 minutes does not mean I'm not following the case. I'm sure you feel you're an expert based on your very strong language so I'll leave you to yourself to stroke your ego with authority unimpeded.

The 911 call isn't relevant to whether Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman, if he did so, since Martin wouldn't have known about it. How could one "feel threatened" based on something they were unaware of? That's what we're talking about, if you could kindly bother to think before you post.

 

[DragonSworne]

What if Zimmerman wanted Trayvon's skittles and Martin said no?

Seriously, some of the hypotheticals in the thread are mind boggling. Let's stick with what we know and work from there :

1) Zimmerman followed Martin because he thought Martin was a threat to the neighborhood because he was a kid wearing a hoddy
2) Zimmerman eventually killed Martin.

Let's fill in the blanks in between these two facts and not talk about different starting and ending scenarios.

 

[DrForester]

What if Zimmerman wanted Trayvon's skittles and Martin said no?

Seriously, some of the hypotheticals in the thread are mind boggling. Let's stick with what we know and work from there :

1) Zimmerman followed Martin because he thought Martin was a threat to the neighborhood because he was a kid wearing a hoddy
2) Zimmerman eventually killed Martin.

Let's fill in the blanks in between these two facts and not talk about different starting and ending scenarios.

This is why I think a manslaughter charge would be appropriate and based on the facts there's no way he could be found guilty of murder 2.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Taking a moment away from the realities of the case...

So, Zim goes after Trayvon.

He left his truck and went after the kid on foot. Tray was fully aware of Zim's pursuit, which escalated an already threatening situation.

So even if Tray got the pre-emptive strike on Zim, why would Zim be able to get the self defense call, but Tray wouldn't?

In reality they met face to face, each exchanged a question, and then engaged so my scenario is moot. But I still want to know what the logic is here.

This has always been my question. Why is it that Trayvon was not allowed to defend himself?

Trayvon fears for his life, defends himself attacking Zimmerman causing Zimmerman to fear for his life killing Trayvon. Who is at fault here? If Trayvon had killed Zimmerman first, would all of Zimmerman defenders be defending him? Would Trayvon have a right to kill Zimemrman since he clearly feared for his life? Is this shit just a game of whoever ended up with the upper hand wins?

 

[vas_a_morir]

This has always been my question. Why is it that Trayvon was not allowed to defend himself?

This argument comes up so much.

Who has ever argued Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself against criminally threatening actions? He absolutely does. Nobody has ever said he doesn't. He's not on trial for assault, so I don't even see the point in this.

 

[Particle Physicist]

This argument comes up so much.

Who has ever argued Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself against criminally threatening actions? He absolutely does. Nobody has ever said he doesn't. He's not on trial for assault, so I don't even see the point in this.

I made the point in the rest of my post. So if I fear for my life, and I defend myself with full force, that can then give the other person the opening to 'fear for his life' and legally kill me?

 

[Zoe]

This has always been my question. Why is it that Trayvon was not allowed to defend himself?

Trayvon fears for his life, defends himself attacking Zimmerman causing Zimmerman to fear for his life killing Trayvon. Who is at fault here? If Trayvon had killed Zimmerman first, would all of Zimmerman defenders be defending him? Would Trayvon have a right to kill Zimemrman since he clearly feared for his life? Is this shit just a game of whoever ended up with the upper hand wins?

An attack isn't a defense.

 

[vas_a_morir]

I made the point in the rest of my post. So if I fear for my life, and I defend myself with full force, that can then give the other person the opening to 'fear for his life' and legally kill me?

If somebody is doing something illegal to make you fear for your life, then yes.

If they aren't breaking the law, then no. By that logic, you could hit a dude wearing jean shorts and argue "His jorts scared the shit outta me! I'm threatened."

Zim isn't getting a free pass. He sits in a courtroom charged as a murderer right now. We know he was being held down. We know the shot came from below. We know he was getting beaten. Yet, he sits there.

If you think Zim is a criminal, I don't know how you could argue that Zim is and Trayvon isn't.

If you think Trayvon was justified, I don't know how you could argue that Trayvon was and Zimmerman wasn't.

 

[Killing_Joke]

This is why I think a manslaughter charge would be appropriate and based on the facts there's no way he could be found guilty of murder 2.

What about Rachael? Her testimony was TM ran and GZ followed him all the way to start the confrontation. Whether you believe her or not is up to you. But that's enough evidence to go for murder 2. They're also trying to prove his "searching for a address" story as bullshit. He went that direction to confront TM plain and simple.

 

[faceless007]

This argument comes up so much.

Who has ever argued Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself against criminally threatening actions? He absolutely does. Nobody has ever said he doesn't. He's not on trial for assault, so I don't even see the point in this.

That's because the people that argument is addressing don't see Zimmerman's pursuit as "criminally threatening actions." I'm not sure anyone has said what you're asking in explicitly those words, but anyone who has defended Zimmerman's following Martin while armed or argued that Martin deserved to be followed (check right wing forums) is implicitly arguing that Martin should have just accepted a civilian stranger racially profiling and following him with a loaded gun. It's an argument that Martin should have been cooperative with Zimmerman and accepted that he had some authority over Martin, rather than act in response to a perceived threat, which is an argument that Martin, by virtue of -- what? being black? wearing a hoodie? "walking suspicious"? -- had less of a right to to be free from suspicion of wrongdoing or to go about his business without being harassed or put in personal danger from another civilian.

There are absolutely people arguing that Martin should not have fleed from Zimmerman or done anything to defend himself.

 

[Particle Physicist]

An attack isn't a defense.

If you feel that your life is in danger, it most certainly can be. Even governments start wars as 'defense.' Trayvon had already tried to run. So if he thought his life was in danger, he had two choices. Fight back, or try to run again. We also have no idea if he saw the gun Zimmerman had, or if Zimmerman flashed it.

If somebody is doing something illegal to make you fear for your life, then yes.

If they aren't breaking the law, then no. By that logic, you could hit a dude wearing jean shorts and argue "His jorts scared the shit outta me! I'm threatened."

Zim isn't getting a free pass. He sits in a courtroom charged as a murderer right now. We know he was being held down. We know the shot came from below. We know he was getting beaten. Yet, he sits there.

Zimmerman was getting a free pass before the internet brought attention to this. That is why the police did not do a good job, and why there is lacking evidence. Zimmerman also got a huge free pass with the amount of donations he received which has allowed him to acquire a really good defense attorney.

We actually do not know he was being held down at all. That is all assumptions. We know he got punched a few times in the face by Trayvon, that is pretty much it. You also say that as if getting beaten in and of itself gives you enough justification to kill someone.

If you think Zim is a criminal, I don't know how you could argue that Zim is and Trayvon isn't.

If you think Trayvon was justified, I don't know how you could argue that Trayvon was and Zimmerman wasn't.

What? This boggles my mind. So are you saying that if I think Trayvon was justified, I must also think that Zimmerman was justified. BUT if I think Zimemrman was justified, I do not necessarily have to think Trayvon was justified? Is that what you are getting at here? Otherwise you are basically saying that under these circumstances they both had the right to kill each other.

Lets recap as to why Trayvon was completely justified in defending himself. He was followed by a man in an unmarked car on a dark, rainy night. When he attempted to flee, the man got out of his car and pursued. This man never identified who he was. Trayvon may, or may not have seen the weapon he was carrying. Trayvon was obviously frightened. Are you saying that you have to wait to be shot/hit/kidnapped before you are allowed to defend yourself?

Well if Trayvon did indeed start the physical part of the altercation (a question we don't know the answer to), Zimmerman's suspicions were vindicated.

Remorse wouldn't be warranted in that case, depending on the person.

How do you think the whole situation would have gone if Zimmerman had identified who he was? "I am with the neighborhood watch, what are you doing here?" Zimmerman pegged Trayvon as suspicious the minute that he walked into the neighborhood. Zimmerman says that he was on his way to Target. How fast was he driving? Normal neighborhood 20-30mph? Or was he creeping his car? What was Trayvon doing that was so suspicious in the mere seconds that Zimmerman saw? Other than being black, and wearing a hood on a dark rainy night?

 

[KHarvey16]

Why is it continuously mentioned that he had a gun while following him? That is 100% irrelevant in determining if Martin felt threatened unless Zimmerman showed it to him somehow. If he drew his pistol while following the whole defense goes away because Martin then clearly had a reason to fear for his life. If Martin was unaware of the gun its presence is irrelevant to this question.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Why is it continuously mentioned that he had a gun while following him? That is 100% irrelevant in determining if Martin felt threatened unless Zimmerman showed it to him somehow. If he drew his pistol while following the whole defense goes away because Martin then clearly had a reason to fear for his life. If Martin was unaware of the gun its presence is irrelevant to this question.

The problem is we will never know if Trayvon saw the gun, or if Zimmerman pulled his jacket back to reveal it. But I would say it is completely relevant because there is still a chance he saw the gun, especially while they were tumbling and tossing around on the ground.

 

[Stinkles]

Why is it continuously mentioned that he had a gun while following him? That is 100% irrelevant in determining if Martin felt threatened unless Zimmerman showed it to him somehow. If he drew his pistol while following the whole defense goes away because Martin then clearly had a reason to fear for his life. If Martin was unaware of the gun its presence is irrelevant to this question.

This is bizarre. We are a bunch of laymen discussing this case and its merits on a forum. We have hindsight, information and are not bound by the court rules or jurisprudence in discussing it. We know he had a gun and we know he then shot Trayvon with the gun.

Secondly I live in America and if I am being followed by someone who is making me nervous, one of the reasons I am nervous is a reasonable, rational and enhanced fear that my follower is armed.

So that's why it's continually mentioned. Because its relevant. In fact, it's key data,

 

[KHarvey16]

The problem is we will never know if Trayvon saw the gun, or if Zimmerman pulled his jacket back to reveal it. But I would say it is completely relevant because there is still a chance he saw the gun, especially while they were tumbling and tossing around on the ground.

We can't just assume that he did if there's no evidence to do so!

This is bizarre. We are a bunch of laymen discussing this case and its merits on a forum. We have hindsight, information and are not bound by the court rules or jurisprudence in discussing it. We know he had a gun and we know he then shot Trayvon with the gun.

Secondly I live in America and if I am being followed by someone who is making me nervous, one of the reasons I am nervous is a reasonable, rational and enhanced fear that my follower is armed.

So that's why it's continually mentioned. Because its relevant. In fact, it's key data,

So if someone is following you and you fear they have a gun simply because you're in America, you're justified in shooting him on sight regardless if he actually does or not? No, being afraid of a gun you have no reason to assume is there is not reasonable fear of death or serious harm.

This isn't a technicality of the law or some obscure legal concept. It's simple logic. If someone doesn't know a threat exists, it's unreasonable to cite that threat as justification for them being afraid at the time. How does that not make absolutely perfect sense?

 

[faceless007]

Why is it continuously mentioned that he had a gun while following him? That is 100% irrelevant in determining if Martin felt threatened unless Zimmerman showed it to him somehow. If he drew his pistol while following the whole defense goes away because Martin then clearly had a reason to fear for his life. If Martin was unaware of the gun its presence is irrelevant to this question.

I'm discussing Zimmerman's actions, not Martin's. Even if Martin were not aware of it (and he could have been, we don't know at what point Zimmerman drew his gun), it shows Zimmerman's irresponsibility and reckless disregard for the safety of others to pursue someone who was absolutely not a threat to anyone with a loaded gun in public.

 

[Killing_Joke]

Zim isn't getting a free pass. He sits in a courtroom charged as a murderer right now. We know he was being held down. We know the shot came from below. We know he was getting beaten. Yet, he sits there.

Actually we don't know whether or not he was getting beaten up. Those injuries could have came from a simple struggle. He could have easily tripped and hit his head on the floor then later claimed TM smashed his head. Being held down is also a stretch due to the weight difference and his MMA skills.

If you think Zim is a criminal, I don't know how you could argue that Zim is and Trayvon isn't.

If you think Trayvon was justified, I don't know how you could argue that Trayvon was and Zimmerman wasn't.

What? That doesn't make any sense. A lot of us believe GZ started the whole damn thing. Just because you lose the upper hand doesn't give you the right to shoot someone and claim "self defense".

 

[Particle Physicist]

We can't just assume that he did if there's no evidence to do so!

There is no evidence contradicting anything I said either. When there is no evidence either way, you have to make some inferences and assumptions. It's completely what the jury will being doing with some parts of this case since only two people know exactly what happened, and one of them is dead.

 

[empty vessel]

If somebody is doing something illegal to make you fear for your life, then yes.

If they aren't breaking the law, then no. By that logic, you could hit a dude wearing jean shorts and argue "His jorts scared the shit outta me! I'm threatened."

Zim isn't getting a free pass. He sits in a courtroom charged as a murderer right now. We know he was being held down. We know the shot came from below. We know he was getting beaten. Yet, he sits there.

If you think Zim is a criminal, I don't know how you could argue that Zim is and Trayvon isn't.

If you think Trayvon was justified, I don't know how you could argue that Trayvon was and Zimmerman wasn't.

One needn't be doing anything criminal under Florida law to lose one's right to use lethal force. One only need be deemed acting in a manner that provoked violence. If the jury believes Zimmerman's actions provoked the violence that night, then Zimmerman cannot use lethal force except under very narrow circumstances, i.e., he has to take additional steps to stop the violence before reclaiming his right to use lethal force.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm discussing Zimmerman's actions, not Martin's. Even if Martin were not aware of it (and he could have been, we don't know at what point Zimmerman drew his gun), it shows Zimmerman's irresponsibility and reckless disregard for the safety of others to pursue someone who was absolutely not a threat to anyone with a loaded gun in public.

That it shows irresponsibility is not being questioned, much of what he did shows that including the gun. But it is not justification for Martin feeling threatened unless he saw it.

There is no evidence contradicting anything I said either. When there is no evidence either way, you have to make some inferences and assumptions. It's completely what the jury will being doing with some parts of this case since only two people know exactly what happened, and one of them is dead.

If the prosecution claims Martin felt his life was in danger because of the gun they'll want to show some evidence to that effect. We haven't heard anything to suggest it, not even from his friend on the phone.

 

[KHarvey16]

One needn't be doing anything criminal under Florida law to lose one's right to use lethal force. One only need be deemed acting in a manner that provoked violence. If the jury believes Zimmerman's actions provoked the violence that night, then Zimmerman cannot use lethal force except under very narrow circumstances, i.e., he has to take additional steps to stop the violence before reclaiming his right to use lethal force.

I still have some trouble with this. Is it merely enough that the action provokes violence? I mean, say I tell you your hat is ugly or something and that causes you to pull a gun and start shooting. Am I justified in shooting back and killing you or do I need to meet those requirements under the exceptions? It just seems so incongruous to me that an unjustified response puts me in a position where I need to do extra steps just to legally defend myself. I suppose though that this is a reasonable reading of the law, and I guess my question is if you think that's a common statute or legal concept.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I still have some trouble with this. Is it merely enough that the action provokes violence? I mean, say I tell you your hat is ugly or something and that causes you to pull a gun and start shooting. Am I justified in shooting back and killing you or do I need to meet those requirements under the exceptions? It just seems so incongruous to me that an unjustified response puts me in a position where I need to do extra steps just to legally defend myself. I suppose though that this is a reasonable reading of the law, and I guess my question is if you think that's a common statute or legal concept.

It obviously has to be something a reasonable person would perceive as a threat. Shooting someone over an insult to a hat makes you a crazy person

If the prosecution claims Martin felt his life was in danger because of the gun they'll want to show some evidence to that effect. We haven't heard anything to suggest it, not even from his friend on the phone.

I am not talking about what the prosecution with do in the courtroom. I have no idea what they will do, but I personally think it is reasonable to assume that Trayvon likely saw the gun at some point in the confrontation.

 

[User 100115]

From what I have been learning in this thread:

From a legal standpoint, Zimmerman might be innocent.

From a moral standpoint: Almost everyone agrees he's an asshole that did a terrible thing and should be punished for his actions. Sadly, legality does not equal morality. Please keep that in mind when you are arguing with out resident lawyers here. They aren't saying that Zimmerman is a saint. Just that it's possible he's not guilty from a legal standpoint. And are pointing out the reasons why.

 

[KHarvey16]

It obviously has to be something a reasonable person would perceive as a threat. Shooting someone over an insult to a hat makes you a crazy person

Right, but the law as written doesn't say as much. I did remember the portion that makes things a little more understandable:

"The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant)."

I still think there can be circumstances that make this requirement a little much but I'm sure the defense could argue this exception. Clearly the story they have offered to the court would seem to satisfy it, so it's a matter of substantiating that story.

I am not talking about what the prosecution with do in the courtroom. I have no idea what they will do, but I personally think it is reasonable to assume that Trayvon likely saw the gun at some point in the confrontation.

Oh, I think he definitely saw it at some point. Even if Zimmerman's claim that he went after the gun is bogus the fight did end with him being shot. It's just a matter of if he saw it before that occurred. I mean really, a solid piece of evidence (that the jury believes) that shows Zimmerman brandished the weapon would nullify the defense's argument instantly.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

That it shows irresponsibility is not being questioned, much of what he did shows that including the gun. But it is not justification for Martin feeling threatened unless he saw it.

How is that relevant? Martin felt threatened and scared because a grown man was following him at night for no reason.

The fact that Zimmerman had the gun and got out of his car and followed him makes him the aggressor/escalator. Nobody knows what happened to cause the face to face confrontation, we only know the result of Zimmerman stalking him and killing him and ignoring orders from the police to let them handle it.

 

[KHarvey16]

How is that relevant?

How is that relevant to the idea Zimmerman possessing a gun justified Martin's fear? Is that your question?

 

[methane47]

If you think Trayvon was justified, I don't know how you could argue that Trayvon was and Zimmerman wasn't.

Worst comment of the thread yet.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

How is that relevant to the idea Zimmerman possessing a gun justified Martin's fear? Is that your question?

I'm saying Martin had reason to feel threatened from Zimmerman regardless, because Zimmerman was stalking him.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm saying Martin had reason to feel threatened from Zimmerman regardless, because Zimmerman was stalking him.

That's a separate argument. I was commenting specifically on the relevance of Zimmerman possessing a weapon to the question of if Martin felt threatened. I don't think it's relevant, others did.

 

[empty vessel]

I still have some trouble with this. Is it merely enough that the action provokes violence? I mean, say I tell you your hat is ugly or something and that causes you to pull a gun and start shooting. Am I justified in shooting back and killing you or do I need to meet those requirements under the exceptions? It just seems so incongruous to me that an unjustified response puts me in a position where I need to do extra steps just to legally defend myself. I suppose though that this is a reasonable reading of the law, and I guess my question is if you think that's a common statute or legal concept.

Good questions. Florida law, at least, is vague about what constitutes provocation. It just says, "The justification [for use of force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who ... nitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself." That's all it says with regard to losing the right to use force. And I don't think there's much Florida case law about it, either.

But you have to remember there is a jury here that can be reasonably expected to use some common sense. A jury is unlikely to find that somebody provoked violence just by calling somebody's hat ugly. Of course, it would depend upon the totality of the circumstances. Was it said tauntingly? Repeatedly? Was he picking on the person? Even if there was provocation, it would not necessarily justify the other person's use of force. In other words, the person who was provoked into using force can still be committing an illegal assault. But the person who provoked that violence cannot thereafter claim that his own use of force after having provoked the physical assault is legally justified, i.e., that it was self-defense. In short, where an aggressor provokes violence from another resulting in both the aggressor and the other person using force, both people's use of force can be illegal and punishable. Nobody has a right of self-defense in such a scenario, and both parties are unlawfully using force.

This is what this case comes down to. Even if Martin struck first, the question of whether Zimmerman's own use of force in response to that is justified depends upon whether a jury thinks he provoked the violence. If he did, then both Martin and Zimmerman could be said to be using force unlawfully. And if that's true, then Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder unless one of the very narrow exceptions applies that would allow him to reclaim the right to use force.

Regarding your last question, the first aggressor rule is common and long-standing:

The accused being where he had a right to be, on his own premises, constituting a part of his residence and home, at the time the deceased approached him in a threatening manner, and not having by language or by conduct provoked the deceased to assault him, the question for the jury was whether, without fleeing from his adversary, he had, at the moment he struck the deceased, reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that he could not save his life or protect himself from great bodily harm except by doing what he did, namely, strike the deceased with his gun, and thus prevent his further advance upon him.​

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7538963423942939640 (1895 SCOTUS case)

The law thinks it is highly important to identify who the primary aggressor in a situation was, for obvious reasons. The law does not want to reward or encourage aggression that provokes violence.

 

[Figboy79]

I know GAF is full of internet badasses who never cry, are never afraid, and don't take shit from anybody, anywhere, anytime, but it's getting almost comically absurd at how many people refuse to even acknowledge the notion that Trayvon, a 17 year old boy, could have been fearful of his safety by the complete and utter stranger who first followed him in a car, and then, when he lost sight of Trayvon, got out of the car, to follow him.

They say we all have a "Fight or Flight" response, correct? Trayvon's first reaction to Zimmerman following him in the car wasn't to turn around and walk up to the car and say, "What the hell is your problem 'homey?'" He started to "skip/walk" according to George, and "Walk faster" according to Trayvon's own words.

We don't even know how long Zimmerman was following Trayvon in his car before he called the police, or when, exactly, Trayvon noticed that he was being followed by Zimmerman before Zimmerman called the police. Depending on the length of that time of being followed, Trayvon's fear for his own safety would grow exponentially.

If he was being followed for 30 seconds, that may no be too much grounds for being worried. If he was being followed for several minutes, then pursued on foot? Yeah, I'd be pretty fucking concerned for my safety, and prepare to defend myself.

No, following someone in and of itself isn't illegal, but if you choose to follow someone, you should anticipate that the person being followed may perceive you as a threat, especially if you don't identify yourself in any way, shape, or form. Not once did George offer up a "Hey, I'm with neighborhood watch." Instead, he approaches him and asks him, "What are you doing here?" and when Trayvon asks, "Why are you following me?" which is a prime moment to say, "Oh, hey, I'm with neighborhood watch and you don't look familiar," he apparently doesn't respond, which I'm sure would unnerve the person who asked a simple, and reasonable question of, "Why are you following me?"

I'm inclined to believe Rachel's testimony, because phone records corroborate that her call with Trayvon ended just one minute before police arrived on the scene. If things had played out the way George claimed in his report to the police, there would have been no phone call at all, because he was being jumped from behind by Trayvon while walking back to his car.

To be completely honest, if Trayvon was hiding, and he noticed that the stranger following him had lost him, I doubt he'd blow his cover to ambush him. More than likely, he'd continue hiding until the pursuer went away, then he'd head home. I don't know about any of you, but one of the things I remember my mother teaching me as a kid is that, if you are being followed by a stranger, don't lead them directly to the house. If possible, take some twists and turns and side streets until you lose that person, then double back to the house.

Zimmerman's aggressive history (so what if the charges were dropped, that doesn't mean that he didn't assault his girlfriend, or throw that woman in the bar to the ground, or assault that police officer who was arresting his friend), indicates that he was an aggressive guy, would more than likely start an altercation, or feel bold and tough enough to get out of his car with a loaded weapon (for added toughguyness), and follow a "punk" on foot.

From Zimmerman's 911 call, his state of mind is clear: He looked at Trayvon as a "punk" and "on drugs." He went into the situation with a preconceived notion of who and what Trayvon was, and acted accordingly. People with superiority complexes treat people that they believe to be inferior differently. Just look at how people were smugly and condescendingly looking down on Rachel Jenteal because she isn't very educated or well spoken. Yes, that type of illiteracy does exist in the United States in 2013. It's unfortunate that she happened to be a key witness, but life doesn't always align itself with an episode of Law & Order, where witnesses give tearful, clear, and plot relevant testimonies.

For me, it all boils down to this question:

Would Trayvon Martin still be alive if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car?

My answer: Yes. He most definitely would be. He'd be either in college, preparing for college, and being excited about the PlayStation 4 and XBox ONE coming out, and George would be at home, more than likely still patrolling "his" neighborhood and calling 911 every time a minority breathed in his direction. But at least he wouldn't have killed an innocent, unarmed 17 year old, which still seems to get lost in all of the projecting going on in threads like this and across the internet.

 

[gutter_trash]

Zimmerman is 100% the instigator, problem starter, initiator of aggression and initial threat.

case closed

 

[Nightstick11]

From what I have been learning in this thread:

From a legal standpoint, Zimmerman might be innocent.

From a moral standpoint: Almost everyone agrees he's an asshole that did a terrible thing and should be punished for his actions. Sadly, legality does not equal morality. Please keep that in mind when you are arguing with out resident lawyers here. They aren't saying that Zimmerman is a saint. Just that it's possible he's not guilty from a legal standpoint. And are pointing out the reasons why.

Thank you for this. This should be posted on the top of every page. The legal issue here isn't whether Zimmerman is an asshole or a racist or a liar. The legal issue is whether or not he is guilty of murder.

 

[gutter_trash]

Thank you for this. This should be posted on the top of every page. The legal issue here isn't whether Zimmerman is an asshole or a racist or a liar. The legal issue is whether or not he is guilty of murder.

so the point of the case is all about the validity of his claim to use Stand Your Ground clause.

Prosecution trying to prove Zimmerman to be the instigator that would null and void his claim to use STAND YOUR GROUND

 

[GrandHarrier]

Thank you for this. This should be posted on the top of every page. The legal issue here isn't whether Zimmerman is an asshole or a racist or a liar. The legal issue is whether or not he is guilty of murder.

Something the vast majority of people who, in this thread, have already convicted Zimmerman of murder before the trial is even over, don't seem to understand.

 

[DragonSworne]

That's a separate argument. I was commenting specifically on the relevance of Zimmerman possessing a weapon to the question of if Martin felt threatened. I don't think it's relevant, others did.

It's relevant because it is nearly 100% the cause of the fight.

There are only a few situations which would invoke a fight or flight response from someone, and revealing/pointing a gun at someone is one of those situations.

Given the circumstances of the night, can you think of anything reasonable that would cause the two to fight? They both did not knew each other so there is nothing in their releationship that would cause them to fight (other than racism). Random strangers do not just start fighting each other.

And if the gun wasn't revealed prior to the fight, how exactly did it become free and unholstered? Zimmerman claims that Travyon tried going after the gun when it was on the ground. Guns don't easily come free from a holster, I don't think it can come free that easily during a fist fight.

The prosecution should really dig deeper into the cause of the altercation, and bring in the holster as evidence.

 

[gutter_trash]

Something the vast majority of people who, in this thread, have already convicted Zimmerman of murder before the trial is even over, don't seem to understand.

he is guilty, he stalked and killed an unarmed minor

 

[Nightstick11]

so the point of the case is all about the validity of his claim to use Stand Your Ground clause.

Prosecution trying to prove Zimmerman to be the instigator that would null and void his claim to use STAND YOUR GROUND

Not necessarily. Even IF someone instigated, that doesn't give the defender to beat the shit out of the aggressor. If the instigator tried to withdraw or retreat, and the other party pursued him, the other party becomes the instigator.

 

[royalan]

This isn't a technicality of the law or some obscure legal concept. It's simple logic. If someone doesn't know a threat exists, it's unreasonable to cite that threat as justification for them being afraid at the time. How does that not make absolutely perfect sense?

I've resorted to lurking in this thread until now (because, honestly, things are getting way too tense in here), but I do have to ask:

I may not have the clearest understanding of the law, but if I'm following you correctly, you're saying that Trayvon had no legally justifiable reason to to be afraid simply because he didn't know of the existence of the gun?

But then, my question is, why does it matter whether or not he was aware of the gun? Maybe it's just the neighborhood I grew up in, but if it's dark and someone is following me in a car, and then gets out and starts pursuing me on foot even after I try to lose them, I'm going to be very, VERY afraid for my safety. I'm finding it hard to believe that would be an unreasonable reaction to the situation...

 

[gutter_trash]

Not necessarily. Even IF someone instigated, that doesn't give the defender to beat the shit out of the aggressor. If the instigator tried to withdraw or retreat, and the other party pursued him, the other party becomes the instigator.

you still have to prove that a skinny teenager manhandled a larger, heavier adult

I don't buy it and there is not enough proof to back that up that an WWE self inflicted cut in the back of the head

 

[Vicetrailia]

I've resorted to lurking in this thread until now (because, honestly, things are getting way too tense in here), but I do have to ask:

I may not have the clearest understanding of the law, but if I'm following you correctly, you're saying that Trayvon had no legally justifiable reason to to be afraid simply because he didn't know of the existence of the gun?

But then, my question is, why does it matter whether or not he was aware of the gun? Maybe it's just the neighborhood I grew up in, but if it's dark and someone is following me in a car, and then gets out and starts pursuing me on foot even after I try to lose them, I'm going to be very, VERY afraid for my safety. I'm finding it hard to believe that would be an unreasonable reaction to the situation...

The witness showcased that Martin felt threatened by Zimmermans stalking, and escalated when TM realized that Zim got out on foot. I don't know why it's even a question.