Support NeoGAF

[Particle Physicist]

You misunderstand. I don't give a care about 'instigating the fight' if he doesn't break the law in doing so. If you say to a Yankees fan 'Yankees suck' and he hits you, you do not give up your right to self-defense. If you went up to the Yankees fan and spit in his face? Yeah, you do.

Likewise, if you are a cyclist, and someone is following you on a bike, you don not have the right to jump on them an assault them. If they shout "Why are you riding around here?" I don't think you have the legal right.

I don't know why this is so controversial. Trayvon has a right to defend himself against criminal threats against his bodily harm. However, I personally feel he does not have the right to defend himself against perceived threats of bodily harm from people who are not breaking the law. I don't see how those statements are controversial.

That is not even close to the same situation. At all.

 

[empty vessel]

You misunderstand. I don't give a care about 'instigating the fight' if he doesn't break the law in doing so. If you say to a Yankees fan 'Yankees suck' and he hits you, you do not give up your right to self-defense.

That isn't necessarily true. That could be considered provocation. Why would the law support people running around needlessly provoking other people into violence? The law does not. If you verbally antagonize somebody otherwise minding his own business, you don't get to then lawfully use force against that person. You started the shit that led to the violence.

Mind you, it doesn't render the other person's violence legal, either. It renders both people's use of force illegal.

 

[polyh3dron]

That's pretty much where I'm at. He's an overzealous neighborhood watch idiot who racially profiled a kid and put himself in a really stupid situation. Beyond that, let's say he's telling the truth. Martin takes the first swing, he gets his nose broken and his head slammed into the pavement. "You're going to die tonight" and the kid reaches for his exposed gun.

Should George Zimmerman, as deplorable as he is, have to choose between his death or being a murderer? I don't think I can get behind that like some people have in this thread.

GZ created that whole situation on his own and was the overall aggressor. It's Trayvon who should have the right to stand his ground.

 

[vas_a_morir]

That isn't necessarily true. That could be considered provocation. Why would the law support people running around needlessly provoking other people into violence? The law does not. If you verbally antagonize somebody otherwise minding his own business, you don't get to then lawfully use force against that person. You started the shit that led to the violence.

Can we get a lawyer in on this? What qualifies as 'verbally antagonizing someone?'

 

[empty vessel]

Can we get a lawyer in on this? What qualifies as 'verbally antagonizing someone?'

I am a lawyer. You can't provoke violence and claim self-defense. The law would not require much in the way of provocation, because the law seeks to dissuade people from provoking others, not encourage it. What rises to the level of provocation will always be an issue for a jury to determine. But if I were on a jury, I certainly wouldn't require much, because I don't want to reward people who talk shit to others for no reason by bestowing on them the power to fight back without legal consequence when their unprovoked shit-talking results in violence. That doesn't mean they can't fight back at all. It just means there will be legal consequences when they do.

 

[inm8num2]

GZ created that whole situation on his own and was the overall aggressor. It's Trayvon who should have the right to stand his ground.

Remember - GZ didn't create the situation. He was merely a pawn in God's plan...

 

[iamblades]

That isn't necessarily true. That could be considered provocation. Why would the law support people running around needlessly provoking other people into violence? The law does not. If you verbally antagonize somebody otherwise minding his own business, you don't get to then lawfully use force against that person. You started the shit that led to the violence.

Provocation is a legal defense that may lower the severity of the offense, it does not mean that the provocateur completely loses his right to self defense even after provoking the violence. It also doesn't mean physical violence is legal in response to a non-physical provocation. Also provocation is a somewhat antiquated bit of common law, the only state that even allows a provocation defense for physical assault instigated by a non-physical provocation anymore is California IIRC. Basically everywhere else you are expected to not respond to provocations.

Under the stand your ground law, provocation does mean that the person claiming self defense does have a duty to retreat and other qualifiers, but Zimmerman's defense isn't claiming stand your ground though, they are just claiming self defense, and if Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him is truthful then the duty to retreat is moot because he couldn't retreat.

 

[User 100115]

No, some people (not everyone) are actually arguing that he did nothing wrong. There people in the older thread that even admitted to donating funds for his legal defense. Legally, I think most of us understand that it will be a difficult thing to prove since there is a severe lack of evidence.

That's why I said ALMOST everyone.

And yeah, the laws are shitty. This dude should be held accountable, in my opinion, simply because he terrified a teenager into fear for his life. That's even if Trayvon started the fight. If he had stayed in his car, NO ONE would have died that night. End of story.

But it's not up to me. The law is stupid sometimes, and people get away with being total and complete asshole murderers sometimes.

 

[Dude Abides]

I am a lawyer. You can't provoke violence and claim self-defense. The law would not require much in the way of provocation, because the law seeks to dissuade people from provoking others, not encourage it. What rises to the level of provocation will always be an issue for a jury to determine. But if I were on a jury, I certainly wouldn't require much, because I don't want to reward people who talk shit to others for no reason by bestowing on them the power to fight back without legal consequence when their unprovoked shit-talking results in violence. That doesn't mean they can't fight back at all. It just means there will be legal consequences when they do.

I think that cuts both ways. The law wants to discourage provocation, but it also doesn't want to encourage the use of force based on minor slights.

Provocation is a legal defense that may lower the severity of the offense, it does not mean that the provocateur completely loses his right to self defense even after provoking the violence. It also doesn't mean physical violence is legal in response to a non-physical provocation. Also provocation is a somewhat antiquated bit of common law, the only state that even allows a provocation defense for physical assault instigated by a non-physical provocation anymore is California IIRC. Basically everywhere else you are expected to not respond to provocations.

Under the stand your ground law, provocation does mean that the person claiming self defense does have a duty to retreat and other qualifiers, but Zimmerman's defense isn't claiming stand your ground though, they are just claiming self defense, and if Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him is truthful then the duty to retreat is moot because he couldn't retreat.

The bolded is completely wrong, and this isn't even a stand your ground case.

 

[vas_a_morir]

I am a lawyer. You can't provoke violence and claim self-defense. The law would not require much in the way of provocation, because the law seeks to dissuade people from provoking others, not encourage it. What rises to the level of provocation will always be an issue for a jury to determine. But if I were on a jury, I certainly wouldn't require much, because I don't want to reward people who talk shit to others for no reason by bestowing on them the power to fight back without legal consequence when their unprovoked shit-talking results in violence. That doesn't mean they can't fight back at all. It just means there will be legal consequences when they do.

Well then, please excuse me.

I somehow thought you were, but I was wrong before, so I wasn't going to risk it. lol

Would saying "What are you doing here" qualify as 'verbal antagonizing' in your opinion? Where does the line get crossed, in your legal opinion?

I think one thing we can all agree on is that the Stand Your Ground laws are too broad to be safe.

 

[empty vessel]

Provocation is a legal defense that may lower the severity of the offense, it does not mean that the provocateur completely loses his right to self defense even after provoking the violence.

It does mean the provacateur loses his right to self-defense. In Florida and I'm sure in every other state. It's a well-established legal principle that aggressors cannot claim justification for their use of force. There are exceptions in which the person may be able to reclaim the justification, but they are very narrow. The provacateur essentially has to take additional affirmative steps to avoid further violence before the justification may be restored.

Also provocation is a somewhat antiquated bit of common law, the only state that even allows a provocation defense for physical assault instigated by a non-physical provocation anymore is California IIRC. Basically everywhere else you are expected to not respond to provocations.

This isn't true at all. I would challenge you to find any state that allows somebody who provokes violence to claim the justification. We've already seen Florida law. Here is Texas's: "The use of force against another is not justified ... if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor."

Under the stand your ground law, provocation does mean that the person claiming self defense does have a duty to retreat and other qualifiers, but Zimmerman's defense isn't claiming stand your ground though, they are just claiming self defense, and if Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him is truthful then the duty to retreat is moot because he couldn't retreat.

Stand your ground is not a separate Florida law. It is built into the self-defense provisions. When people say that Zimmerman is not "claiming" stand your ground, they are only saying he did not take advantage of procedural mechanisms in Florida law that would allow a judge to declare him immune in advance of trial. Any person claiming self-defense in Florida is "claiming" stand your ground because Florida law says that a person has no duty to retreat before using lethal force. That applies to everybody everywhere in Florida. But it's got nothing to do with whether an individual provoked violence. No person who provoked the violence in Florida is allowed to claim justification in the use of force unless the narrow exceptions to that general rule are satisfied.

I think that cuts both ways. The law wants to discourage provocation, but it also doesn't want to encourage the use of force based on minor slights.

I agree, but it doesn't do that. The law would not excuse the other person's violence in response to the slight. Both would be acting illegally and both subject to legal consequences. This goes back to the point that just because two people are fighting, one of them is not necessarily innocent. Both can be (and often are) breaking the law.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Would saying "What are you doing here" qualify as 'verbal antagonizing' in your opinion? Where does the line get crossed, in your legal opinion?

You are completely cutting out context. He didn't just say "What are you doing here," if that is even how the conversation actually went.

 

[iamblades]

It does mean the provacateur loses his right to self-defense. In Florida and I'm sure in every other state. It's a well-established legal principle that aggressors cannot claim justification for their use of force. There are exceptions in which the person may be able to reclaim the justification, but they are very narrow. The provacateur essentially has to take additional affirmative steps to avoid further violence before the justification may be restored.



This isn't true at all. I would challenge you to find any state that allows somebody who provokes violence to claim the justification. We've already seen Florida law. Here is Texas's: "The use of force against another is not justified ... if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor."



Stand your ground is not a separate Florida law. It is built into the self-defense provisions. When people say that Zimmerman is not "claiming" stand your ground, they are only saying he did not take advantage of procedural mechanisms in Florida law that would allow a judge to declare him immune in advance of trial. Any person claiming self-defense in Florida is "claiming" stand your ground because Florida law says that a person has no duty to retreat before using lethal force. That applies to everybody everywhere in Florida. But it's got nothing to do with whether an individual provoked violence. No person who provoked the violence in Florida is allowed to claim justification in the use of force unless the narrow exceptions to that general rule are satisfied.



I agree, but it doesn't do that. The law would not excuse the other person's violence in response to the slight. Both would be acting illegally and both subject to legal consequences. This goes back to the point that just because two people are fighting, one of them is not necessarily innocent. Both can be (and often are) breaking the law.

No it doesn't, unless you miss that giant UNLESS in the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person 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 the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Even if you start a fight, you still have the right to self defense if the other person escalated the fight to the point you have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm and you have no other means of escape.

If Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him when Zimmerman shot him, it doesn't matter what happened before that. If he had no means of escape and a reasonable fear for his life, it is self defense.

All of that is irrelevant considering the prosecution has no compelling evidence that Zimmerman provoked the violence in the first place though.

 

[empty vessel]

No it doesn't:

Me: "There are exceptions in which the person may be able to reclaim the justification, but they are very narrow. The provacateur essentially has to take additional affirmative steps to avoid further violence before the justification may be restored."

All of that is irrelevant considering the prosecution has no compelling evidence that Zimmerman provoked the violence in the first place though.

Of course they do. That's the strongest part of their anti-self-defense case. Zimmerman, an adult, followed Martin, an African-American juvenile, at night. I think a reasonable person should know that that conduct would place another person in fear and could culminate in violence. But for Zimmerman's actions in pursuing Martin, violence would not have ensued. That's good enough provocation for me to hold Zimmerman to a higher standard before being justified in using force against Martin.

 

[iamblades]

Me: "There are exceptions in which the person may be able to reclaim the justification, but they are very narrow. The provacateur essentially has to take additional affirmative steps to avoid further violence before the justification may be restored."

That's not a very narrow exception though.. It's a giant ass exception.

Also the provocateur doesn't have to 'take additional affirmative steps', all that is required is that they have no other reasonable means of escape.

Again this discussion is irrelevant without any substantial evidence that Zimmerman actually provoked the violence though. I'm just saying even if he did legally provoke the violence initially, if Martin was on top of him beating him as claimed, at that point he has exhausted all reasonable means of escape, so self defense is valid..

 

[Dude Abides]

I agree, but it doesn't do that. The law would not excuse the other person's violence in response to the slight. Both would be acting illegally and both subject to legal consequences. This goes back to the point that just because two people are fighting, one of them is not necessarily innocent. Both can be (and often are) breaking the law.

I see your point here.

Me: "There are exceptions in which the person may be able to reclaim the justification, but they are very narrow. The provacateur essentially has to take additional affirmative steps to avoid further violence before the justification may be restored."

But isn't the exception in (a) just a restatement of the traditional rule of self defense, including the duty to retreat? The way I read it, provocation simply imposes the duty to retreat, which SYG took out.

 

[iamblades]

I see your point here.




But isn't the exception in (a) just a restatement of the traditional rule of self defense, including the duty to retreat? The way I read it, provocation simply imposes the duty to retreat, which SYG took out.

This is is a better way of stating what I am saying...

 

[empty vessel]

But isn't the exception in (a) just a restatement of the traditional rule of self defense, including the duty to retreat? The way I read it, provocation simply imposes the duty to retreat, which SYG took out.

I think it's much stronger. Normally, if there is a duty to retreat, one does not have to exhaust "every reasonable means of escape" before using lethal force. Generally, a duty to retreat just imposes a duty to retreat if the person "knows" that it can be done "with complete safety" (quotes are from Model Penal Code), which is a far lower standard than imposing a requirement that a person exhaust every reasonable means of escape in fact.

I agree with you that it is a version of a duty to retreat, though.

 

[vas_a_morir]

You are completely cutting out context. He didn't just say "What are you doing here," if that is even how the conversation actually went.

In the context of what transpired that night.

I'm open to the possibility that Zimmerman did something illegal that night, but I'm kinda hazy on where we draw the line. Where somebody could be doing something 'legal' and wave their right to self-defense.

I guess this is where I'm lost. Is it possible a man could not break the law all night, and still have the totality of his actions constitute an illegal action? (I'm guessing the answer would be yes?) Should this be so?

 

[empty vessel]

Here's a good post by a law professor on the initial aggressor issue as it relates to the Zimmerman case, although it was written well before the trial. I don't share the professor's conclusions, but I think it does a decent enough job of explaining the legal aspect of the first aggressor issue (including the fact that there just isn't much legal illumination as to what it means to "provoke" violence, and that this is often simply left to the jury to decide, which makes a lot of sense to me to do). The comments are pretty good, too.

 

[Dude Abides]

I think it's much stronger. Normally, if there is a duty to retreat, one does not have to exhaust "every reasonable means of escape" before using lethal force. Generally, a duty to retreat just imposes a duty to retreat if the person "knows" that it can be done "with complete safety" (quotes are from Model Penal Code), which is a far lower standard than imposing a requirement that a person exhaust every reasonable means of escape in fact.

I agree with you that it is a version of a duty to retreat, though.

It appears to be a reiteration of the standard duty in some states, based on these Massachutts jury instructions (p. 4). Mass is apparently another state where the prosecution bears the burden of negating self defense.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...s/criminal/pdf/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

I can't seem to find what the Florida formulation was before they enacted SYG, but my suspicion is that it was the "reasonably exhaust" language.

 

[empty vessel]

It appears to be a reiteration of the standard duty in some states, based on these Massachutts jury instructions (p. 4). Mass is apparently another state where the prosecution bears the burden of negating self defense.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...s/criminal/pdf/9260-defenses-self-defense.pdf

I can't seem to find what the Florida formulation was before they enacted SYG, but my suspicion is that it was the "reasonably exhaust" language.

Could be. I don't know what variation of the duty to retreat is most common. The Model Penal Code's duty is not onerous at all. Of course, that's for a non-aggressor. Interestingly, the Model Penal Code admits of no exceptions for the use of lethal force by somebody who provokes violence. The person is absolutely forbidden to kill. Although it imposes an intent element on the provocateur before doing so. He must have provoked violence "with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury."

 

[Dubbmobile]

Been doing some thinking, and started wondering can the state enter in all of Zimmerman's accounts of the situation in as evidence?

 

[DigitalOp]

Thought experiment: a child was being bullied at school. constant picking on the person, tormenting... etc etc. If the victim then stands up for himself and attacks the bully, but the bully then completely destroys the victim. Who would say is at fault? Who would you say is responsible for the fight? Would you allow the bully to claim self-defense to skirt the punishment?

Provided the bully didn't physically instigate it, absolutely.

I don't like resorting to personal slights but your post makes you look like an asshole Rawk. Yeah that child is going to be reprimanded for initiating physical conflict but the bully gets a pass regardless of all their mental torment and anguish to the targeted victim because he didn't throw the first punch?

Glad I don't live in your world man.

We have an adult who didn't follow proper procedure and now a family is missing a loved one. So now the adult is expected to get a pass despite his improper actions regarding the situation. He's not expected to take responsibility for what happened that night?

This fuckin country gets worse and worse by the day as people become more and more willfully ignorant to unalienable truths regarding our behavior and values as a society. One day it will all crumble... and i might actually chuckle at the first person who says "How did this all happen?"

 

[computers putin']

Ah, ok.

It seems a little odd to just take that at face value. "Hey, by pure coincidence, the guy said the one thing that might make me justified in using lethal force in self-defense!"

I'm picturing being in Trayvon's shoes here, and "you're gonna die tonight" doesn't enter into it. It just doesn't fit.

Agreed and that's why I don't buy it either, it's too convenient and cheesy sounding.

 

[empty vessel]

Another law professor's take on the initial aggressor issue and the Zimmerman case. This one cites a lot of Florida law that reflects a broad conception of what it means to provoke violence, including a pursuit case in which the pursuer was deemed to have lost his right to self-defense.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Another law professor's take on the initial aggressor issue and the Zimmerman case. This one cites a lot of Florida law that reflects a broad conception of what it means to provoke violence, including a pursuit case in which the pursuer was deemed to have lost his right to self-defense.

This one:

The appellant and the man he later admitted killing had an altercation while the appellant was sitting in his jeep, the other man standing at the side of the vehicle.The appellant drove to his home nearby where he procured a revolver, while his adversary continued along the highway, afoot. The appellant, accompanied by his wife and their young daughter, then drove in the same direction until he overtook his former antagonist when both stopped. ... Were we convinced that the final encounter was of such nature that the issue of self defense was properly introduced and the appellant's blame should therefore be judged by the amount of force he used in resisting his victim, we think the testimony would have been admissible.But the facts believed by the jury point too strongly to a deliberate pursuit by appellant, after the original difficulty had ended and the parties had separated.The law is quite clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense.(emphasis supplied)

 

[Dude Abides]

Another law professor's take on the initial aggressor issue and the Zimmerman case. This one cites a lot of Florida law that reflects a broad conception of what it means to provoke violence, including a pursuit case in which the pursuer was deemed to have lost his right to self-defense.

But does it matter? Zimmerman can still prevail if he shows he exhausted all reasonable means of escape. If he convinces the jury he was in fact on the ground getting his head knocked into concrete, don't you think that would be enough to show that?

Thanks for putting some flesh on the word provoke.

 

[RawkHawk2010]

I don't like resorting to personal slights but your post makes you look like an asshole Rawk. Yeah that child is going to be reprimanded for initiating physical conflict but the bully gets a pass regardless of all their mental torment and anguish to the targeted victim because he didn't throw the first punch?

Glad I don't live in your world man.

Well no, I don't think the bully should get a free pass - he should be punished for bullying just like he should have been if the kid had informed a teacher/principal/police prior to the altercation.

But I still place the weight of starting the fight on the one who physically instigates it. When observed, it's the only thing even close to a reliable metric to go by. And mainly, I just don't encourage giving people free reign to use "self-defense" as a response to situations that don't require an immediate reaction and can be addressed in more professional ways. And you may say that some people are pushed to a psychological breaking point that might as well be treated like something physical. But these points of no return vary from person to person and sometimes are completely eccentric and unpredictable, possibly triggering without the "bully" actually even doing anything.

(And in few (but still existent) cases, they may even be completely made up.)

 

[empty vessel]

But does it matter? Zimmerman can still prevail if he shows he exhausted all reasonable means of escape. If he convinces the jury he was in fact on the ground getting his head knocked into concrete, don't you think that would be enough to show that?

Could be. Up to the jury, I suppose, to decide whether Zimmerman did enough to escape before pulling the trigger. Although they are going to have conflicting evidence before them about who was beating whom, which complicates things for Zimmerman. Good thing for him the burden is on the State and not him. It'll be that which sets him free, if anything does. If he had the burden, his chances of prevailing would be a lot smaller.

 

[Dude Abides]

Could be. Up to the jury, I suppose, to decide whether Zimmerman did enough to escape before pulling the trigger. Although they are going to have conflicting evidence before them about who was beating whom, which complicates things for Zimmerman. Good thing for him the burden is on the State and not him. It'll be that which sets him free, if anything does. If he had the burden, his chances of prevailing would be a lot smaller.

I'm a bit concerned they won't. I believe the only person who claims he saw any type of actual fighting is the guy who said Zimmerman was on the bottom. The others said they saw Zimmerman get off Martin, but Zimmerman has always claimed he got on top of Martin after shooting him. Is there some other information you are thinking of?

 

[DragonSworne]

So this whole trial depends on who was on top during the gun shot.

If Zimmerman was on the bottom, then he can use the self defense law in his favor since he had no chance to escape.

If Zimmerman was on top during the gun shot, then he did not satisfy the two conditions in the Florida law for aggressors to use force.

The only reasonable doubt: Zimmerman somehow couldn't get away given his overall size advantage and MMA training? Really?

 

[empty vessel]

I'm a bit concerned they won't. I believe the only person who claims he saw any type of actual fighting is the guy who said Zimmerman was on the bottom. The others said they saw Zimmerman get off Martin, but Zimmerman has always claimed he got on top of Martin after shooting him. Is there some other information you are thinking of?

I've only read summaries of the testimony, but one witness testified that she heard cries for help that sounded to her to be those of a boy before hearing gun shots. She also testified that she thought the "aggressive" voice that she heard was a man's voice. Another testified she believed Zimmerman was on top (although the summary I read was not clear about at what point that was). Rachel Jeantel said she heard Martin say "get off" immediately when the confrontation started. (This is the best evidence that Zimmerman actually initiated physical contact.)

There's definitely evidence that Zimmerman was getting beaten. His head, for one, and one eyewitness. But that doesn't rule out Martin also having been physically assaulted, and there is at least some evidence that he was. I think the jury is going to have a lot of holes to fill in, which will of course be to Zimmerman's advantage given where the burden lies.

 

[Link]

This is really bizarre case and I doubt Zimmerman was telling the truth on what actually went down. Who grabs a gun and follows a random stranger? If he walks free I imagine this will probably become more common.

That's what bothers me most about the whole thing. After how determined Zimmerman was to follow Martin, including ignoring neighborhood watch guidelines and the 911 dispatcher, and getting out of his car to proceed on foot, I find it awfully convenient that as soon as he was off the phone with 911, he decided to turn around and was then suddenly jumped and getting his ass kicked. That's really, really hard to believe.

 

[Dude Abides]

I've only read summaries of the testimony, but one witness testified that she heard cries for help that sounded to her to be those of a boy before hearing gun shots. She also testified that she thought the "aggressive" voice that she heard was a man's voice. Another testified she believed Zimmerman was on top (although the summary I read was not clear about at what point that was). Rachel Jeantel said she heard Martin say "get off" immediately when the confrontation started. (This is the best evidence that Zimmerman actually initiated physical contact.)

There's definitely evidence that Zimmerman was getting beaten. His head, for one, and one eyewitness. But that doesn't rule out Martin also having been physically assaulted, and there is at least some evidence that he was. I think the jury is going to have a lot of holes to fill in, which will of course be to Zimmerman's advantage given where the burden lies.

I had missed those details regarding the identification of the voice as I didn't get to listen to the first two days. In my view the most damning evidence against Zimmerman's account is the way the screaming stops immediately after the gunshot.

I think Jeantel's testimony would go to provocation, but she said the call went dead almost immediately after that statement, which presumably would have been before anyone was on the ground.

That's what bothers me most about the whole thing. After how determined Zimmerman was to follow Martin, including ignoring neighborhood watch guidelines and the 911 dispatcher, and getting out of his car to proceed on foot, I find it awfully convenient that as soon as he was off the phone with 911, he decided to turn around and was then suddenly jumped and getting his ass kicked. That's really, really hard to believe.

His story seems like it's full of bullshit. Unfortunately he's the only living witness to the fight, except for the guy who said he saw Zimmerman on the bottom.

 

[GaimeGuy]

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.

Zimmerman's actions weren't done in an emotionally disturbed or mentally unstable state, though, which makes Murder 2, not manslaughter, the appropriate charge.

You're thinking too much about the connotation of murder (specifically, murder 1) when you say he shouldn't get murder 2.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Did Zimmerman give a reason for getting on top of him after he had shot him? Sounds like another lie.

 

[B-Dubs]

Did Zimmerman give a reason for getting on top of him after he had shot him? Sounds like another lie.

I don't think he has taken the stand yet and if he's smart he won't do so. If he does then he may as well just walk over to the jail instead and save everyone some time.

 

[Zoe]

Did Zimmerman give a reason for getting on top of him after he had shot him? Sounds like another lie.

To restrain him.

 

[crackhead_bob]

I've posted ths before, but can the prosecution present Mr. Zimmerman's interviews with Det. Serino two days after the murder and his interview with Sean Hannity, should he refuse to testify?

I think given that the only person to give an account of what happened that night is the defendant himself, he should at the very least give his side of the story under oath. If he refuses to testify, then I feel that the taped interview with Serino should suffice.

I'm very concerned with the outcome of this case. My cousin lives in the Heathrow area and is attending Seminole Community College. Should I have any reason to be concerned that this could mushroom cloud into another fallout like the L.A. riots? The O.J. verdict was unjust, but at least there weren't riots as a result. I may seem paranoid, but sometimes I feel that the media is trying to inflame passion and perpetuate the notion of anarchy on the part of the black community.

 

[speedline]

I've posted ths before, but can the prosecution present Mr. Zimmerman's interviews with Det. Serino two days after the murder and his interview with Sean Hannity, should he refuse to testify?

I think given that the only person to give an account of what happened that night is the defendant himself, he should at the very least give his side of the story under oath. If he refuses to testify, then I feel that the taped interview with Serino should suffice.

I'm very concerned with the outcome of this case. My cousin lives in the Heathrow area and is attending Seminole Community College. Should I have any reason to be concerned that this could mushroom cloud into another fallout like the L.A. riots? The O.J. verdict was unjust, but at least there weren't riots as a result. I may seem paranoid, but sometimes I feel that the media is trying to inflame passion and perpetuate the notion of anarchy on the part of the black community.

I skipped school on the day the OJ verdict was handed down in case it came back guilty. I went to an 90% black high school and I don't think any white kids went that day. Do what you feel is best for yourself is my mantra.

 

[Nightstick11]

I am assuming that Confederate states allow some exceptions for use of deadly force even if... the other side didn't use deadly force. I practice in a blue state though and what GZ did would most definitely not fly here.

 

[DataStream]

I know earlier in the thread somebody mentioned Zimmerman stated that Trayvon tried to get away, did anybody end up sourcing that?

 

[Derwind]

I know earlier in the thread somebody mentioned Zimmerman stated that Trayvon tried to get away, did anybody end up sourcing that?

It was in the audio tapes of when he called 911, I think it can easily be found on google. But the last time I listened to it were the early days of this case.

 

[speedline]

I am assuming that Confederate states allow some exceptions for use of deadly force even if... the other side didn't use deadly force. I practice in a blue state though and what GZ did would most definitely not fly here.

You live in the 1850's? Do you also realize the FL went to Obama in '08 and '12?

 

[Link]

You live in the 1850's? Do you also realize the FL went to Obama in '08 and '12?

The state legislature is Republican, though. And just like other red states, they pass very stupid laws.

 

[KHarvey16]

Fear of death or grievous bodily harm is still a requirement for the use of deadly force. Even in Florida.

 

[Zoe]

I know earlier in the thread somebody mentioned Zimmerman stated that Trayvon tried to get away, did anybody end up sourcing that?

He said "these punks" always get away. It wasn't a description of Martin, he was commenting on the crime spree.

 

[empty vessel]

I know earlier in the thread somebody mentioned Zimmerman stated that Trayvon tried to get away, did anybody end up sourcing that?

It's on Zimmerman's 911 call--Zimmerman tells the dispatcher "shit, he's running." That's when Zimmerman got out of the car and followed him. He expressly admitted to the dispatcher that he was following him when asked. The dispatcher told him they did not need him to do that. Zimmerman subsequently announced to the dispatcher an intention to leave the place where he then was (i.e., to continue looking for Martin). If I were a juror, I would infer from the 911 call an intent by Zimmerman to confront and hold (falsely imprison) Martin.

 

[speedline]

Anyone ever wonder why someone would call the police before they hunt down and murder an innocent child? And then after they murdered that child in cold blood they just sit there and wait for the police to show up? What a shitty murderer, he was out to kill that kid and tipped off the Po Po's like a fool. He'll know better the next time he gets the itch to kill. What a dumb ass cracker.