Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

18384868889147

Posts

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    bowen wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Presumably Martin knew very well where to hide to ambush Zimmerman.

    Presumably not, since, you know, Martin didn't live in the community where it happened.

    I'm sure he's been there a few times if a parent lives there.

    /Sarcasm

    Yes, because when I go to a new place, the first thing I do is look for spots where I can ambush the unwary.

    /Sarcasm off.

    The entire claim is pure conjecture. We don't know if Martin knew where to ambush Zimmerman and we don't know IF Martin ambushed Zimmerman.

    Because there's no possible way Martin could know his way around the neighborhood before hand, right? My problem isn't that this dude is innocent, my problem is people like you who jump to conclusions like a rabid dog who has got their sights set on some poor dude's uncovered nuts without thinking about the whole picture.

    That's not how justice works. Again you won't see me trying to defend his ass like he's innocent (unlike what phillishire seems to think is going on because he's so blinded by his own zeal) but, just like the racism bullshit, just maybe there's some plausibility to certain situations here. And that maybe, just maybe, the poor, young black child might not be innocent just because he's a kid, or black and this guy's white, which somehow keeps cropping up as a reason.

    And here is where people like you lose me. I didn't jump to conclusion, I considered the evidence presented and then came to a conclusion. When people called me out on going to far in favour of Martin, I backed off.

    You on the other hand, seem to take every chance you get to interpret events in favour of Zimmerman.

    What fucking proof do you have that Martin knew the neighborhood well enough to ambush Zimmerman?

    What fucking proof do you have that Martin even ambushed Zimmerman?

    If you make a claim like that burden of proof is on you.

    You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, only you hide behind "let Justice be done".

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    emp123 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Does anyone have a cite for the California Stand Your Ground equivalent? If it helps, heres all of California's laws.

    California has no explicit "stand your ground" law that I can show you. What California has is no duty to retreat laid out in their self-defense code, and (by my memory) no duty to retreat laid out in their jury instruction, and also (by my memory) case law actively supporting no duty to retreat.

    Which is something I've tried to get at repeatedly in this thread, particularly as relates to the "immunity from prosecution" angle. Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't actually have nearly as dramatic of an effect as a lot of people think it does...it's like the "assault rifle" of self-defense law. Sounds super-scary, but really allows basically the same level of self-defense that was already present (just like "assault rifles" are largely just regular guns that are black instead of brown and maybe have pistol grips). Just like requiring probable cause for an arrest was already the law. And, I'd wager, Florida already had no duty to retreat on the books, and case law supporting it...this law just made it explicit in statute.

    It may or may not have an emboldening effect on people towards violence when you do so, but it didn't necessarily change the likely legal outcome.


    Anyway, I don't have the time nor legal expertise to prove this to you to a standard you'd accept at the moment. If you're truly interested, I'd wager you could use the googles to track the information down.


    However, I'd suggest that you not dismiss the idea just because you don't think this is the case and I can't show it right now. Everybody here pretty much thought that self-defense was an affirmative defense, with the burden on the defense to prove it. And yet. Look into it for yourself. You might learn something interesting.

    Well, California certainly has a castle doctrine, and when claiming self defense your actions have to be proportionate (so if someone punches you you can push them away, throw them to the ground but not shoot them, but if someone is choking you you can shoot them) and reasonable (which is determined by a totality of the circumstances) but I still havent found anything like the SYG law in Florida. Im not saying the cases dont exist, but Ive yet to see an incident where someone chased a dude down and then stabbed him to death and then didnt get charged because they were acting in self defense.

    The stabbing you're talking about, was that to stop another forcible felony (rather than self-defense)? Noting that forcible felonies can include property crimes? Because if so, yeah that doesn't apply to self defense and I don't agree with that anyway (allowing such uses of force regarding property crimes is...bleh).

    However, pursuing an attacker can be justifiable in self-defense. It's harder to argue, but not on its face unreasonable. See the cited bit later regarding the same in California.

    The reason I ask is some people have indicated that the SYG law isnt crazy because even states like California have it (which is a bullshit argument for a number of reasons, one of the larger ones being California isnt that liberal) which may not even be correct.

    That's mostly me. I do that not because "lulz liberal California," but more because between CA, TX, and FL alone you're looking at a huge chunk of the country. Also, it's to deflect from this whole "Florida be crazy" bullshit. Yes, I'm familiar with the politics of California. But as a state it is, at least, not generally considered to be batshit insane when it comes to things like self-defense. It's hardly a haven for the NRA, either.

    197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
    any of the following cases:
    1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
    felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
    2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
    against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
    surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
    and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
    the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
    person therein; or,
    3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
    wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
    person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
    commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
    danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
    person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
    or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
    endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
    committed
    ; or,
    4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
    means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
    lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
    the peace.

    What you certainly don't see in there is a duty to retreat. Closest you come is the bolded, and I'll note that this applies to assailants (or "mutual combat"), further implying that actual victims of assaults have none.

    I have, however, now found these quoted on multiple sites so I'll share them here:

    People v. Newcomer, (1897) 118 Cal. 263, 273. (“[W]hen a man without fault himself is suddenly attacked in a way that puts his life or bodily safety at imminent hazard, he is not compelled to fly or to consider the proposition of flying, but may stand his ground and defend himself to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be reasonably necessary [in the name of California self-defense].”)

    People v. Gonzales, (1887) 71 Cal. 569, 577. (“A man who expects to be attacked is not always compelled to employ all the means in his power to avert the necessity of [California] self-defense before he can exercise the right of self-defense. For one may know that if he travels along a certain highway he will be attacked by another with a deadly weapon, and be compelled in self-defense to kill his assailant, and yet he has the right to travel that highway, and is not compelled to turn out of his way to avoid the expected unlawful attack.”)

    People v. Hughes (1951) also speaks to this, and is obviously a bit more recent, but is less easily quotable. However, a quote from the jury instruction in that case:

    "A person who has been attacked and who is exercising his right of lawful self-defense is not required to retreat, and he may not only stand his ground and defend himself against the attack but may also pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course appears to him, and would appear to a reasonable person in the same situation, to be reasonably and apparently necessary; and this is his right even though he might more easily have gained safety by withdrawing from the scene."

    The ruling asserts that this is in fact a correct implementation of California law.

    To me, that all sounds surprisingly similar to Florida's "stand your ground" law. You are excluded from provoking an attack to create a contrived act of self-defense. However, everything I've seen suggests that this requires intent; merely having taken overt actions that "led" to an attack don't meet this, you must actually be attempting to get the person to attack you for the purpose of then essentially assaulting them through "self defense." Merely following somebody without sufficient cause would not seem to meet that bar. Not even close.

    So I'll say again that Florida's "stand your ground" law is not novel, and aside from the immunity from civil prosecution was probably not even a particularly significant change in existing case law.


    EDIT: I stand corrected...it would seem that Florida did indeed have an explicit duty to retreat prior to the passage of this law? So hey, maybe Florida got the idea from California.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    That is evidence for one claim (he know the neighborhood).

    Still no evidence of the other claim (the ambush).

    Other than the testimony of a person who has, shall we say, just a tad of self-interest.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Actually, let me try and help you out TNC.

    There are two things that you should really try to internalize. One I have been repeating over and over in this thread, because others seem as though they want to forget it. I've not bothered with the other nearly so often, because most here seem to accept it without issue.


    George Zimmerman allegedly used unlawful force in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
    Trayvon Martin allegedly attacked George Zimmerman first.


    Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish.

    mcdermott on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    It's worth noting the prosecutors agree it's "punks." I'm sticking with [unintelligible] but that won't be part of the prosecution's case.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    FWIW, Washington appears to be another state with case law supporting no duty to retreat. Also, Illinois. Haven't looked up the case law in Washington, but in Illinois it's a pretty clear right to stand your ground and meet force with force if you are in a place you have a legal right to be.

    So Florida, apparently, is new to the "stand your ground" party.

    EDIT: Federal law as well. I think _J_ covered this earlier.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    I wonder... if it had been "coons" instead of "punks", do you think they would have gone for a hate crime related murder? Would such a murder been murder 1 or 2(the same as the prosecutor is going for now)?

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    I wonder... if it had been "coons" instead of "punks", do you think they would have gone for a hate crime related murder? Would such a murder been murder 1 or 2(the same as the prosecutor is going for now)?

    It would still almost certainly be second degree under federal law. First degree murder must be a "willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing." (18 USC § 1111, if you're curious)

    Regardless of the 'cism, I don't see how you get all four of those in this case.

    EDIT: Or, more to the point, how you'd prove them all to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. I have no doubt many here have a pet theory as to how it might apply in theory. Some may even be reasonable.

    mcdermott on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Not sure if Florida even has hate crime laws. AFAIK it was only relevant towards federal charges, though maybe you could make a better case that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do great bodily harm or what not if he did in fact say "coons."

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Not sure if Florida even has hate crime laws. AFAIK it was only relevant towards federal charges, though maybe you could make a better case that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do great bodily harm or what not if he did in fact say "coons."

    Florida has hate crime laws.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Of course, if he followed with the intent to do GBH why the hell would he have called the cops?

    Or is this an element of The Perfect Crime(TM)? ;)

    mcdermott on
  • Erich ZahnErich Zahn So Wangtta~! Remember to [E]ject!Registered User regular
    It's worth noting the prosecutors agree it's "punks." I'm sticking with [unintelligible] but that won't be part of the prosecution's case.

    I don't see how the fuck they heard punks.

    I heard coons the first time and I had to google that shit to figure it out.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Not sure if Florida even has hate crime laws.

    I'm sorry, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Everywhere in the United States has hate crime laws, even Alafuckingbama has hate crime laws.

  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    It's worth noting the prosecutors agree it's "punks." I'm sticking with [unintelligible] but that won't be part of the prosecution's case.

    What matters to the prosecution of the crime in general is "fucking [whatever]" is going to be an insult of some sort. If they can't prove coons, that doesn't change the fact that he's already showing hostility. And if they do get technical backup later on, they can bring it up in trial that he said "coons", not "punks". It's just the declaration of probable cause.

  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Of course, if he followed with the intent to do GBH why the hell would he have called the cops?

    Or is this an element of The Perfect Crime(TM)? ;)

    Because leaving a dead body on the street is not a smart move. Nor is taking the risk that other residents (who probably know who he is) might have seen him load a body in his car and drive away.

    Calling the cops and claiming self defense is the smart move.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Does anyone have a cite for the California Stand Your Ground equivalent? If it helps, heres all of California's laws.

    California has no explicit "stand your ground" law that I can show you. What California has is no duty to retreat laid out in their self-defense code, and (by my memory) no duty to retreat laid out in their jury instruction, and also (by my memory) case law actively supporting no duty to retreat.

    Which is something I've tried to get at repeatedly in this thread, particularly as relates to the "immunity from prosecution" angle. Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't actually have nearly as dramatic of an effect as a lot of people think it does...it's like the "assault rifle" of self-defense law. Sounds super-scary, but really allows basically the same level of self-defense that was already present (just like "assault rifles" are largely just regular guns that are black instead of brown and maybe have pistol grips). Just like requiring probable cause for an arrest was already the law. And, I'd wager, Florida already had no duty to retreat on the books, and case law supporting it...this law just made it explicit in statute.

    It may or may not have an emboldening effect on people towards violence when you do so, but it didn't necessarily change the likely legal outcome.


    Anyway, I don't have the time nor legal expertise to prove this to you to a standard you'd accept at the moment. If you're truly interested, I'd wager you could use the googles to track the information down.


    However, I'd suggest that you not dismiss the idea just because you don't think this is the case and I can't show it right now. Everybody here pretty much thought that self-defense was an affirmative defense, with the burden on the defense to prove it. And yet. Look into it for yourself. You might learn something interesting.

    Well, California certainly has a castle doctrine, and when claiming self defense your actions have to be proportionate (so if someone punches you you can push them away, throw them to the ground but not shoot them, but if someone is choking you you can shoot them) and reasonable (which is determined by a totality of the circumstances) but I still havent found anything like the SYG law in Florida. Im not saying the cases dont exist, but Ive yet to see an incident where someone chased a dude down and then stabbed him to death and then didnt get charged because they were acting in self defense.

    The stabbing you're talking about, was that to stop another forcible felony (rather than self-defense)? Noting that forcible felonies can include property crimes? Because if so, yeah that doesn't apply to self defense and I don't agree with that anyway (allowing such uses of force regarding property crimes is...bleh).

    However, pursuing an attacker can be justifiable in self-defense. It's harder to argue, but not on its face unreasonable. See the cited bit later regarding the same in California.

    The case Im thinking of was a story that was linked probably around page 20 of this thread where a guy was stealing a car stereo or something from a guys car in the driveway of the killer's house and the killer ended up chasing the man several blocks and stabbing the thief to death and instead of being prosecuted he wasnt charged because of the SYG law grants immunity in those cases (where the force is justified, which it is if youre doing it to defend property). Its nice we agree this is, um, stupid but it also distinguishes the law from the California law where you can only use force proportionately (however in the case of home invasions/robberies reasonable fear of imminent harm is presumed so I assume you can shoot someone for breaking into your house). Additionally under California law pursuing an attacker is permitted but only until the imminent threat of harm is over:
    But rarely do the circumstances give rise to this limited right to pursue and to kill [under the theory of California self-defense], for it must be exercised only to protect, and not to punish an attacker who is attempting to escape

    mcdermott wrote: »
    The reason I ask is some people have indicated that the SYG law isnt crazy because even states like California have it (which is a bullshit argument for a number of reasons, one of the larger ones being California isnt that liberal) which may not even be correct.

    That's mostly me. I do that not because "lulz liberal California," but more because between CA, TX, and FL alone you're looking at a huge chunk of the country. Also, it's to deflect from this whole "Florida be crazy" bullshit. Yes, I'm familiar with the politics of California. But as a state it is, at least, not generally considered to be batshit insane when it comes to things like self-defense. It's hardly a haven for the NRA, either.

    Well its totally possible for a huge chunk of the United States to be crazy, and I in no way argue that California's self defense laws are sane. Assuming that California does in effect have a SYG law, it hasnt been used to the effect that Florida's has (if Im remembering the charts that have been linked previously correctly, Florida has about 200-230 justified homicides per year (Im not sure if this number included officer related shootings or was purely citizen on citizen but I assume its the total of both) while in 2005 137 justifiable homicides and in 2007 there were 148 (pg 40) despite Florida having 2/3s the population of California (although I realize there are a number of other factors that play into this like CCLs and other restrictions on gun purchases).

    mcdermott wrote: »
    197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
    any of the following cases:
    1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
    felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
    2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
    against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
    surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
    and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
    the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
    person therein; or,
    3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
    wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
    person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
    commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
    danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
    person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
    or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
    endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
    committed
    ; or,
    4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
    means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
    lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
    the peace.

    What you certainly don't see in there is a duty to retreat. Closest you come is the bolded, and I'll note that this applies to assailants (or "mutual combat"), further implying that actual victims of assaults have none.

    I have, however, now found these quoted on multiple sites so I'll share them here:

    People v. Newcomer, (1897) 118 Cal. 263, 273. (“[W]hen a man without fault himself is suddenly attacked in a way that puts his life or bodily safety at imminent hazard, he is not compelled to fly or to consider the proposition of flying, but may stand his ground and defend himself to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be reasonably necessary [in the name of California self-defense].”)

    People v. Gonzales, (1887) 71 Cal. 569, 577. (“A man who expects to be attacked is not always compelled to employ all the means in his power to avert the necessity of [California] self-defense before he can exercise the right of self-defense. For one may know that if he travels along a certain highway he will be attacked by another with a deadly weapon, and be compelled in self-defense to kill his assailant, and yet he has the right to travel that highway, and is not compelled to turn out of his way to avoid the expected unlawful attack.”)

    People v. Hughes (1951) also speaks to this, and is obviously a bit more recent, but is less easily quotable. However, a quote from the jury instruction in that case:

    "A person who has been attacked and who is exercising his right of lawful self-defense is not required to retreat, and he may not only stand his ground and defend himself against the attack but may also pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course appears to him, and would appear to a reasonable person in the same situation, to be reasonably and apparently necessary; and this is his right even though he might more easily have gained safety by withdrawing from the scene."

    The ruling asserts that this is in fact a correct implementation of California law.

    Both People v Newcomer and People v Gonzales took place inside homes (Newcomer was inside his own home and shot his friend/business partner/dude he looked for gold with and Gonzales was invited into the home of an elderly woman by the elderly woman and then was shot by someone else, the case isnt very heavy on the facts) which probably means they fell under the castle doctrine (again, neither are really heavy on the facts and most of the decision focuses on the jury instructions so its unclear what was cited).

    As for People v Hughes, assuming I found the right one, the facts of the case are also unclear. According to the victim there was no fight and that he was shot after tripping over a lady's legs (and asking the defendant, when the defendant confronted him "Why don't you tell the woman to put her feet under the counter?" which I find funny/silly only because ololwomen arent people) but the two women who were with the defendant say there was a fight, which occurred because the victim had asked them to dance and they said no and apparently the victim had touched the women's shoulders (which I guess being 1951 and the victim being named Suarez and the defendant Hughes its possible the incident had a racial dimension and its not like the case took place that long after the Zoot Suit Riots) and the defendant was the aggressor and the gun went off accidentally. Anyway, the court says it considered both the jury instruction given and the jury instruction requested by the defendant and found that the defendant wasnt prejudiced by the instruction.

    Just thought I'd include the facts of the case, since I think context is important.

    In 2002 a California Appeals Court said:
    The person who wrongfully attacks, or who voluntarily engages in a fight, and is met by a counter-attack, has no privilege to stand his ground and defend.
    So Stand Your Ground is a thing, but it only applies to victims/non-aggressors which seems to separate it from Florida where either side can use it should they need to.

    mcdermott wrote: »
    To me, that all sounds surprisingly similar to Florida's "stand your ground" law. You are excluded from provoking an attack to create a contrived act of self-defense. However, everything I've seen suggests that this requires intent; merely having taken overt actions that "led" to an attack don't meet this, you must actually be attempting to get the person to attack you for the purpose of then essentially assaulting them through "self defense." Merely following somebody without sufficient cause would not seem to meet that bar. Not even close.

    So I'll say again that Florida's "stand your ground" law is not novel, and aside from the immunity from civil prosecution was probably not even a particularly significant change in existing case law.


    EDIT: I stand corrected...it would seem that Florida did indeed have an explicit duty to retreat prior to the passage of this law? So hey, maybe Florida got the idea from California.

    I havent seen anything about intent being required to void yourself of the SYG provision, from what Ive seen it only applies to non-aggressors.

    Heres California's statutory self defense jury instruction:
    A person threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense need not retreat. In the exercise of [his] [her] right of self-defense a person may stand [his] [her] ground and defend [himself] [herself] by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge; and a person may pursue [his] [her] assailant until [he] [she] has secured [himself] [herself] from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably necessary. This law applies even though the assailed person might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene.

    Basically the California SYG provision differs in a number of ways:
    - it appears to only apply to aggressors
    - it appears court created
    - it says nothing about being immune from prosecution or civil suit

    According to Wikipedia, this is Florida's SYG Immunity Clause:
    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    And heres the 776.012:
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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.

    And 776.041
    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.

    What this seems to say is that if you are attacked and youre defending yourself you dont have to run and you can shoot them, if youre in your home and someone breaks in you dont have to run and you can shoot them, if you start a fight and then come to the point where you think the person you started to fight may kill you you dont have to run and you can shoot them. In all of these situations you are immune from prosecution and civil suit.

    Where in California it appears to be if you are attacked you can defend yourself and you dont need to run but you cant shoot them unless you believe/a reasonable person would believe they intend to kill you, if youre in your home and someone breaks in you can shoot them (apparently you can "attack" trespassers, but your actions have to be reasonable and proportionate so you cant just shoot some dude for being on your lawn although you may be able to chase them off with a gun in your hand), if you attack someone and you start to lose you cant shoot them unless you try to get away first (which actually, given that non-aggressors can chase their attackers away makes me wonder how hard they have to try to get away before they can shoot someone they attacked in self defense). In all of these situations you will be charged and a jury of your peers will determine whether you acted reasonable. Additionally, the family of the deceased can sue you in civil court.



    EDIT: Holy fuck that was way longer than I expected. Also I wouldnt be surprised if the quote tags are messed up, but its a long wall of text and I dont know if I have the willpower or desire to make sure everything is correct.

    emp123 on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Oh, and heres Wikipedia's list of states with SYG laws.

    emp123 on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So Stand Your Ground is a thing, but it only applies to victims/non-aggressors which seems to separate it from Florida where either side can use it should they need to.

    No, as you quoted an aggressor in Florida takes on a duty to retreat.

    The problem is that mere "following" as we see in this case doesn't necessarily make one an "aggressor." It may not in California either, I don't know.

    Basically the California SYG provision differs in a number of ways:
    - it appears to only apply to aggressors
    - it appears court created
    - it says nothing about being immune from prosecution or civil suit

    - I'm unclear what your first bullet means, but I don't think it's correct
    - A whole lot of the law is court created
    - True, though you still theoretically need probable cause to arrest and charge regardless

    And people keep acting like there's no proportionality requirement in FL law. It's right there, in the statute (776.013 - Use of Deadly Force).

    (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.

    You must reasonably believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. That's the proportionality requirement. Deadly force is proportional to great bodily harm. You don't generally get to shoot somebody for pushing you. You don't necessarily get to shoot them for punching you. But when they start threatening you with significant injury, which can easily spiral to maiming or death, yes you get to shoot them. People focus on the armed vs. unarmed aspect of proportionality, but neither FL, CA, nor pretty much any other state require that shit. It's about the damage to your person. And GBH and death are considered to be proportional. An armed assailant just makes it easier to demonstrate the threat of GBH, it's not a requirement.

    mcdermott on
  • Erich ZahnErich Zahn So Wangtta~! Remember to [E]ject!Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    BSoB wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »

    Don't forget how upset Zimmerman sounds in the transcript that some black kid is roaming around the neighborhood. He starts dropping the words "fucking coons" at one point.

    If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
    It's wonderful how I heard it as fucking coons the first time, even though I had never heard that slur before in my life. Obviously I'm part of the conspiracy, and not the people who can't even get their fucking stories straight after the forth time they've volunteered to tell them.
    Right. That's why one of his friends said that Zimmerman actually said "fucking goons".

    I mean "fucking punks". Wait, no. "Fucking cold"...
    G does not pop, only b, c, k, and p pop. Sound out pa right now. Now sound out ca. Ca has more breath in it.

    Actually, just pay attention to when he says fuck, because he's also rather demonstrably blowing into the receiver then.

    It's also weird how Zimmerman's defenders are incapable of seeing any inconsistency between "THIS GUY IS SCARY HE'S CHECKING ME OUT HE'S ON DRUGS I'M CALLING 911 BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED" and "I'm following him" and "okay I've stopped." "*air rushing into microphone at regular intervals*".

    Erich Zahn on
  • Psychotic OnePsychotic One Never let an alligator... Do your taxesRegistered User regular
    I can't help but feel this whole arrest and trial is to pacify the racial unrest surrounding the case and it will be thrown out on Self Defense charges down the line unless new evidence comes forward. It would be easy to prove with medical records if Zimmerman suffered multiple head injuries and would back the self defense angle. Unless new evidence comes forward it should be easy to argue the self defense unless the ER doc comes forward and says he didn't suffer any contusion.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Prosecutors want to win so they can be elected to higher office.

    It's pretty likely they've got the medical reports and they say what the people skeptical of Zimmerman from the beginning would expect them to say.

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    I dunno, this Angela Corey person is pretty hardcore. She's the one who took that 12 year old to actual court because she felt juvenile court wasn't harsh enough to fit the crime.

    I think they chose a pretty damn good prosecutor. She did the kid thing even if it didn't win her much praise. So she probably has something.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So Stand Your Ground is a thing, but it only applies to victims/non-aggressors which seems to separate it from Florida where either side can use it should they need to.

    No, as you quoted an aggressor in Florida takes on a duty to retreat.

    The problem is that mere "following" as we see in this case doesn't necessarily make one an "aggressor." It may not in California either, I don't know.

    Basically the California SYG provision differs in a number of ways:
    - it appears to only apply to aggressors
    - it appears court created
    - it says nothing about being immune from prosecution or civil suit

    - I'm unclear what your first bullet means, but I don't think it's correct
    - A whole lot of the law is court created
    - True, though you still theoretically need probable cause to arrest and charge regardless

    Yeah, that first one is like the exact opposite of what I meant, the California law appears to only apply to non-aggressors (and to aggressors who stop being the aggressors, however I am unsure how far that person needs to go before becoming the non-aggressor. I assume if the aggressor is rendered unconscious, any attacks on his body would not be covered by self defense).

    As for the second, of course theres a whole lot of court created law and it is as every bit as legally binding as that passed by the legislature. The difference is that the law in California has its origins in the early years of the state. It has apparently been a long developed doctrine whereas the Florida law is a recent creation by people who should know better (because we're not living in the 1800s anymore and this isnt Deadwood).

    And of course you still need probable cause for an arrest, but it would seem as though this particular statute requires something more than ordinary probable cause. Ordinarily a dead body and a fired gun would be enough to arrest the person who was in control of both however it appears under the Florida statute this is not the case.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And people keep acting like there's no proportionality requirement in FL law. It's right there, in the statute (776.013 - Use of Deadly Force).

    (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.

    You must reasonably believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. That's the proportionality requirement. Deadly force is proportional to great bodily harm. You don't generally get to shoot somebody for pushing you. You don't necessarily get to shoot them for punching you. But when they start threatening you with significant injury, which can easily spiral to maiming or death, yes you get to shoot them. People focus on the armed vs. unarmed aspect of proportionality, but neither FL, CA, nor pretty much any other state require that shit. It's about the damage to your person. And GBH and death are considered to be proportional. An armed assailant just makes it easier to demonstrate the threat of GBH, it's not a requirement.

    Yes, there is a reasonableness test (and the reasonableness test differs from the California test in a way that I find significant) but there is no proportionality requirement. In California, you cant shoot someone if youre having a fist fight because that would be disproportionate even if you think there is a likelihood that the person swinging at you is trying to kill you, you have to wait until the threat of death is imminent (so if youre fighting, no shooting, but if the other person is on top of you and pounding on you, fire away). As for the reasonableness test, in California its what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. The jury needs to decide first what a reasonable person would do and then whether the defendant deviated from that standard. This is going to be fact specific and vary widely from jury to jury. In Florida the reasonableness test is whether it is reasonable that the defendant felt threatened, a test that is much easier to pass (because if he shot the person he probably felt threatened, otherwise youre not even considering self defense).

    emp123 on
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Actually, let me try and help you out TNC.

    There are two things that you should really try to internalize. One I have been repeating over and over in this thread, because others seem as though they want to forget it. I've not bothered with the other nearly so often, because most here seem to accept it without issue.


    George Zimmerman allegedly used unlawful force in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
    Trayvon Martin allegedly attacked George Zimmerman first.


    Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish.

    This. Kipling is ignoring that I'm being facetious about the whole situation here. I don't think Zimmerman is innocent, but he knows just about as much of the situation as I do (probably less because he didn't scrape through 47 some odd pages of 911 calls). He jumps to the conclusion that the first is true, I say no, if that's true, the second could be just as true. He takes me saying that as me claiming fact rather than me saying both are just as retarded. But I guess after 30 some odd pages of arguing back and forth that we don't have sufficient evidence has become muddled and I'm not really sure which page he jumped in.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Actually, let me try and help you out TNC.

    There are two things that you should really try to internalize. One I have been repeating over and over in this thread, because others seem as though they want to forget it. I've not bothered with the other nearly so often, because most here seem to accept it without issue.


    George Zimmerman allegedly used unlawful force in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
    Trayvon Martin allegedly attacked George Zimmerman first.


    Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish.

    And acting like they require the same level of evidence is foolish. We know Zimmerman killed Martin. If Martin did not attack Zimmerman AND Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life AND Zimmerman did not provoke the attack, his self defense claim fails and the killing was unlawful. There's no evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman, only Zimmerman's claim which the investigator didn't find credible before being overruled by the chief and state prosecutor. There's evidence that Martin was screaming for help when he was shot dead based on witness testimony and analysis of the 911 calls. There's evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin and that Martin was fearful for his own safety because of this based on Zimmerman's 911 call, the conversation between Martin and his girlfriend and Zimmerman's previous pattern of falsely accusing and confronting black teenagers and criminal history of violent confrontation.

    False equivalency is the sign of a lazy contrarian without supporting evidence. Throwing up your hands and saying "well we don't know what happened" is lazy, and fairly intellectually dishonest IMO. Its undisputed that a self-declared neighborhood watch captain with history of violent criminal behavior and false accusations against black teenagers followed an unarmed teenage boy who was 100 pounds lighter than him against the request of law enforcement and shot him dead. Shaking your head and acting like both sides have some kind of equality in burden of proof is craven.

  • azith28azith28 Registered User regular
    As facinating as this discussion is, Does anyone think that logical discussion is going to enter into the actual real life events?

    No matter how you or I may feel about them, people like Jessie Jackson, Farakhan, and the media have already at least turned this into an unfair trial no matter what the evidence that actually comes out in court is since, or at most have used the unfounded accusations (Yes unfounded because no matter who actually did what they didnt have any evidence other then 'dead black, live mostly white guy' when they started blowing this thing up and now even if they didnt want to take control and ride the hate, they couldnt stop it) to incite riots, mobs, etc.

    Now does anyone think that anything less then a death sentence (Which im pretty sure is impossible with a 2nd degree murder charge anyway) by the court is going to stop riots when the verdict is read?

  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I think the death penalty is unlikely. I think he is going to get jail time and be out in a number years that will make Martin supporters bitter.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Murder 1 is the only thing that qualifies the death penalty isn't it?

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Lost in TranslationRegistered User regular
    azith28 wrote: »
    Now does anyone think that anything less then a death sentence (Which im pretty sure is impossible with a 2nd degree murder charge anyway) by the court is going to stop riots when the verdict is read?

    Maybe Sanford could use a couple riots.

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Death sentence?
    azith28 wrote: »
    Now does anyone think that anything less then a death sentence (Which im pretty sure is impossible with a 2nd degree murder charge anyway) by the court is going to stop riots when the verdict is read?

    Maybe Sanford could use a couple riots.

    With neonazis patrolling the streets waiting for said riots and that new black panther party waiting to get them some Zimmermans?

    no thanks

    Malkor on
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Lost in TranslationRegistered User regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    With neonazis patrolling the streets waiting for said riots and that new black panther party waiting to get them some Zimmermans?

    no thanks

    Well, regardless, the riots will happen. Zimmerman gets thrown in jail, then the neonazi's will all be crazy. NBPP goes nuts if he goes free. The Sanford PD screwed the fucking pooch on this one and (if I can be serious) there is a real possibility of riot no matter what they do. In a perfect world they would be accountable for the carnage that results because they are tasked with the duty of the welfare of the city.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    BubbaT wrote: »
    1) Zimmerman calls police
    2) Sounds like he's breathing heavily and moving rapidly somewhere (which is why fucking [unintelligible] is unintelligible).

    He's following him. And the word is intellegible, it's "punks."

    BubbaT wrote: »
    3) You say he's returning to his car
    4) ???
    5) Confrontation

    After dispatch tells him to stop, and he says ok, then the wind noise and all that stops, and I'm not really saying what he did, but he says he was returning to his car.

    BubbaT wrote: »
    How did the confrontation happen if he returned to his car?

    I don't know, perhaps Martin decided to approach him again, like he did while Zimmerman was on the phone with 911.

    BubbaT wrote: »
    The girlfriend said Martin thought someone was following him and that he thought he had lost them. Which indicates to me it's not like Martin followed Zimmerman's car and started the confrontation so Zimmerman unwisely left his car. And while Martin says the first thing in the girlfriend's account (asking why Zimmerman was following Martin), the account indicates that again, Zimmerman is out of the car.

    Her account also indicated that she told Martin to run back to the house, and Martin said "no."

    BubbaT wrote: »
    My conclusion is that Zimmerman was following Martin either on foot or in his car. If he was in the car he then left his car, and Martin asked him (not unfairly) why he was following him, Zimmerman responded, and the altercation ensued. I don't see how this ever happens at all if Zimmerman didn't follow Martin.

    It happens because Martin decides to approach Zimmerman, who is perhaps on his way back to his car, or in his car, I don't know. Or, it is exactly what you describe. That is also certainly possible and seems to be the prosecutor's main point now. I have no problem believing that Zimmerman chased Martin down and tried to hold him until the cops arrived, and Martin fought back. This I think would justify murder-2.

    The jury can't pass a verdict on manslaughter unless he's charged with it. they're probably hoping to get him to plee down to manslaughter so the PD and the state can save some face and avoid a long drawn out trial.

    "Lesser charge." Many states, perhaps all, allow someone to be charged with a lesser offense if and only if they are first found not guilty of a greater offense (in a single trial, that is, not a subsequent trial). So the jury can be charged to render a verdict on 2nd degree murder, and if it's not guilty, then render a verdict on manslaughter.

    Sicarii wrote: »
    You know, I've listened to that audio a multitude of times now

    and I still have no idea what he's saying.

    That's ok, I can clear it up for you. He says "punks." That's a non-issue at this point.

    It's worth noting the prosecutors agree it's "punks."

    Because it obviously is.

    Yar on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I can't help but feel this whole arrest and trial is to pacify the racial unrest surrounding the case and it will be thrown out on Self Defense charges down the line unless new evidence comes forward. It would be easy to prove with medical records if Zimmerman suffered multiple head injuries and would back the self defense angle. Unless new evidence comes forward it should be easy to argue the self defense unless the ER doc comes forward and says he didn't suffer any contusion.

    Well, no way a judge throws it out pre-trial, for the same reason.

    But yes, I suspect this may be the case.

    Prosecutors want to win so they can be elected to higher office.

    It's pretty likely they've got the medical reports and they say what the people skeptical of Zimmerman from the beginning would expect them to say.

    Maybe. Have you considered the possibility that the first prosecutor had some grasp of Zimmerman's injuries, and that this played into the decision not to charge? Because they honestly thought they couldn't win?

    PantsB wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    ...

    Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish.

    And acting like they require the same level of evidence is foolish.

    ...

    Shaking your head and acting like both sides have some kind of equality in burden of proof is craven.

    Went ahead and cut out a lot of crap in the middle, because you missed the big picture. You are absolutely correct, both sides don't have some kind of equality in burden. The burden on the prosecutor is much, much higher. While it might seem initially that the unlawfulness of Zimmerman's actions would be easier to prove than the alleged attack against him, for the various reasons you state (which I do not dispute), the prosecution has to prove it "harder." Beyond reasonable doubt. Zimmerman has no such burden.

    Because of this, I think the two claims might be more equivalent than you might think. The claims are not, no their face, equally plausible. But one has a higher standard of evidence than the other because of how our criminal justice system works.

    Might want to consider that I'm being pragmatic rather than craven. Which is why I'll probably be a lot less disappointed if/when Zimmerman is acquitted. And/or receives no jail time beyond time served.

    And of course you still need probable cause for an arrest, but it would seem as though this particular statute requires something more than ordinary probable cause. Ordinarily a dead body and a fired gun would be enough to arrest the person who was in control of both however it appears under the Florida statute this is not the case.

    Actually it sounds like the original prosecutor just wanted a "slam dunk" before pressing charges. It's not unlikely that probable cause was met that night. But when in doubt, it seems letting him go looks better come election time than charging and losing. At least before the twitternets got ahold of it, which was not a given at the time.

    mcdermott on
  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Yar wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    You know, I've listened to that audio a multitude of times now

    and I still have no idea what he's saying.

    That's ok, I can clear it up for you. He says "punks." That's a non-issue at this point.

    Well thank god you're here.

    Hey before you go, few more questions

    What's the secret to enlightenment?

    When will we elect a female president?

    What are the winning lottery numbers tonight?


    Thanks for clearing up quandaries like this bro.

    Sicarii on
  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    Urcbub wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Of course, if he followed with the intent to do GBH why the hell would he have called the cops?

    Or is this an element of The Perfect Crime(TM)? ;)

    Because leaving a dead body on the street is not a smart move. Nor is taking the risk that other residents (who probably know who he is) might have seen him load a body in his car and drive away.

    Calling the cops and claiming self defense is the smart move.

    Only he didn't call the cops after he shot Martin, he called them before, and he had no idea when they would show up. For him to be making that call while intending to kill Martin, and claim self defense seems to be a little far fetched to me. As mcdermott said Zimmerman could have tried to set up "the perfect crime," but that seems unlikely.

    Zimmerman was initially on the phone with 911 giving updates on Martin's location, while asking for the police to come. This leads me to believe that he intended for the police to show up, and confront Martin.

    At some point he came to the realization that the police where not "right around the corner," and that by the time they showed up Martin would not be around.

    Jump ahead to when they meet up, and using Martin's girlfriend's account of what she heard.
    Martin says, "Why are you following me?."
    Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"
    At this point can you infer that he intends to do GBH to Martin? Maybe he was hoping for a confession. Maybe he wanted the "criminal" to know that the neighborhood was being watched, and it would be difficult to rob. Maybe he was trying to delay until the cops showed up. Since Martin spoke first Zimmerman may never had intended to do more that follow and intimidate him.

    For Zimmerman to intend to provoke a fight, so that he could justify shooting him seems to be a stretch. Even if this was true, how would you prove it? Since he called for the police to come, and had reason to believe that they could show up at any time, isn't it more reasonable to assume that he did not intend to get in a fight?

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    I also want to point out the false equivalency here on whom we believe.

    As far as I can tell, no one is trying to claim that Zimmerman is obviously telling the truth and obviously innocent.

    There are a lot of people claiming that he is obviously a liar, obviously a racist, and definitely committed cold-blooded murder.

    And to them, I am only suggesting doubt. I am suggesting that they have read more into the facts than was there. That they have jumped to unsubstantiatied conclusions, and in particular that they have been misled by a highly unethical media blitz. That there are a lot of possibilities, even probabilities, that don't exactly fit the story of the shot-in-the-back hate crime.

    So there is no need to ask me why I believe Zimmerman so much, or want to defend him so much. I don't. There's no need to ask me if I can prove my claims. I'm just pointing out an irrational lack of skepticism about what you want to believe.

    The only thing I'm certain of is that he said punks, not the other word that the media tricked you into hearing. The rest of it, I don't know, I'm just saying that there are a lot of possibilities.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Yes, there is a reasonableness test (and the reasonableness test differs from the California test in a way that I find significant) but there is no proportionality requirement. In California, you cant shoot someone if youre having a fist fight because that would be disproportionate even if you think there is a likelihood that the person swinging at you is trying to kill you, you have to wait until the threat of death is imminent (so if youre fighting, no shooting, but if the other person is on top of you and pounding on you, fire away). As for the reasonableness test, in California its what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. The jury needs to decide first what a reasonable person would do and then whether the defendant deviated from that standard. This is going to be fact specific and vary widely from jury to jury. In Florida the reasonableness test is whether it is reasonable that the defendant felt threatened, a test that is much easier to pass (because if he shot the person he probably felt threatened, otherwise youre not even considering self defense).

    I disagree that the use of a firearm alone is significant evidence that the accused felt threatened, and I'd hope a jury wouldn't be that dumb.

    Personally, I prefer (at least as you're describing it) the Florida standard. I'm less concerned with "what would a reasonable person have done in that situation" and more concerned with "would a reasonable person feel threatened with great bodily harm in that situation, and would a reasonable person feel deadly force was necessary to end it." In theory it's the same damn question (assuming a "reasonable person" values their life) however I'd wager that you'd get different answers in many cases to the latter than the former.

    The Florida standard (at least as you're describing it) is just as fact-specific, however by looking at much more focused questions (based on the statute) you filter out some of the tendency of "reasonable people" to let themselves get fucked up before resorting to deadly force, even when the law would have supported it. People have a hard time understanding that "reasonableness" is different when you're already in an unreasonable situation, which is what a violent assault is.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    You know, I've listened to that audio a multitude of times now

    and I still have no idea what he's saying.

    That's ok, I can clear it up for you. He says "punks." That's a non-issue at this point.

    Well thank god you're here.

    Hey before you go, few more questions

    What's the secret to enlightenment?

    When will we elect a female president?

    What are the winning lottery numbers tonight?


    Thanks for clearing up quandaries like this bro.

    Hold on, let me hit the "enhance" button. I'll be right back to you.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Shado red wrote: »
    Urcbub wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Of course, if he followed with the intent to do GBH why the hell would he have called the cops?

    Or is this an element of The Perfect Crime(TM)? ;)

    Because leaving a dead body on the street is not a smart move. Nor is taking the risk that other residents (who probably know who he is) might have seen him load a body in his car and drive away.

    Calling the cops and claiming self defense is the smart move.

    Only he didn't call the cops after he shot Martin, he called them before, and he had no idea when they would show up. For him to be making that call while intending to kill Martin, and claim self defense seems to be a little far fetched to me. As mcdermott said Zimmerman could have tried to set up "the perfect crime," but that seems unlikely.

    Zimmerman was initially on the phone with 911 giving updates on Martin's location, while asking for the police to come. This leads me to believe that he intended for the police to show up, and confront Martin.

    At some point he came to the realization that the police where not "right around the corner," and that by the time they showed up Martin would not be around.

    Jump ahead to when they meet up, and using Martin's girlfriend's account of what she heard.
    Martin says, "Why are you following me?."
    Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"
    At this point can you infer that he intends to do GBH to Martin? Maybe he was hoping for a confession. Maybe he wanted the "criminal" to know that the neighborhood was being watched, and it would be difficult to rob. Maybe he was trying to delay until the cops showed up. Since Martin spoke first Zimmerman may never had intended to do more that follow and intimidate him.

    For Zimmerman to intend to provoke a fight, so that he could justify shooting him seems to be a stretch. Even if this was true, how would you prove it? Since he called for the police to come, and had reason to believe that they could show up at any time, isn't it more reasonable to assume that he did not intend to get in a fight?

    Yeah, it seems like the cops showing up just as he was holding the guy down and shooting him repeatedly in the face would really screw up that whole "perfect crime" thing.

    Calling the cops after would have been much more effective.

This discussion has been closed.