|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2012 : 09:20:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
A bit late to this party, aren't we OFfC?
Martin's injuries were not really listed as the major one was enough to take his life.
The point here is that Zimmerman persued a retreating Martin until Martin was no longer willing to retreat whereby, most likely, Martin defended himself. Zimmerman took the opportunity to shoot him after Zimmerman started losing the physical confrontation.
Remember, Martin had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground as well.
|
I find it weird his injuries aren't listed. If Zimmerman has a broken nose and lacerations on his head, and Martin is unmarked (besides gunshot wound), it's consistent with Zimmerman being attacked and helpless, and his claim that there was a struggle for the gun could be true.
If someone is following you, sure it's weird, but it doesn't justify attacking them and beating them while they lay prone on the ground, if that is indeed what happened (seems like a possibility to me given the available evidence). The claims from Martin's family that the recording of someone screaming for help was Martin's voice seems a bit far fetched given he seemed to have had the upper hand.
no one knows for sure what happened besides Zimmerman.
IF his version of events is accurate, then yes he made mistakes preceding the shooting, but those mistakes did not warrant him being jumped, beaten into the ground and having his life threatened. For me if his story is true, then clearly it was an avoidable situation, and if he was less prejudiced maybe it would not have occured, however
the violence was initiated by Martin, and he brutally attacked Zimmerman and threatened his life merely because he was being followed.
If the above course of events is accurate then I would say it was justified self defense. You can't attack someone and threaten their life just for profiling you.
But no one knows if his story is true, a complete lie or somewhere in between. So we need to be more objective. It's plausible to me that it happened the way he described. I wouldn't say it's likely, but I'm not arrogant enough to declare his guilt or innocence based on such open ended evidence.
|
 |
 |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 12:06:46 [Permalink]
|
| Zimmerman is a proved liar. At least with his bond hearing and that right there speaks to his ability to tell the truth in court when he has something to gain. There are inconsistencies in his telling for anyone who cares to pay attention and the jurors with be presented with them when it gets to that. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 14:01:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
...however the violence was initiated by Martin, and he brutally attacked Zimmerman and threatened his life merely because he was being followed...
...You can't attack someone and threaten their life just for profiling you. |
"Merely" and "just" are interesting words, there, and are evidence of a clear bias. You're clearly refusing to step into Martin's shoes even to hypothetically consider his situation, and dismissing out-of-hand the reasonable idea that Zimmerman may have been perceived as a deadly threat.| So we need to be more objective. |
Indeed. The below quote, for example, is a refusal to be objective:| If someone is following you, sure it's weird, but it doesn't justify attacking them and beating them while they lay prone on the ground... |
How do you know it wasn't justified?
Here's a hypothetical for you: say that Martin was afraid for his life, and decided that the only way to end the apparent hostilities of Zimmerman was to confront him physically. Martin started a fight to try to get Zimmerman to back off, but maybe Martin saw Zimmerman's weapon before Zimmerman thinks Martin saw it. At that point in time, Martin might have thought that he either needed to get control of the gun or he needed to incapacitate Zimmerman before Zimmerman could draw the gun, and maybe that's why the head-bashing began: as a totally justifiable standing of Martin's ground.
Remember, Florida's SYG law doesn't require a person to have been on the defensive at all times. Nor does it require a person to make rational or correct decisions. There is no requirement for the threat to be either real or objectively reasonable. If you feel like you're facing a deadly threat, that's good enough for the law to be on your side.
We will never know what Martin felt or thought during the conflict, because he is dead and unable to testify. But we don't actually need to know - hypothesizing is enough - to determine that the implication that his attack on Zimmerman couldn't possibly have been justified is complete hogwash.
Edited to add that it should be noted that my hypothetical doesn't in any way rely on Zimmerman being a liar, only mistaken about the point in time at which Martin became aware that Zimmerman had a gun. The ideas that Zimmerman was psychic or has a video-tape-like memory of events are, of course, ridiculous. Him being possibly mistaken about when Martin "saw" something should be assumed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 21:32:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
...however the violence was initiated by Martin, and he brutally attacked Zimmerman and threatened his life merely because he was being followed...
...You can't attack someone and threaten their life just for profiling you. |
"Merely" and "just" are interesting words, there, and are evidence of a clear bias. You're clearly refusing to step into Martin's shoes even to hypothetically consider his situation, and dismissing out-of-hand the reasonable idea that Zimmerman may have been perceived as a deadly threat. |
Do you suppose being followed or being profiled is sufficient reason? It's plenty objective to suppose that those things in isolation aren't enough to justify force. Now it may be biased to suppose with certainty there was nothing more. However, at least one part of OffC's quoted argument was predicated on Zimmerman's story being true, except it was quoted out:
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
If the above course of events is accurate then I would say it was justified self defense. You can't attack someone and threaten their life just for profiling you. |
Now on the other one, I'm not sure if he meant to express certainty with respect to Martin initiating the force, he can answer that, but it seemed to me he thought that was the sensible but unproven conclusion since Zimmerman seemed to be injured first.
| Here's a hypothetical for you: say that Martin was afraid for his life, and decided that the only way to end the apparent hostilities of Zimmerman was to confront him physically. Martin started a fight to try to get Zimmerman to back off, but maybe Martin saw Zimmerman's weapon before Zimmerman thinks Martin saw it. At that point in time, Martin might have thought that he either needed to get control of the gun or he needed to incapacitate Zimmerman before Zimmerman could draw the gun, and maybe that's why the head-bashing began: as a totally justifiable standing of Martin's ground. |
Someone having a legal gun (not pulled) isn't enough to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.
| Remember, Florida's SYG law doesn't require a person to have been on the defensive at all times. Nor does it require a person to make rational or correct decisions. There is no requirement for the threat to be either real or objectively reasonable. If you feel like you're facing a deadly threat, that's good enough for the law to be on your side. |
What? Isn't it written all over the law that it has to be a reasonable fear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Florida
776.013 (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. |
Zimmerman has the right to be on the sidewalk, and as far as I know his gun was legal. And, if Martin was the first to attack, then Zimmerman surely could have had a reasonable fear.
From the other end, Martin has the right to be on the sidewalk and isn't engaging in unlawful activity. But he does need force from the other party to meet and he needs to be reasonably fearful for death or great bodily harm, so Zimmerman would have needed to pull the gun or attack Martin first for it to apply to Martin. If that's the case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove this (beyond reasonable doubt I think), which I think would be hard to do.
I don't know what the necessary conditions for stalking or unlawfully following someone is, but if that could be proven, SYG would no longer apply because Zimmerman wouldn't fit the premise.
Now there is another part in the law about use of deadly force by the aggressor:
776.041: The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(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. |
If one provokes the initial force, SYG only applies if (a) or (b). Martin couldn't have provoked great force in the beginning here because Martin's only known damage was the fatal shot, and so you couldn't say Martin provoked force and in response attacked back with a reasonable fear damaging Zimmerman's head, and then was shot without some evidence of Zimmerman using force a first time, and following Martin isn't force since there's a right to be there mentioned above and there's a right to carry a gun given the proper paperwork and approval.
Now I think (b) could apply if the initiation is Martin attacking Zimmerman and then trying to withdraw and clearly indicating it to Zimmerman this is what he was doing. I suspect some analysis of the angle of the gunshot could be VERY helpful here, to see if Zimmerman shot from very close while they were on the ground together, shot Martin on the ground while standing, or Martin got up and was shot then.
Edit: I think we know from the autopsy the shot was from 1 to 18 inches away, not sure about the angle.
| We will never know what Martin felt or thought during the conflict, because he is dead and unable to testify. But we don't actually need to know - hypothesizing is enough - to determine that the implication that his attack on Zimmerman couldn't possibly have been justified is complete hogwash. |
Unless I've misinterpreted and there's some separate statute saying the fear doesn't need to be reasonable, I fail to see why it matters when he saw the gun assuming it wasn't pulled.
Anywhere above that is bold is subject to new information or a qualification of the coming statement.
Edited to fix formatting of quotes of the law. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 07/19/2012 21:36:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 07:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Do you suppose being followed or being profiled is sufficient reason? It's plenty objective to suppose that those things in isolation aren't enough to justify force. Now it may be biased to suppose with certainty there was nothing more. |
Insisting that Martin was acting on Zimmerman's following him "in isolation" of all other possibles factors or states of mind is what is biased, here. Nobody knows if Martin acted "merely" because Zimmerman was following him.
In the context of motivations, words like "merely" or "just because" are generally dismissive of other people's often-complex thought processes. I've been told, for example, that I'm an atheist "just because" I don't want to follow God's rules. Nobody should ever limit another person's motivators to one easy-to-dismiss factor without them having said, specifically, that that was, truly, their sole motivator.| Someone having a legal gun (not pulled) isn't enough to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. |
I think it's perfectly reasonable if when you started beating on the guy, you thought he was unarmed.| What? Isn't it written all over the law that it has to be a reasonable fear? |
My mistake in memory.| Zimmerman has the right to be on the sidewalk, and as far as I know his gun was legal. And, if Martin was the first to attack, then Zimmerman surely could have had a reasonable fear. |
I don't deny that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life, once he was attacked.| From the other end, Martin has the right to be on the sidewalk and isn't engaging in unlawful activity. But he does need force from the other party to meet... |
If Martin had to wait to be attacked before acting, I'm sure that Val would say that the law is unreasonable.| ...and he needs to be reasonably fearful for death or great bodily harm, so Zimmerman would have needed to pull the gun or attack Martin first for it to apply to Martin. |
Only if Martin's original attack was meant to be deadly.| I don't know what the necessary conditions for stalking or unlawfully following someone is, but if that could be proven, SYG would no longer apply because Zimmerman wouldn't fit the premise. |
It's irrelevant to my argument, anyway. My point is that we can construct a plausible hypothetical scenario in which Martin may have reasonably thought that Zimmerman represented a threat which needed to be countered, and Martin's discovery that Zimmerman was armed changed the scenario to one in which Martin could have justifiably believed that he was in imminent danger of losing his life. The point is that OFFC's implication that Martin's actions could not possibly be justified is dismissive and wrong.Now there is another part in the law about use of deadly force by the aggressor:
776.041: The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(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. |
If one provokes the initial force, SYG only applies if (a) or (b). Martin couldn't have provoked great force in the beginning here because Martin's only known damage was the fatal shot, and so you couldn't say Martin provoked force and in response attacked back with a reasonable fear damaging Zimmerman's head, and then was shot without some evidence of Zimmerman using force a first time, and following Martin isn't force since there's a right to be there mentioned above and there's a right to carry a gun given the proper paperwork and approval. |
Section (a) might apply if what Martin intended to be just a non-lethal fist-fight suddenly looked like it was about to become a gunfight. I'm thinking that Martin could have seen Zimmerman's gun as Zimmerman was going down, and that's what prompted the head-bashing. Don't think about this as if Martin could only ever have one motivation to act, and it only could have been formed before his initial attack.| Unless I've misinterpreted and there's some separate statute saying the fear doesn't need to be reasonable, I fail to see why it matters when he saw the gun assuming it wasn't pulled. |
If you were in a fist-fight with a stranger you thought to be unarmed, and discovered that he had a handgun, don't you think that would change your reasonable appraisal of the threat that he represents? Do people often carry concealed weapons with the intention to keep them holstered when attacked? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 13:44:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Do you suppose being followed or being profiled is sufficient reason? It's plenty objective to suppose that those things in isolation aren't enough to justify force. Now it may be biased to suppose with certainty there was nothing more. |
Insisting that Martin was acting on Zimmerman's following him "in isolation" of all other possibles factors or states of mind is what is biased, here. Nobody knows if Martin acted "merely" because Zimmerman was following him.
In the context of motivations, words like "merely" or "just because" are generally dismissive of other people's often-complex thought processes. I've been told, for example, that I'm an atheist "just because" I don't want to follow God's rules. Nobody should ever limit another person's motivators to one easy-to-dismiss factor without them having said, specifically, that that was, truly, their sole motivator. |
Again, that first comment was predicated on the sequence of events being true. You may have something on the second, I wasn't confident in how to parse that one.
| Someone having a legal gun (not pulled) isn't enough to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. |
I think it's perfectly reasonable if when you started beating on the guy, you thought he was unarmed. |
Well, section 776.041 says that if you're the aggressor, the stand your ground part doesn't apply unless one of those conditions (a) or (b) is satisfied, so we need to see how it fits with that.
| From the other end, Martin has the right to be on the sidewalk and isn't engaging in unlawful activity. But he does need force from the other party to meet... |
If Martin had to wait to be attacked before acting, I'm sure that Val would say that the law is unreasonable. |
Unreasonable or not, this is what it seems to say, but surely "meet force with force" is not very specific. I think the other party has to make an aggressive move, but I think this could be, say, charging at a person, cocking a fist, pulling a gun, but I don't think we have evidence of Zimmerman doing such a thing first nor him going for a gun
| I don't know what the necessary conditions for stalking or unlawfully following someone is, but if that could be proven, SYG would no longer apply because Zimmerman wouldn't fit the premise. |
It's irrelevant to my argument, anyway. My point is that we can construct a plausible hypothetical scenario in which Martin may have reasonably thought that Zimmerman represented a threat which needed to be countered, and Martin's discovery that Zimmerman was armed changed the scenario to one in which Martin could have justifiably believed that he was in imminent danger of losing his life. The point is that OFFC's implication that Martin's actions could not possibly be justified is dismissive and wrong. |
Well, I'm struggling to construct a scenario in which Martin was right with respect to SYG with the evidence we have. I've left room for Zimmerman pulling the gun first, Zimmerman stalking unlawfully, or Zimmerman somehow making an aggressive move, but the burden is on the prosecution to produce evidence of any of these things. It would be plausible that any of them could happen, and so the argument against OffC, if he's discounting those possibilities, stands on the second quote, but plausible isn't enough to decide the legal questions about Zimmerman.
| Section (a) might apply if what Martin intended to be just a non-lethal fist-fight suddenly looked like it was about to become a gunfight. I'm thinking that Martin could have seen Zimmerman's gun as Zimmerman was going down, and that's what prompted the head-bashing. Don't think about this as if Martin could only ever have one motivation to act, and it only could have been formed before his initial attack. |
I agree only if Martin saw Zimmerman going for the gun, not simply Martin seeing the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman has a right to carry his gun and Martin doesn't have a right to start a fight, even if it's merely intended to be a fist fight. I fear if this is the case, it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove as well.
| Unless I've misinterpreted and there's some separate statute saying the fear doesn't need to be reasonable, I fail to see why it matters when he saw the gun assuming it wasn't pulled. |
If you were in a fist-fight with a stranger you thought to be unarmed, and discovered that he had a handgun, don't you think that would change your reasonable appraisal of the threat that he represents? Do people often carry concealed weapons with the intention to keep them holstered when attacked?
|
In this scenario we assume Martin is the aggressor; therefore, Martin's reasonable fear is moot unless we can first show 776.041 applies. Now for this to hold, we need Zimmerman to use force
| so great that [Martin] reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm |
So, if we concede to Martin being the aggressor, we have to prove Zimmerman used force, and having a holstered gun is not force. We have to prove Zimmerman went for the gun (and I realize I'm dropping my prior standard from pulling the gun to trying to pull the gun, I spoke too strongly). Then, and only then, can we talk about Martin's reasonable fear. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 22:19:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Again, that first comment was predicated on the sequence of events being true. You may have something on the second, I wasn't confident in how to parse that one. |
No, both of the instances of dismissive language I'm referring to were predicated with "If the above course of events is accurate." But a mere retelling of the events does nothing to disclose Martin's state of mind, so nobody can say whether or not he attacked Zimmerman "merely" or "just because" he was being followed.| Well, I'm struggling to construct a scenario in which Martin was right with respect to SYG with the evidence we have. |
The evidence we have doesn't actually matter. Neither does SYG for the argument I'm making about the dismissive language. OffC clearly said Martin initiating an attack on Zimmerman couldn't be justified, full stop. I'm saying that plausible scenarios exist in which justification can be found if Martin's state-of-mind was something other than "some guy is merely following me," which wouldn't be out of the ordinary, and so counters the definitive implications in OffC's comments.
It's like creationists claiming that it's impossible for the bacterial flagellum to have evolved in step-wise fashion. All that's needed to rebut that claim is a plausible scenario in which such evolution could occur. One doesn't need evidence of an actual occurrence of such a thing to counter a claim of impossibility, plausibility will do just fine on its own. If something is plausible, then it's not impossible.| I've left room for Zimmerman pulling the gun first, Zimmerman stalking unlawfully, or Zimmerman somehow making an aggressive move, but the burden is on the prosecution to produce evidence of any of these things. It would be plausible that any of them could happen, and so the argument against OffC, if he's discounting those possibilities, stands on the second quote, but plausible isn't enough to decide the legal questions about Zimmerman. |
I'm not trying to decide any legal questions here, really. I know this isn't a court of law, and we are not lawyers.| I agree only if Martin saw Zimmerman going for the gun, not simply Martin seeing the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman has a right to carry his gun and Martin doesn't have a right to start a fight, even if it's merely intended to be a fist fight. I fear if this is the case, it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove as well. |
You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that after Martin started the fight, but before he started smashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, he found out about the gun.
After Martin started the fight, it would be a reasonable expectation on his part that Zimmerman would use a gun if he had one. He did.| So, if we concede to Martin being the aggressor, we have to prove Zimmerman used force, and having a holstered gun is not force. We have to prove Zimmerman went for the gun (and I realize I'm dropping my prior standard from pulling the gun to trying to pull the gun, I spoke too strongly). Then, and only then, can we talk about Martin's reasonable fear. |
Is Martin allowed to reasonably believe that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun? Or does there need to be some objective proof that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun?
Let's say Martin knocks Zimmerman to the ground, and as Z is falling, M sees the gun. Z makes some sort of motion that M interprets as reaching for the gun. Would Z be justified in thinking that M was about to use deadly force?
Let me ask this question generically: is it reasonable to think that a person who carries a concealed weapon will use it if attacked? If it's not reasonable to think so, then why does anyone get a permit to carry concealed? The reason I hear most often is "to protect myself." But if that's an unreasonable assumption during a fight, then it's an irrational premise upon which to get a permit in the first place.
But back to specifics, and to Z's credibility: This one line in Z's account is completely unbelievable to me: "As they fought, Zimmerman said, his jacket and shirt rose up, revealing his gun." I can give that claim no credibility at all, for two reasons: 1) during a fight, you're worried about your clothing? 2) if M was on top of him and punching him in the head at this time, how is it that M sees through his own leg and/or body to see the gun at all?
And how does all that punching in the face (resulting in two black eyes and a broken nose for Z) only leave "a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle" on M? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 23:08:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
This one line in Z's account is completely unbelievable to me: "As they fought, Zimmerman said, his jacket and shirt rose up, revealing his gun." I can give that claim no credibility at all, for two reasons: 1) during a fight, you're worried about your clothing? 2) if M was on top of him and punching him in the head at this time, how is it that M sees through his own leg and/or body to see the gun at all? |
I heard these guys were down on the ground, like in a grappling match. It can often happen that one guy will grabs another guy's shirt, and if the grabbed guy tries to pull away he can often get his own shirt pulled up over his head, arms pinned upward. It is an extremely vulnerable position. If Zimmerman was bested in such a manner and also felt that the gun was now visible and easily withing Travon's grasp, he may have panicked and drawn. Just the thought that Trayvon could grab his gun might have been enough for Zimmerman to feel exposed and in danger for his life.
If a scenario something like that were the case, I think what Dave is trying to say is that in that moment both men have a legal right to go for that gun. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/20/2012 23:11:18 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2012 : 19:33:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| I agree only if Martin saw Zimmerman going for the gun, not simply Martin seeing the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman has a right to carry his gun and Martin doesn't have a right to start a fight, even if it's merely intended to be a fist fight. I fear if this is the case, it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove as well. |
You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that after Martin started the fight, but before he started smashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, he found out about the gun. |
I do understand this, but if Martin started the fight, his reasonable fear doesn't necessarily justify banging the head on the ground unless we can show SYG applies to him at all in the part that covers aggressors. Now for it to apply, Zimmerman has to respond to Martin's force with force so great that Martin reasonably fears for his life or great bodily harm - to me, this could only happen at this stage if Zimmerman went for the gun. Therefore, we do need objective evidence of Zimmerman doing this.
| After Martin started the fight, it would be a reasonable expectation on his part that Zimmerman would use a gun if he had one. He did. |
No, I don't think it is reasonable in the legal sense. I think this can be reduced to the absurd. Suppose I pull my legal gun on someone. If they reach for their legal gun, I have a reasonable fear of great harm, so SYG now allows me to shoot them. That's not how it works.
| Is Martin allowed to reasonably believe that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun? Or does there need to be some objective proof that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun? |
We can't know if it was reasonable unless Zimmerman went for the gun because merely having the gun is not using force at all.
| Let's say Martin knocks Zimmerman to the ground, and as Z is falling, M sees the gun. Z makes some sort of motion that M interprets as reaching for the gun. Would Z be justified in thinking that M was about to use deadly force? |
Not sure here, if the motion reasonably looks like someone going for a gun, I suppose. But I think we do need evidence of that motion.
| Let me ask this question generically: is it reasonable to think that a person who carries a concealed weapon will use it if attacked? If it's not reasonable to think so, then why does anyone get a permit to carry concealed? The reason I hear most often is "to protect myself." But if that's an unreasonable assumption during a fight, then it's an irrational premise upon which to get a permit in the first place. |
This argument works, but I think you're using colloquial language where legal language is required. I really don't think it means to allow such provocation for an excuse to kill someone.
| But back to specifics, and to Z's credibility: This one line in Z's account is completely unbelievable to me: "As they fought, Zimmerman said, his jacket and shirt rose up, revealing his gun." I can give that claim no credibility at all, for two reasons: 1) during a fight, you're worried about your clothing? 2) if M was on top of him and punching him in the head at this time, how is it that M sees through his own leg and/or body to see the gun at all? |
1) You might be worried about the gun, and notice only because you realize the gun became visible. You would be thinking about your gun in the split second someone attacked you probably.
2) Seems like Zimmerman said it uncovered the gun, he doesn't seem to say he knew Martin saw it
| And how does all that punching in the face (resulting in two black eyes and a broken nose for Z) only leave "a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle" on M? |
I don't know how much damage to your knuckles would need to be done to do that damage to someone's face, or if the fact that you die immediately after makes a difference to how it looks, but it's a good question for the prosecutors to ask an expert witness. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2012 : 21:29:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I do understand this, but if Martin started the fight, his reasonable fear doesn't necessarily justify banging the head on the ground unless we can show SYG applies to him at all in the part that covers aggressors. Now for it to apply, Zimmerman has to respond to Martin's force with force so great that Martin reasonably fears for his life or great bodily harm - to me, this could only happen at this stage if Zimmerman went for the gun. Therefore, we do need objective evidence of Zimmerman doing this. |
Not to make an argument from plausibility, we don't. Is it plausible that Z made some motion that M could have reasonably interpreted as going for the gun?| No, I don't think it is reasonable in the legal sense. I think this can be reduced to the absurd. Suppose I pull my legal gun on someone. If they reach for their legal gun, I have a reasonable fear of great harm, so SYG now allows me to shoot them. That's not how it works. |
There aren't many situations in which you could legally pull your legal gun on someone unless SYG already applied to you. Carry concealed law in Florida states that you may not use your concealed weapon as a deterrent, for example. You pretty much have to already be in fear for your life before you can legally pull your legal gun on someone.| Is Martin allowed to reasonably believe that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun? Or does there need to be some objective proof that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun? |
We can't know if it was reasonable unless Zimmerman went for the gun because merely having the gun is not using force at all. |
No, I asked if M could justifiably think that some movement of Z's was "going for the gun" regardless of Z's actual intent. Can a reasonable belief be the result of a mistake?| Not sure here, if the motion reasonably looks like someone going for a gun, I suppose. But I think we do need evidence of that motion. |
No evidence needed if the question is plausibility. Could Z have made some motion that could have been reasonably interpreted by M as "he's going for his gun"?| This argument works, but I think you're using colloquial language where legal language is required. I really don't think it means to allow such provocation for an excuse to kill someone. |
Actually, some of the Florida law-makers who pushed to get SYG enacted specifically said that SYG shouldn't protect Zimmerman because he provoked Martin. Unfortunately, the law isn't written that way, and it allows people to start fights and then claim the person they picked on responded with deadly force as an excuse to shoot their victim.| 1) You might be worried about the gun, and notice only because you realize the gun became visible. |
I don't think people in Zimmerman's shoes would have realized the gun "became visible." It suggests, to me at least, an extremely high level of self-awareness and empathy. Or mind-reading. I think it more likely to be a post-hoc rationalization than an honest accounting of Z's state of mind while he was being attacked.| You would be thinking about your gun in the split second someone attacked you probably. |
So why not use it right away when SYG would protect you?| 2) Seems like Zimmerman said it uncovered the gun, he doesn't seem to say he knew Martin saw it |
You're right:As they fought, Zimmerman said, his jacket and shirt rose up, revealing his gun. Martin sat up at that point and said, ‘You’re going to die tonight,’” according to Zimmerman.
Martin then allegedly slid his hand down Zimmerman’s chest, so “I just pinched his arm and I grabbed my gun and I aimed it at him and fired one shot..." By the standards you've been arguing for, Mach, neither saying your opponent is going to die nor sliding a hand down someone's chest is a use of any deadly force at all, so SYG wouldn't save Z at that time. Or was Z's gun in a shoulder holster, and his jacket had ridden up to his armpits?!
Here's another completely hypothetical situation: in Florida, drunk man X attempts to pickpocket drunk man Y and is caught in this illegal act. Y responds by illegally punching X in the face, and a protracted fist-fight ensues in which, due to their drunkenness coupled with being businessmen without any sort of combat training, neither man can land solid blows on-target, so there's little risk of death to either one (and no intent to kill on either side, anyway, but neither knows that about his opponent). At one point, X and Y push against each other and they both fall back so that they are about 20 feet apart, and they both pause for a moment to rest and calculate their possible next moves. At this point, one of their drunken friends attempts to help by tossing his buddy a pistol without saying a word or sharing a glance, and due to his intoxication he misses such that the gun skitters to a halt exactly halfway between X and Y. Can either man grab the gun and shoot and claim SYG? Would it matter who takes the first step? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2012 : 21:21:33 [Permalink]
|
We're arguing past each other if you're arguing plausibility and I'm arguing legal prosecution.
Yes, it's plausible Martin could misinterpret a move from Zimmerman as going for the gun. I don't know if SYG can be applied by a misinterpretation, but I think it can if it's reasonable. I also don't think it's legally useful without evidence of some move misinterpreted as going for the gun.
| There aren't many situations in which you could legally pull your legal gun on someone unless SYG already applied to you. Carry concealed law in Florida states that you may not use your concealed weapon as a deterrent, for example. You pretty much have to already be in fear for your life before you can legally pull your legal gun on someone. |
That's not what I was arguing. I meant both are carrying their guns legally, and certainly the first one pulling the gun was not legal. But after that, I worded it incorrectly, let me have another go:
(1) I pull my gun on someone.
(2) If I see they possess a gun,
(3) SYG now allows me to shoot them.
I think everyone agrees this fails fully as an argument (we can argue this point if someone doesn't agree). But, I see the situation with our assumed scenario with Martin and Zimmerman is analogous if we're to accept your argument to which I was responding:
| After Martin started the fight, it would be a reasonable expectation on his part that Zimmerman would use a gun if he had one. He did. |
I think the following is equivalent with respect to SYG, and, therefore, fails:
(1) Martin attacks Zimmerman.
(2) If Martin sees Zimmerman possesses a gun,
(3) SYG now allows Martin to slam Zimmerman's head on the ground
| So why not use it right away when SYG would protect you? |
I don't suppose one would have the presence of mind to think through unfamiliar legal wording of SYG, but would be aware of immediate questions relevant to the result of the ensuing fight including the status of the gun.
| By the standards you've been arguing for, Mach, neither saying your opponent is going to die nor sliding a hand down someone's chest is a use of any deadly force at all, so SYG wouldn't save Z at that time. |
Most of that last argument had to do with whether the aggressor, assumed to be Martin for starting what was intended to be a fist fight, would be protected by SYG. There are more stringent standards for aggressors (776.041 (2) (a)):
1. they have to retreat if possible -- this is likely irrelevant here because it probably wasn't possible
2. they can use lethal force only if there's force returned by the victim that is great enough to cause reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself
And I don't think merely possessing the firearm is force, which is why I argue the need to show some great force, or maybe reduced to a move misinterpreted as great force, but some sort of move nonetheless.
With the victim of an initial attack (again, assuming the fist fight was started by Martin), we can go straight to 776.013 (3), where there's no duty to retreat, the deadly force can be used "if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
I mean to highlight there's more to show if SYG is to apply to an aggressor, and less leeway on the reasonable belief. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 07/24/2012 21:24:15 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 05:53:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
We're arguing past each other if you're arguing plausibility and I'm arguing legal prosecution.
Yes, it's plausible Martin could misinterpret a move from Zimmerman as going for the gun. I don't know if SYG can be applied by a misinterpretation, but I think it can if it's reasonable. I also don't think it's legally useful without evidence of some move misinterpreted as going for the gun.
| There aren't many situations in which you could legally pull your legal gun on someone unless SYG already applied to you. Carry concealed law in Florida states that you may not use your concealed weapon as a deterrent, for example. You pretty much have to already be in fear for your life before you can legally pull your legal gun on someone. |
That's not what I was arguing. I meant both are carrying their guns legally, and certainly the first one pulling the gun was not legal. But after that, I worded it incorrectly, let me have another go:
(1) I pull my gun on someone.
(2) If I see they possess a gun,
(3) SYG now allows me to shoot them.
I think everyone agrees this fails fully as an argument (we can argue this point if someone doesn't agree). But, I see the situation with our assumed scenario with Martin and Zimmerman is analogous if we're to accept your argument to which I was responding:
| After Martin started the fight, it would be a reasonable expectation on his part that Zimmerman would use a gun if he had one. He did. |
I think the following is equivalent with respect to SYG, and, therefore, fails:
(1) Martin attacks Zimmerman.
(2) If Martin sees Zimmerman possesses a gun,
(3) SYG now allows Martin to slam Zimmerman's head on the ground
| So why not use it right away when SYG would protect you? |
I don't suppose one would have the presence of mind to think through unfamiliar legal wording of SYG, but would be aware of immediate questions relevant to the result of the ensuing fight including the status of the gun.
| By the standards you've been arguing for, Mach, neither saying your opponent is going to die nor sliding a hand down someone's chest is a use of any deadly force at all, so SYG wouldn't save Z at that time. |
Most of that last argument had to do with whether the aggressor, assumed to be Martin for starting what was intended to be a fist fight, would be protected by SYG. There are more stringent standards for aggressors (776.041 (2) (a)):
1. they have to retreat if possible -- this is likely irrelevant here because it probably wasn't possible
2. they can use lethal force only if there's force returned by the victim that is great enough to cause reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself
And I don't think merely possessing the firearm is force, which is why I argue the need to show some great force, or maybe reduced to a move misinterpreted as great force, but some sort of move nonetheless.
With the victim of an initial attack (again, assuming the fist fight was started by Martin), we can go straight to 776.013 (3), where there's no duty to retreat, the deadly force can be used "if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
I mean to highlight there's more to show if SYG is to apply to an aggressor, and less leeway on the reasonable belief.
|
How about this scenario
1) Martin notices Zimmerman following him in a car
2) Martin actively retreats from Zimmerman
3) Zimmerman, against police suggestion, exits his vehicle and persues Martin on foot because Martin has retreated in novel ways in an attempt to get Zimmerman to stop persuing him
4) Zimmerman confronts Martin
5) Martin ignores Zimmerman's verbal command to stop and talk
6) Zimmerman grabs the shoulder of Martin to gain his attention
7) Martin, being from a bad neighborhood, interprets this as an attack upon his person and begins defending himself
8) Martin is winning
9) Bang!
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 06:26:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
How about this scenario
1) Martin notices Zimmerman following him in a car
2) Martin actively retreats from Zimmerman
3) Zimmerman, against police suggestion, exits his vehicle and persues Martin on foot because Martin has retreated in novel ways in an attempt to get Zimmerman to stop persuing him
4) Zimmerman confronts Martin
5) Martin ignores Zimmerman's verbal command to stop and talk
6) Zimmerman grabs the shoulder of Martin to gain his attention
7) Martin, being from a bad neighborhood, interprets this as an attack upon his person and begins defending himself
8) Martin is winning
9) Bang!
|
Reads like Martin would have been justified by SYG, while Zimmerman should have SIC. I just wonder how much bigger Zimmerman's stones felt knowing that he had a gun on his hip. Does he follow police advice without it? Does he stay in car? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 09:16:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
We're arguing past each other if you're arguing plausibility and I'm arguing legal prosecution. |
I've been saying that I've been arguing about plausibility for several comments, now.| Yes, it's plausible Martin could misinterpret a move from Zimmerman as going for the gun. I don't know if SYG can be applied by a misinterpretation, but I think it can if it's reasonable. I also don't think it's legally useful without evidence of some move misinterpreted as going for the gun. |
Considering that the victims tend to not be able to testify and there's rarely video to confirm or refute the shooter's testimony, asking for evidence to confirm a misinterpretation is asking far too much. "I thought he was going to attack me" is enough to invoke SYG, so long as it seems reasonable in the absence of disconfirming evidence.
So the question was really, if Martin had won the fight (whether it was by killing Zimmerman or not), could he have said, "I thought he was going for the gun I didn't at first know he had," and thus invoked the SYG section on aggressors? And I'm actually thinking now that the section on retreating would disqualify such a claim, instead. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2012 : 12:58:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
We're arguing past each other if you're arguing plausibility and I'm arguing legal prosecution. |
I've been saying that I've been arguing about plausibility for several comments, now. |
Then I don't get the point of the discussion of SYG, I don't understand how plausibility matters when determining if SYG applies. It matters for arguing about OffC's comments I suppose, where we started, but for SYG, it doesn't seem to matter.
| Yes, it's plausible Martin could misinterpret a move from Zimmerman as going for the gun. I don't know if SYG can be applied by a misinterpretation, but I think it can if it's reasonable. I also don't think it's legally useful without evidence of some move misinterpreted as going for the gun. |
Considering that the victims tend to not be able to testify and there's rarely video to confirm or refute the shooter's testimony, asking for evidence to confirm a misinterpretation is asking far too much. "I thought he was going to attack me" is enough to invoke SYG, so long as it seems reasonable in the absence of disconfirming evidence. |
I still don't think this is the case. If you're the aggressor, I think you've put yourself into the unenviable position of needing to show this. Otherwise, provocation is just too easy, analogous to X pulling a gun on Y, X claiming he thought Y was going for his gun (without evidence), and so X being protected in shooting Y. (Now we default to taking X's word that Y made a move.)
It seems to me you're making no meaningful distinction between aggressor and non-aggressor in determining when to apply SYG here.
And, of course requiring evidence of a move doesn't imply only a shooting victim could testify to confirm the shooter's (possibly misinterpreted) move. There could be a witness saying the shooter reached somewhere, some inconsistency can be found in the shooter's story, forensic evidence could contradict the story, and the like. Any of these things would be more useful than shooting victim testimony as far as I'm concerned.
| So the question was really, if Martin had won the fight (whether it was by killing Zimmerman or not), could he have said, "I thought he was going for the gun I didn't at first know he had," and thus invoked the SYG section on aggressors? And I'm actually thinking now that the section on retreating would disqualify such a claim, instead. |
You think SYG could be disqualified for Martin for not retreating? I don't think so because this question comes into play only after it's shown Martin is an aggressor and probably ended up on the ground in a scuffle with Zimmerman, at which point I don't think Martin could retreat. I think the other part of the sufficiency would need to be shown by Martin's defense, however, and wouldn't be defaulted to on his word. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unarmed Trayvon Martin gunned down
