Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

I was asking for someone with knowledge of Florida Law to tell me if my hypothetical is a valid self defense claim. That's all there is to it. If you need even more info added to the hypothetical, please ask. I'm not the expert, I have no idea how much info I need it to have.

You've gotten a lot of your questions answered with good facts.

If they aren't the answers you wanted to hear, that isn't because people aren't telling you correctly.

 

[Cylinder]

He may be innocent until proven guilty, but when he claims "self defense" the burden of proof shifts onto him to support that claim.

The burden of proof remains on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim is untrue or unlawful.

 

[sgtbaker]

I'm not a trained police officer either, but you don't have to be one to understand that if you are following someone you think is in the process of committing a crime, that person may not like you following them. That person may in fact think of your pursuit as a threat to their freedom. Basic common sense dictates you not (unless it's your job) do that. Seeing as Zimmerman had a real interest in doing police type work, it is not a stretch to think he'd be aware of such things.

So is this the no true watchman argument? What you would do does not automatically mean that it's the only logical thing to do. Again *possible speculation* perhaps, he followed because the 911 dispatcher says, "let me know if he does anything else," and then stopped following when the dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that." The way he so readily said, "yes," suggests that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

 

[crimresearch]

The simple, uncontested fact that seems to be ignored is that an armed man pursued, confronted, shot, and killed an innocent, unarmed man. Zimmerman is known to have initiated the confrontation. He clearly said on the recorded phone call that he was pursuing Martin. It's one thing to defend oneself if one were simply attacked on the street or on one's own property, but in what kind of messed-up legal system would it be OK to follow somebody down a street at night for no demonstrable reason, chase him down, confront and shoot him when he fights back?

As for his story that he broke off the chase and Treyvon Martin attacked him afterward, that's a case that Zimmerman needs to prove because the known facts certainly don't support that version of events. He may be innocent until proven guilty, but when he claims "self defense" the burden of proof shifts onto him to support that claim.

The facts as we know them would clearly support a case of improper defense resulting in death: in other words voluntary manslaughter, or at least involuntary manslaughter if he could somehow prove that there was a struggle for the weapon.

The fact that people aren't claiming the psychic powers to know every detail of what happened, doesn't mean they are ignoring the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin

And as pointed out dozens upon dozens of times, there is no such law allowing people to chase unarmed people down and kill them.

The claim that innocent until proven guilty goes away, and the burden of proving innocence shifts to the defendant, has also been debunked over, and over.

And that last bit of pseudo legalese does not logically follow from any available facts.

 

[leftysergeant]

But it's OK for you to claim that he was a normal person who would get "a greater sense of accountability and responsibility" by CC??

Z aint normal. He has a record of deferred prosecution for domestic violence. He has manhood issues. That and a gun don't mix nicely.

 

[leftysergeant]

OK they are the exact same age, 25. They are identical twins. They are the exact same strength. The recent actions and statements indicating intentions are: They were inside the bar and a girl likes both of them so they get into a fight over her.



So, in that case would it be at all possible that it is a justified, self defense, case in Florida or in another state if you so desire.

No. An aggressor has the responsibility to try to withdraw.

 

[Moss]

Z aint normal. He has a record of deferred prosecution for domestic violence. He has manhood issues. That and a gun don't mix nicely.

I have honestly no idea what you mean by that.

 

[Kestrel]

As for his story that he broke off the chase and Treyvon Martin attacked him afterward, that's a case that Zimmerman needs to prove because the known facts certainly don't support that version of events. He may be innocent until proven guilty, but when he claims "self defense" the burden of proof shifts onto him to support that claim.

The problem is that Florida law explicitly reversed the traditional burden of proof in self defense cases.

The pistol packing guy with a history of anger management problems is assumed to be a defenseless victim. The teenager without a violent history is assumed to have violently assaulted the pistol packer to the point where his only option was deadly force. Unless the state can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman will walk. And in a further insult to Trayvon Martin's family, Zimmerman will also be immune from any civil lawsuit.

 

[Moss]

One thing I happen to wonder about: does trying to keep someone from their gun look like going for their gun for that someone?

 

[curi0us]

I'm not a trained police officer either, but you don't have to be one to understand that if you are following someone you think is in the process of committing a crime, that person may not like you following them. That person may in fact think of your pursuit as a threat to their freedom. Basic common sense dictates you not (unless it's your job) do that.

IMO that's not common sense, just cowardice.

Say you hear someone being attacked and screaming for help . . .

 

[curi0us]

No. An aggressor has the responsibility to try to withdraw.

So if Zimmermen was screaming for help (for over a minute) while Martin was beating him up who is the aggressor?

 

[Chris L]

IMO that's not common sense, just cowardice.

Say you hear someone being attacked and screaming for help . . .

That's different, as there is a third party who needs to be saved. If there is no immediate danger to anyone, waiting for the police is the common sense thing to do.

 

[Dan O.]

I was asking for someone with knowledge of Florida Law to tell me if my hypothetical is a valid self defense claim.

There could be a valid claim made in your scenario. The claim is dependant on what boils down to a resonable fear of death, great bodily harm or forcible felony and clean hands - sprikled with caveats.

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.

So, where is the requirement for "clean hands" in the above statute?

 

[leftysergeant]

So if Zimmermen was screaming for help (for over a minute) while Martin was beating him up who is the aggressor?

Z. He looks like a banger and might be calling for his homies to come get the black dude off of him. Had he asked martin to please stop and kept his hands away from the weapon, Martin would have been wrong to hit him again once he got the weapon away from the dirtbag who had been stalking him.

 

[Cylinder]

So, where is the requirement for "clean hands" in the above statute?

...defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

Sub(1) expands - but is still predicated on - the main body of the statute.

 

[Cylinder]

He looks like a banger and might be calling for his homies to come get the black dude off of him.

Is that the only non-blacks can be racist theory of the crime?

 

[Chris L]

So is this the no true watchman argument? What you would do does not automatically mean that it's the only logical thing to do. Again *possible speculation* perhaps, he followed because the 911 dispatcher says, "let me know if he does anything else," and then stopped following when the dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that." The way he so readily said, "yes," suggests that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

No, this is the no true person with the common sense evolution gave them argument. People don't like to be followed. People doing something wrong REALLY don't like to be followed. If you are following someone you think is doing something wrong, you can expect that person not to take it very well. If you are following someone you think is doing something wrong, and you are carrying a gun, you can expect it will be needed. An armed man was pursuing someone he thought of as a "suspect" and ended up killing him. IMO, that makes the armed man responsible for what happened.

 

[sgtbaker]

No, this is the no true person with the common sense evolution gave them argument. People don't like to be followed. People doing something wrong REALLY don't like to be followed. If you are following someone you think is doing something wrong, you can expect that person not to take it very well. If you are following someone you think is doing something wrong, and you are carrying a gun, you can expect it will be needed. An armed man was pursuing someone he thought of as a "suspect" and ended up killing him. IMO, that makes the armed man responsible for what happened.

So if you follow someone and don't accurately predict their response, no matter what, you are resonsible?

 

[Chris L]

So if you follow someone and don't accurately predict their response, no matter what, you are resonsible?

If you follow someone you think is a criminal, and expect such a person to not react, you are being criminally stupid, yes.

 

[curi0us]

Z. He looks like a banger and might be calling for his homies to come get the black dude off of him.

In the context of this discussion that almost reads like satire.

What makes Z look like a banger?

Had he asked martin to please stop and kept his hands away from the weapon, Martin would have been wrong to hit him again once he got the weapon away from the dirtbag who had been stalking him.

So in your interpretation if Martin is beating Z then Z can't yell for help because that is what gang bangers do when they call their homies to beat up black dudes. But if Z had just said "please stop" then Martin would have stopped?!