Trayvon Martin case

[Spider-Dan]

And why is running away such a ridiculous idea?

The source of conflict (in that scenario) is that Zimmerman is preventing him from leaving; that is to say, if Martin could freely leave, there would be no conflict.

Of course, this presumes that Zimmerman was trying to physically detain Martin.  But that's the point: if the altercation was started by Zimmerman trying to physically detain Martin, that effectively takes "run away" off of the table as a realistic option, since Martin would have been trying to leave from the start.

Furthermore, given the prominence of Stand Your Ground in this case, saying that Martin should have simply run away from a person assaulting him is incredibly disingenuous.  That literally runs counter to the point of the law's existence.

[Spider-Dan]

In order to use stand your ground as a defense you need to be in immediate fear for your own life or grave injury.

I'm not specifically talking about SYG in this instance; if Zimmerman was truly on the ground under Martin, SYG doesn't even apply (as Zimmerman had no ability to run) and it's standard self-defense.

Do you believe that self-defense applies to a person who starts the fight if they are in fear of grave injury?  Because getting your ass kicked in a fight certainly feels like the threat of grave injury, particularly since you have no idea when the other person will stop fighting until they actually stop.

I do indeed feel you have the right to use deadly force at any moment your own life or the life of someone else is in danger. It is a slipperly slope if you started the altercation. The key is there is a huge difference between an ass kicking and fear of your life.

I submit that it is impossible to tell the difference between the two in the middle of a fight if you are the one losing.

If I as a ninja tried to take your weapon to use against you, then yes I feel you could use it in that case.

I don't see why it should make a difference (from your perspective).  From Zimmerman's perspective, Martin had him on the ground, had already broken his nose, and was repeatedly bashing his head into the concrete.  That sounds like "fear of grave injury" to me.  So why would it matter whether or not Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun?  Wasn't Zimmerman already entitled to shoot Martin by that point?

You accurately point out that it's a slippery slope when you allow aggressors to wrap themselves in the cloak of self-defense.  It essentially gives any armed person free license to assault any unarmed person and shoot them if the fight doesn't go in their favor.  The victim's only recourse is to accept their beating passively or run away, which is an ironic perversion of SYG.

[badger6]

None of that evidence changes the fact that you can't shoot someone during an altercation that you start.

But there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started an altercation. They already stated that they didn't know who started it or how it started. So at this point with what we actually know, under the law there can be no conviction. In general second degree murder involves unlawful killing with intent or malice aforethought. The prosecution fucked up. They should have charged him with manslaughter.

The case will likely hinge on whether or not Zimmerman attempted to physically detain Martin, and the prosecution's ability to make that case will probably lean on an allegation that Zimmerman was pursuing him (against the instructions of the dispatcher).  If Zimmerman tried to physically detain him, all this other stuff is irrelevant; it's an assault that led to murder.

It really doesn't matter if he continued the pursuit against the advice of the dispatcher. Even if it did, they can't prove it as far as I can tell. Allegations are only allegations without proof. In order to get a conviction they need to prove that Zimmerman got physical with Martin. And without a direct eyewitness or a confession they cannot do that......

[EKnight]

It really doesn't matter if he continued the pursuit against the advice of the dispatcher. Even if it did, they can't prove it as far as I can tell. Allegations are only allegations without proof. In order to get a conviction they need to prove that Zimmerman got physical with Martin. And without a direct eyewitness or a confession they cannot do that......

The 911 call does indeed indicate that after he was told to stop pursuit he continued. He didn't hang up the phone and you can clearly here him close his truck door and begin running. Further, in one of 8 other 911 calls, you can hear- at least according to the Martin family attorney- Martin beging for his life before he is shot. How is that defensible? -EK

[CF DolFan]

Further, in one of 8 other 911 calls, you can hear- at least according to the Martin family attorney- Martin beging for his life before he is shot. How is that defensible? -EK

Eyewitness saw Martin was on top beating Zimmerman.
Martin shot at close range from underneath. (I would assume the witness saw the shooting too)

How is your scenario even possible? Was he wailing on him and beating his head into the ground while screaming for help? I'm trying to see the visual that you are talking about and it just doesn't make sense.

[Spider-Dan]

But there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started an altercation. They already stated that they didn't know who started it or how it started. So at this point with what we actually know, under the law there can be no conviction. In general second degree murder involves unlawful killing with intent or malice aforethought. The prosecution fucked up. They should have charged him with manslaughter.

If you don't believe that Zimmerman started the altercation, how can you charge him with manslaughter?  As far as I can tell, it should either be murder or legitimate self-defense.

In order to get a conviction they need to prove that Zimmerman got physical with Martin. And without a direct eyewitness or a confession they cannot do that......

Again, I'm wondering how anyone can be convicted of murder under this standard.  If I kill you, and no one else is around to see it, does that automatically make my testimony indisputable fact?

[Spider-Dan]

How is your scenario even possible? Was he wailing on him and beating his head into the ground while screaming for help?

Martin and Zimmerman are scrumming.  Zimmerman is losing.  Zimmerman tries to pull his gun; Martin sees it and starts wrestling for control while screaming for help.

[CF DolFan]

Martin and Zimmerman are scrumming.  Zimmerman is losing.  Zimmerman tries to pull his gun; Martin sees it and starts wrestling for control while screaming for help.

Ok ... that makes sense. For whatever reason I honestly couldn't picture that on my own.

[badger6]

If you don't believe that Zimmerman started the altercation, how can you charge him with manslaughter?  As far as I can tell, it should either be murder or legitimate self-defense.

Given the evidence and facts that we actually currently know, I don't think he should have even been charged. But then again there might be some blow your pants off evidence that we don't know about. I was referring to the prosecution. IMO they would have a better chance of a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction.

Again, I'm wondering how anyone can be convicted of murder under this standard.  If I kill you, and no one else is around to see it, does that automatically make my testimony indisputable fact?

That's why it's hard to get murder convictions in high profile cases, OJ, Casey Anthony. You have to have evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a motive. I don't really see any of that here.....

[Spider-Dan]

So here's something interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense

I'm not sure if it applies in Florida (the article mentions, CA, MD, and MI), but it says (in part):

Michigan also recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that can mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.[6] However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.[7]

That would seem to be relevant to this case, but maybe Florida does not recognize that doctrine.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

That's why it's hard to get murder convictions in high profile cases, OJ, Casey Anthony. You have to have evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a motive. I don't really see any of that here.....

That is actually the standard in all criminal cases, not just murder nor high profile. 

[Landshark]

A former co worker says Zimmerman was a big racist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-evidence_n_1528268.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D162348

[Phishfan]

Again, I'm wondering how anyone can be convicted of murder under this standard.  If I kill you, and no one else is around to see it, does that automatically make my testimony indisputable fact?

No but it makes the burdon of proof much harder. Remember Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what they say is what happend. With what information we have right now, there is reasonable doubt.

[Phishfan]

So here's something interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_self-defense

I'm not sure if it applies in Florida (the article mentions, CA, MD, and MI), but it says (in part):

Michigan also recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that can mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.[6] However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.[7]

That would seem to be relevant to this case, but maybe Florida does not recognize that doctrine.

I'm not sure if the Florida Supreme Court took up the case or not (I don't see a ruling at a glance. An appeals court has turned down the option of suing that argument though because the Florida law specifies in the language that they have to have reasonable belief that they needed to use the deadly force. I also didn't see mention of cases where the accused was the aggressor.

[Spider-Dan]

Well, let me put it this way:

- the case may hinge on whether or not Zimmerman initiated the altercation
- the only evidence indicating that Martin initiated the altercation is the defendant's own testimony
- if the testimony of the defendant, by itself, was a significant barrier to conviction, there would not be many people in jail