General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQUESTION: Since MULTIPLE medical experts concede Zimmermans Injuries were NOT life threatening...
Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 07:03 AM - Edit history (1)
...then how was the "reasonable fear" of Zimmerman being afraid of his life reached?
Doesn't make sense, once it's proven the injuries weren't anything serious how in the hell is someone going to say they were in fear of their lives in court?!
It SEEMS like it would leave wide up this scenario
- Person a gets in argument with person b
- Person b scratches person a
- Person a shoots person b and claims self defense because they were in fear of their lives
That part of the whole trial doesn't make sense, it seems like after it's prove the person doesn't have life a LOGICAL REASON to fear then it shouldn't be deliberated by the jury at all!!
It seems there should be a legal threshold otherwise "...I was afraid of the 5 yr old kid with the Bat Man suite..." could be something a jury would deliberate on...even if for a nano second.
Seems like that crap shouldn't be allowed at all...
Thx in advance
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JI7
(89,250 posts)it was that serious.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)..defense with a couple of superficial scratches on his head in Florida.
The judge would allow that?!
It seems like after it was found out that the were basically scratches and he didn't want more medical help then on what grounds could the defense ARGUE self defense
They could've argued that Trayvon growled at Zimmerman and that scared him too if they could truly argue anything
Doesn't make sense
FBaggins
(26,744 posts)He needn't fear death... nor does such fear become reasonable only if a medical expert agrees that the injuries already received are life-threatening.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)A person can EASILY come up with a multitude of reasonable justifications for fearing someone or that someone would do something with their threatening....purse or whatever.
Seems like there has to be a higher standard than "... I thought... " if there's no proof that the "reasonable fear" line of thinking should have started in the first place
That's what's scary about the TM case, seeing GZ only "thought" Trayvon was going for his gun
and GZ "thought" his life was going to be in danger from being beat up by a 10 grade kid
The "thought" threshold seems kinda low to me
FBaggins
(26,744 posts)The prosecution has the burden of proof. Which is as it should be.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...FEAR in a self defense case and the jury would HAVE to deliberate!?
What if it's a jury of [demographic that hates the aforementioned demographic]?
I mean...the bar of WHAT a person can claim to be "reasonably" afraid of is THAT low?
Thx for your input
ctaylors6
(693 posts)the defendant has to produce evidence of self-defense. I believe a combination of witnesses and expert testimony that Martin was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground is more than sufficient to meet that standard.
THEN the state has to prove its version to the jury beyond reasonable doubt.
Edited to add: The judge has to determine if the defendant legally has claim to self-defense. If the defendant is claiming that the person he shot had a gun, but the evidence shows it was a blue water pistol, the judge will NOT allow the self-defense claim to go forward and be part of the trial. There has to be some evidence that supports the defendant's claim. The evidence does not have to be undisputed and presumably would not be or the judge would dismiss the charges from the outset. That's after all, why cases go to trial: there's a dispute about the facts of the case.
anomiep
(153 posts)Is whatever the particular jury hearing a particular case thinks is reasonable.
The burden here was on the prosecution to prove it wasn't self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Trayvon had managed to grab the gun and turn it on Zimmerman, and killed Zimmerman, the prosecution would & should have had the same burden with respect to a claim of self defense from Trayvon. If that's how it had happened, given that there wasn't much evidence for exactly how the fight happened, would you want Trayvon to have the burden of proof, or would you want the prosecution to have it?
The burden is how it is to protect innocent people, because sometimes situations arise where someone actually acted in self defense but can't actually prove it to a reasonable doubt level (like when there's no witnesses to the important parts of what happened). Just like there are situations in which people are innocent, committed no crime, but can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't.
There's a burden of proof the defense does have to meet on a self defense claim, it is just lower than the standard of reasonable doubt (in Florida).
Sometimes that means bad guys go free - but what is more important to you, less bad guys going to prison, or less innocents going to prison?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)FBaggins
(26,744 posts)that your fear was reasonable.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)uponit7771
(90,346 posts)
REP
(21,691 posts)In the example I gave in another post - of someone (an adult) breaking into my house while I'm there (I'm disabled and have had recent surgeries, so less able), I would be in fear of my life. But if the door flew open and it was a six-year-old, it would not be reasonable to be in fear of my life.
REP
(21,691 posts)For example, if someone broke into my house while I was here, I'd be in fear of my life (I'm disabled and have had recent surgeries that render me even less able while I recover). Police response time to my remote area is not quick.
Fortunately, that's very unlikely to ever happen ever, knock wood. I was just having a conversation with a neighbor about how when we hear weird, loud noises in the yard at night, it's deer (or at my place, skunks trying to figure out how to get in to get more food).
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)to get rid of someone they hate.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)no need for any injuries; only the belief that great harm or death is imminent 
"...Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another..."
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...the thought of "reasonable belief" can even begin to be entered into the whole case that there has to be some legal threshold for that logic begin.
It seems like a person should not be able to claim self defense due to "reasonable belief" if there's no PROOF that the thought process should've started in the first place
I thought he was grabbing for my gun is something ANY CCW person can say now to justify shooting people for instance...
Shooter - I thought he was reaching for my gun
Officer - he was 234ft away from you
Shooter - yeah but he reached for my gun with his eyes...so yeah I was sKeered.
I mean, it seems like ANYTHING stupid can be entered as a justification for the reasonable belief standard to be judged by a jury.
To me this is the crux of my disdain for the Zimmerman trial; that the jury HAD to decided Zimmermans stupid claims of reasonable fear at all
Pelican
(1,156 posts)There is a difference between 234 feet and on top of my hips beating someone and within arms reach of a weapon.
See how that works?
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...based and the jury will STILL have to deliberate on it...now matter how ridiculous.
In this matter if there was a weapon present and if the "beating" was life\limb threatening.
The latter doesn't seem to be based on reality, there was no "beating" ... some superficial scratches maybe but no "beating"
In the case of Florida law it's what the defendant THINKS is reasonable fear ... that's what the defense can proffer to the jury....not matter HOW ludicrous it sounds
... if a man tells a woman that he is going to beat her to death and the woman believes that he can and will do it, she shouldn't defend herself until the beating actually starts?
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...reasonable even IF it's not based on reality.
THAT'S what disgust me about this case.
There was NO REALITY that Z's life\limb was in danger
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... and with an obvious investment in one party over another.
It's another thing when your head is getting bounced like a basketball....
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Even if you hate zimmerman, you can not say wiht 100% certainty that he was not getting punched by trayvon martin. You may be 60% sure he wasn't, but unless you were there, you don't know exactly what went down.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)If you were to make an accurate comparison, the woman would have racially profiled the man first and then stalked him with a weapon. Then, after the woman confronts the man with her gun and initiates a confrontation, she shoots him dead. Of course, stupid, racist shit is what I've come to expect from the Zimmerman apologists.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)It was talking about why the law is bad as a whole and not regarding Martin/Zimmerman specifically...
no need for any injuries; only the belief that great harm or death is imminent
I've come to expect dense hyper-emotional rationalization from quite a few here so we are even... Cheers...
EOTE
(13,409 posts)How easy is it to claim that great harm or death is imminent, especially in cases where you're just about to eliminate the only other witness. A verbal threat is woefully inadequate.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)A woman who is only threatened with being beaten to death by a man should not defend herself until she has some physical proof that that harm is happening, to include the start of the beating.
Or is this only for men? or only for hispanic men? or only for hispanic men who have 30 pounds on their adversary? etc.. etc.. etc...
I'll quote you for completeness...
How easy is it to claim that great harm or death is imminent, especially in cases where you're just about to eliminate the only other witness. A verbal threat is woefully inadequate.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Gun nuts have turned this country into a lawless hell. The psycho with the gun is always in the right because he/she is the one with the capability to eliminate the other witness. The Florida law and Florida law in general is an affront to justice and a boon to the idiots and assholes of Florida.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Florida is becoming famous for whackery as well as too many other states. Europe is outstripping the US in terms of social stability
lumpy
(13,704 posts)claims of what Martin might have said to him. Only Zimmerman's word on anything Martin might have said. Only Zimmerman's word on what happened during the struggle. There is proof that Zimmerman lied publicly about his knowledge of self defense as well as other lies while under investigation. His defense lawyers used underhanded tricks to confuse the jury. Bottom line the self defense clause is so loose it makes it easy to use that excuse for killing.
Miscarriage of justice.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Who saw Martin on top?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...it would almost certainly be too late. At 5'3" and 109lbs, I have essentially zero chance in an unarmed fight against most any male attacker (and young-ish, reasonably physically fit males are by far the most statistically likely group to be committing assault). Any reasonably solid blow would probably end the "fight."
If I reasonably believe I am in imminent danger of violent assault, I'll use pre-emptive force. I'm glad the law supports me in this, but to be blunt, I'd do the same thing were that not the case.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Disgusting.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)
GZ feared for his life because TM is black?
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...be entered into a case for self defense and it has to be deliberated on by a jury
In the TM case it seems Zimmerman could've came up with ANYTHING to be reasonably afraid of at ANY point and THEN the jury would've STILL had to deliberate on it no matter how ridiculous.
I'm just thinking there has to be a threshold...
"..your honor, the 5 your old kid was wearing a Bat Man suite ... that made me afraid so I had to get rid of em..." shouldn't be something a person should be ABLE to enter in a self defense claim.
I'm thinking once the judge found out that z's claims of being afraid were factually wrong in the injury part then that part should not have been able to go to the jury....
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Worked with this Florida jury, which should not be a total surprise.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)seem to make it into an awful lot of your posts. Maybe you can adopt the sig line that stirred up so much crap a few months back. It's not being used anymore.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Fact is, most folks so heavily into guns that they strap them on to venture out are right wingers - and most of them are bigots.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)rightfully got shitcanned. Same goes for bigots in general. So, are you referring to active DUers?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And... surprise surprise, quite a few of them are gun nutters. And, I'm not sure what you mean by 'shit-canned', but I have yet to see a single DUer banned for supporting that evil piece of shit.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)And the fucked up laws in Florida on this thread and others.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)alright, of being the loser. He proved to be the worst kind of cowardly killer. Although the jury was unaware of Zimmerman's history of violence, we have heard of it and that influenced our conclusions. Like others I wouldn't want him in my community. He should be shunned and people should be aware of his potential to do further harm.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Should we demand at least a little penetration before a woman can defend herself against a potential rape, just to show it was a"real" threat?
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...much danger Z's life or limb was in.
Z only THOUGHT his life was in danger but once it was found out that his THINKING was flawed the jury should NOT have to deliberate on it OTHERWISE....
"I got scared and shot him because he looked at me wrong" can be entered as a REASONABLE fear that the jury will have to deliberate on even if it was a nano second.
There should be a threshold for reasonable fear that a jury should be able to deliberate on and it shouldn't be JUST what a person "thinks"
That is what juries do- put themselves in the persons shoes and judge if a reasonable person would feel the same way.
If your justification is as loose a you say, off to jail.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)I can't imagine that the judge would have let that evidence go forward. The judge can rule as a matter of law that there isn't sufficient evidence for a claim of self-defense.
Here's an example of a recent SYG case in FL: news report
cprise
(8,445 posts)on whether the assailant was male or female.
JVS
(61,935 posts)until injuries were life threatening was a bad idea and that the right thing to do is to apply force before hand. Since he was they guy who actually taught classes involving the legality of self defense the jury is likely to have given a lot of weight to what he had to say.
Here is the cross of his testimony. Check out 10 minutes in. The murmur in the court is because he has just dealt the prosecution a serious blow.
If Trayvon had punched Zimmerman and then walked away, there wouldn't be reasonable fear of grave bodily harm. It was when Trayvon decided to mount Zimmerman and continue hurting him that the threshold got crossed. The reason is that once Trayvon mounted him in the ground and pound position, there was no way of knowing where the injuries would end. That uncertainty is the essence of reasonable fear.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...NO MATTER how superficial the wounds were BEFORE the thought logic began.
A five your old hits a persons leg with a sponge float, the person kills the 5 yr old...
In this scenario, the person doing the shooting could PROFFER this and it'd go to the jury and that's the stupid part...
Why would that OVERTLY RIDICULOUS proffering being able to be sent anywhere?!
JVS
(61,935 posts)uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...to even let the jury deliberate on them no?
JVS
(61,935 posts)Actually having grave injury goes far beyond the requirement for legitimate self defense.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)If so how does Zimmermans injuries NOT being life or limb threatening get to the point where the jury has to deliberate on them?
thx in advance
ctaylors6
(693 posts)the issue of proving something with the issue of reasonableness.
Picture this scenario: A man takes his little dog for a walk. A little while later his wife hears the dog yapping outside the front door. She goes outside. Her husband on the ground, being straddled by a stranger who his knocking her husband's head into ground. Her husband is yelling for help and is unable to get up. They have a licensed handgun in the house. She goes to get it. She tells the guy to get off her husband but he doesn't. At what point do you think she should be able to shoot the guy? Does her husband's injuries need to be more than scratches? A concussion? Does she need to get close and try to rescue him? Or is the guy continuing to knock his head into the ground enough for her to shoot?
At what point do you think it's reasonable for her to shoot the guy, or to be more legally accurate, a reasonable person would use deadly force?
Now, with the Zimmerman case you have to add the layer of whose story you believe. The state presented its version of the story, and the defense presented its version. If the jury had a reasonable doubt that the state's version was true, then it had to find not guilty. IMHO, this case was very much about the burden of proof.
cprise
(8,445 posts)to justify vague intuition and emotional reactions without regard for detailed information. The term is twisted to mean the same thing as 'irrational'.
Its not REASONABLE to shut out facts that should put the burden of responsibility on Zimmerman once his gun possession and shooting of Martin were established as facts.
People being stalked should just assume that their stalkers are physically helpless and that landing a punch forfeits one's own life. But that is pathological dysfunction, its not reasonable.
onenote
(42,704 posts)to shoot that person simply based on the notion that it always reasonable to assume someone that is following another person presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)onenote
(42,704 posts)Meaning two separate occasions, not one incident divided into two parts.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts).."occasions"
The incidents are the following themselves
That's what I read in the law which mencans following
onenote
(42,704 posts)Here is the law:
784.048 (2): A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree...
(3)?A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree...
The relevant definitions are as follows
(a)?“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b)?“Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose...
The portion of the statute that references the lack of any time limit is the definition of "course of conduct" and that phrase is relevant only to determining what constitutes an act of harassment. To constitute stalking, it is still necessary to prove that the harassment, no matter how short the course of conduct involved, occurred repeatedly -- that is, on multiple occasions.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...and it was in the reenactment.
He stopped, got out of his car and claimed that he wanted to find address's...
onenote
(42,704 posts)dairydog91
(951 posts)Which in most states, would require the shooter to prove that he had a reasonable fear that he was in danger of death, severe injury, or sexual assault. Zimmerman did not need to prove that he was dead, badly injured, or being raped. All he had to prove was that he had a reasonable fear of one of those things. That is why the evidence that suggested that Martin had banged Zimmerman's head on the pavement was devastating to the prosecution. Whapping someone's head on the pavement is not cute, it's an act that can cause death or brain damage. Hence, unless the state could somehow prove that Zimmerman had no reason to fear getting his head smacked on the pavement (Is he invincible? Is his assailant a 5 year old with no physical strength?), there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear.
I personally thought that the major issue here was provocation, since self-defense law is very cagey about allowing someone to initiate a confrontation and then claim self-defense. However, even that is debatable, especially if the provoker attempts to retreat and the provoked presses an attack.
ejpoeta
(8,933 posts)under the definitions i have seen here, shouldh't martin been able to have reasonable fear of his life. he was walking along minding his own business and some strange guy is following him. that would scare me and make me think i was in danger. in that context, why isn't it martin who had the reasonable fear to protect himself? i mean, i understand that he isn't here to give his side of the story conveniently.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)What he didnt have was a gun.
Lesson to be learned, unfortunately.
onenote
(42,704 posts)If a person is out for a walk at night and perceives someone to be following them, can they respond with deadly force? The question the jury would have to decide is whether, under the circumstances (including the size of the two actors, and what words or actions were exchanged between them), it was reasonable for the person who perceives that they are being followed to think that they need to use deadly force to prevent an "imminent" threat of death or great bodily harm or to prevent a forcible felony (which would include a wide range of crimes robbery, assault, etc etc).
Thus, if someone is following you and you feel threatened by it and whirl around and shoot that person, whether or not you can successfully claim self defense will turn on exactly what was going on at the moments leading up to your shooting the person. A jury could decide that it was not reasonable for you to feel like you faced an "imminent" threat of death or great bodily harm. Or they might conclude otherwise.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...I'm big so I don't want bullets in me because some one feels threatened
So...shouldn't there be SOME standard as to WHAT the defense can claim what they thought was "reasonable fear" at that time?
regards
thx in advance for the input
dairydog91
(951 posts)I don't think the legal right to self-defense is exclusive to one party. It may have been the case that both GZ and TM reasonably thought that they had to use the force they had available (TM to use his fists, GZ to use his gun) in order to protect themselves from imminent harm.
And if he'd killed Zimmerman (say, by turning the gun around) and made a self defense claim, and it went to trial, the fact that Trayvon had no injuries inflicted by Zimmerman would likewise not be an issue - the issue would be whether or not he reasonably feared death or great bodily injury.
Under a standard of 'well he had no injury so the fear is not reasonable', if that had happened, Trayvon would have had no injuries, so we'd have to say his fear of being shot wasn't reasonable. That makes no sense.
And if there had been no gun at all and Trayvon claimed his use of force was self defense, under a standard of 'you didn't get injured so your fear was not reasonable', he goes to jail. That also doesn't make sense.
Think about it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)
He could have just fell backwards from a push or punch from a frightened kid being threatened by some idiot in the dark with a gun.
onenote
(42,704 posts)that the injury occurred in a manner other than the one alleged by the defense and supported in some degree by the testimony of witnesses (who the jury didn't have to believe but could choose to believe)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The only real witness is the killer.
dkf
(37,305 posts)But yes, because Zimmerman did have injuries and he had a witness saying he was pinned, the prosecutions case was almost insurmountable.
If people insist this case was decided on anything less than the law itself that's because they haven't bothered to read the law or the jury instructions.
anomiep
(153 posts)Because the prosecution had little evidence for critical parts of what happened.
IMHO that means they should have waited and seen if evidence arises that would make a more solid case, rather than trying to prosecute on what they had.
Now, if tomorrow a previously unknown video shows up showing the entire fight with absolute proof it was murder - nothing can be done due to double jeopardy.
ceonupe
(597 posts)Mounts a dummy and agrees that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
dairydog91
(951 posts)That's what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means in the criminal context. All that the defendant has to do is punch enough holes in the state's case that jurors have reasonable doubts whether or not the defendant committed the crime. The physical evidence of GZ's injuries created doubts about the state's theory of events. That's all it had to do. GZ never had to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's why he was able to walk free.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)or multiple credible witnesses. There is almost always going to be some doubt on any particular specific issue in a case like this. I think if the jury took the entire picture into its decision not just one specific aspect the conclusion is clearly manslaughter. Zimmerman acted recklessly by pulling his gun and shooting to kill. He should go to jail.
onenote
(42,704 posts)You and a friend are at a bar. An argument breaks out between your friend and another guy. Its just words, but suddenly the other guy pulls out a gun and points it at your friend. You pull out your gun and shoot him. That is legitimate self defense even though the other guy never shot your friend (or even shot at him), never pointed it at or otherwise threatened you and even if it turns out the gun he pulled was not loaded or was a toy gun (unless it would have been obvious to a reasonable person in those circumstances that it was not a real gun).
DCBob
(24,689 posts)In this case, since we don't have witnesses to the entire scenario other than the lying killer so we have to come up with a plausible scenario. It appears it was a basic pushing/wrestling/fist fight that one party wasn't fairing well, so he overreacts and kills the other guy with a gun. Clear case of manslaughter to me.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...they THOUGHT the other person would pull a gun and that CAN BE... CAN BE proffered as reasonable...
It CAN BE... doesn't mean a jury would think it reasonable...but the would have to diliberate on it
My point is it should not be ABLE to be proffered AT ALL...
The defense claim SHOULD BE REASONABLE.
It's NOT reasonable to think someone with injuries like GZ's would be life threatenin
onenote
(42,704 posts)Again, the fact that the injuries that were incurred don't appear life threatening is irrelevant. There didn't have to be any injury. If someone shoots at someone and misses or hits them in the foot, they still can respond with deadly force and claim self defense.
I'm not defending the statute, I'm just pointing out what it says. And what it says is that the use of deadly force is justified when ?someone "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." The term forcible felony is broadly defined to include, among other things, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. In short, if you have a reasonable basis for believing that you are or are about to be the victim of an aggravated assault, even one that would not cause death or great bodily harm, the law allows you to defend yourself with deadly force.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...or she wants.
That doesn't mean the jury wont come back in a couple of seconds with a verdict of guilty
The defendant can proffer ANYTHING in regards to what THEY.. THEY think is reasonable
In THIS case, the defendant did proffer ANYTHING in regards to the fight that was reasonable
onenote
(42,704 posts)Again, if a defendant claims that the person he shot had pulled a gun on him and turns out to that the gun the victim pulled out was a toy, it would still be up to the jury to decide whether, at the time the defendant acted, he could have reasonably believed it was a real gun.
Same thing if its just a threat to shoot. If someone shoots someone and claims that they were responding to a threat by that person to shoot them then the jury will decide based on all of the evidence whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, no such threat was made. The prosecution would try to rebut the defendant's case by providing evidence attacking the defendant's credibility, by showing whether or not the victim even had a gun, etc. Depending on the specific facts and their view of the defendant's credibility, the jury could acquit or convict. But it is left to the jury to determine.
You may not like the law, but it actually makes sense as shown by the numerous examples provided in this thread.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...ANYTHING as "reasonable fear..."
There should be a bar or threshold to surpass before the REASON even gets to the jury....
Response to uponit7771 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DCBob
(24,689 posts)uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...THINKS the reality is in a self defense case is.
"...I was scared of the big black guy..." should never be able to be proffered by a defendant in a self defense case.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)then that's open season on "big black guys". Sickening.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...proffer as a "reasonable fear" can be argued by their attornies.
In the Z case it was found out that his wounds were superficial at best and then the guy never went to the hospital and tried to get a note so he didn't have to go to work the next day.
I can't reasonably see how this guy should be able to say that his life was in danger from the beating part.
onenote
(42,704 posts)If someone points a gun at you its reasonable to have fear that the gun is loaded and that the person intends to do more than fire a warning shot.
If someone is hitting someone (or even just threatening to hit someone) then it may be reasonable for that person to conclude that they are in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm or that a forcible felony is about to be committed. It is up to the jury to decide based on the evidence whether the state has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that such fear either didn't really exist or was unreasonable.
If someone points a gun at someone, the fact that it turns out after the fact to have been a toy gun only matters if the jury concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could not, at the time, have reasonably thought it was real gun.
If someone just threatens to shoot someone and the person who is threatened pulls out a gun and shoots that person first, and it later turns out that the victim didn't have a gun it is up to the jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not actually threatened (i.e., no threat was issued by the victim) or that the defendant had no reasonable basis for fearing that the person making the threat had a gun.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...rap music "at that time" so he shot a car full of teens !!!
That's not "REASONABLE" and SHOULD ... SHOULD NOT... be allowed to be deliberated by the jury in the first place.
The fact that it is being allowed, just like Zimmermans boo boos on his head is, is absurd
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)before they can legally defend themselves.
You do grasp that at that standard you are essentially demanding people play chicken with their own life to protect the life of an attacker.
You aren't even saying at reasonable risk here. You also are dodging that a person triage their own injuries accurately in the middle of a conflict. One may think they have suffered a life threatening injury but it turns out not to be so bad and you want to prosecute and that is crazy.
I also fail to understand why you think it is anyone's responsibility to be someone's punching bag.
You are sitting here arguing that if I get jumped I have to sit there and take it until my injuries are obviously so bad that I may well die before I defend myself. Never mind that that each potential blow could be a killer. You know that a single blow can cause death?
Suffering a life threatening injury is a criminally insane license for assault and murder. After all, we would be bound by law to literally risk death before doing anything. God forbid we fucking defend ourselves from an attack and a punch to the nose lands the wrong way.
I hope you never have to defend yourself but I have many times. I'm not going to be punching bag, much less take such a beating that I might die and I don't expect any rational person to either.
What are you trying to do set up a right to safely but violently assault people? Fucking beyond absurd.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...as REASONABLE and it's ANYTHING
The defendant can proffer ANYTHING as REASONABLE to THEM...
It may not be reasonable to a jury but it can be reasonable to the defendant and to SOME people it's reasonable to be scared of big white guys or small white laddies or kids with a Bat Man suite on
onenote
(42,704 posts)Just because someone claims they had a reasonable fear doesn't mean a jury has to agree.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... as reasonable fear.
To me it's absurd that Zimmerman was even able to suggest that the superficial wounds on his head were life threating
onenote
(42,704 posts)The standard is much broader than you seem willing to accept. Its the prevention of imminent death, imminent great bodily harm, or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Imminent -- meaning in the immediate future. Someone who has minor injuries to their head can reasonably fear that the next time they get hit, or the cumulative effect of a beating, will be great bodily harm or death or constitutes a forcible felony (such as assault).
It is just like the case where someone gets shot at and the shot misses. They can still credibly claim a reasonable fear that they needed to use force to prevent the next shot which might not miss.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)of life absorbing life threatening injuries before self defense is valid or reasonable.
I have no idea what you could logically expect the defense to have to offer to prove anything in such a situation. It is a flip to guilty until proven innocent based on circumstances. If someone jumps you, you defend yourself, and they are killed then how would you prove anything but under this bar a person could end up in prison or maybe a death chamber because some fucker assaulted them and they didn't just take it to the point of risking life and limb.
How would a woman prove she fended off a rapist? You need semen and signs of force and/or a clear life threatening injury or she has to lie there and take it rather than using whatever she had she could lay hands on to stop it?
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)If someone is repeatedly slamming your head into the ground you don't have time to evaluate your injuries as life threatening or not. You're scared and full of adrenaline. Just how long should you allow that to go on before you do whatever you have to do to make it stop? Whether or not you started the fight doesn't come into it either at that point. He was losing badly.
Acting as if there is or should be an emotional disconnect in the heat of the moment where you decide whether or not your life is in danger is just crazy.
Now, obviously this fight should have never happened at all and Zimmerman should have simply minded his own business and everything would have been fine. But to tell someone that they aren't being beaten badly enough to do whatever was necessary to save themselves is unrealistic.
He should have been found guilty of at least manslaughter simply because he instigated the whole thing.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)but this person is trying set up a right to safely assault and puts the onus on the victim to take a beating up to the moment that it is clear that they have absorbed not just injuries but obviously life threatening injuries. Has to be obvious because if your self triage turns out to be off and your injuries are only severe but not life threatening then when you get out of the hospital you are locked up for the "crime" of not letting yourself be beat to death.
What the OP calls for is overwrought and emotional insanity seen exclusively through the lens of one scenario.
Hell, according to Solomon over here someone could literally shoot the other but because that shot only hit them in the thigh they dare not return fire until they take a bullet in the head or in center of mass.
onenote
(42,704 posts)The issue you pose is whether self defense shouldn't have been available in this case because Zimmerman provoked the altercation that led to his shooting Trayvon. But the law requires more than just following someone or even confronting them to find provocation. It requires an act of force or actual threat of force.
For example (and I'm not suggesting that either of these scenarios are what occurred between Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman): if someone follows a person who is simply out for a walk, confronts them, asks what they are doing and threatens to call the police, that's not provocation and if a fight ensures, self defense would remain available to the person that "instigated" the situation by confronting a law abiding person out for a walk. On the other hand, if a person follows a law abiding person who is out for a walk and confronts them and threatens to use force to make them stop doing what they're doing, then it would be provocation and self defense would not be available.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)specifically declined to instruct the jury on the initial aggressor exception to self-defense (776.041). The defense argued that neither following someone nor legally caring concealed are legally provocation since those actions were legal and did not include any physical force or threat of physical force. The state argued against, and judge ruled in favor of the defense and did not allow that provision in the instructions.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...is doing something ILLEGAL.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts).... in this self defense case gets to LEGALLY proffer that the "next hit" on his legs would've been deadly
Silly
Stupid
Not based on reality
But but what the defendant gets to do!!
That's stupid IMHO
let me know where its wrong
regards
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Come on man, you know better than that.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...(mine)
This is an actual proffer of self defense to be deliberated around Sept 14th of this year
Come again ?
I think you know what the Mike Dunn case is right>?
10 times worse than Zimmerman
ctaylors6
(693 posts)the claim of self-defense to go forward. No judge would allow it if that's the evidence provided by the defense. The jury would never hear about that evidence.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...case to go foward
- superficial wounds
- INABILITY to get to Zimmermans gun given Zimmermans own account
This is the heart of the fear I'm hearing from folk; that the defendant gets to proffer what it seems like the DUMBEST realities like the Micheal Dunn case
ctaylors6
(693 posts)with the Michael Dunn case, I'm sorry. I'll look it up later but I'm on my way out now.
You should read my post #71. I think it might help you to you understand the reasonable person issue separately from the burden of proof issue.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...my issue is that defense GETS to proffer ANYTHING as reasonable fear as in the Micheal Dunn Case...
Micheal Dunn shot a car full of black teens because they were playing loud rap music and said the kids showed a gun to him...they didn't find a gun, stick nothing in the car.
Dunn, like Zimmerman, changed his defense claim LATER to he heard someone say you're going to die and blacmed the rap music.
No really, his half ass'd attorney put this as the defense....
So YES... YES... the defense gets to proffer ANYTHING as "reasonable" even if it doesn't mix with reality
JUST LIKE Zimmerman
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)it was only the prosecution's expert that explicitly said that.
Also, a pounding to the head could well have caused concussion, at that point, you're less than fully able to defend yourself, MMA classes or not. Fear of grave injury is not the same as grave injury, and that word "fear" is clearly in Florida's law. Your example of the five year old in the Batman suit is where "reasonable" comes in to play. It might not be rational to fear a 3 foot child acting like he wanted a fight, and might be rational to fear a nearly six foot child who was doing the same thing, especially if you were less than certain about his actual age.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...what the FP said in a good portion of her anaylsis
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I do recall the weapons expert saying that they were more severe. In any case, if I swing a baseball bat at your head and miss, I might not have caused any injuries, but you'd be entitled to think that you were at risk from further contact with me in that encounter.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...only wore a bat man suite then, as their claim of self defense, they can jus say " I was scared of Bat Man so I had to kill em.." and then....
Then
The jury would have to deliberate on something so absurd
onenote
(42,704 posts)In general, the law requires (and has for decades) that the jury be allowed to decide the issue of self defense so long as the defendant puts forward a bare modicum of evidence. Here is what the courts have to say: Taylor v. State, 410 So.2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“A defendant is entitled to his requested self-defense instruction regardless of how weak or improbable his testimony may have been with respect to the circumstances leading up to the battery.”); Parrish v. State, 113 So.2d 860, 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (“Regardless of how improbable the defendant's testimony was, it certainly was not demonstrably false, and as our Supreme Court did ․, we must hold that the trial court erred in refusing a self-defense instruction.”); Wright v. State, 705 So.2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of the case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be.”)
That being said,there is no comparison between your bat man suit hypothetical and the facts of a case in which the defendant not only claims that he feared for his life, but was involved in a physical altercation with the victim. Whether or not the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not, at the time of and during that altercation, have a reasonable basis to fear for his life or fear great bodily harm or seek to prevent a forcible felony is manifestly a question for the jury no matter that the harm he incurred before using that force did not cause him any significant injury (or any injury at all).
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)in the Batman suit acted in a menacing manner, and was conceivably large enough to be a threat, then, yes, I think that it would be justified, especially if that individual had landed a couple of blows on you, making your nose bleed and the back of your head cut up.
You have no idea what the person fighting you has predetermined as a stopping point, therefore if you have deadly force, you are justified in stopping it yourself.
anomiep
(153 posts)Assume for the purposes of this argument that what happened was that Zimmerman tried to assault Trayvon, Trayvon defended himself, there was no gun in the fight and Trayvon lived, but otherwise the evidence is as it was presented at Zimmerman's trial.
Under a standard where you have to have actual injury to claim self defense, rather than reasonable fear of such, Trayvon would have to be considered as not defending himself because he had no injuries (remember, hypothetically there is no gun in play here).
The standard has to be the standard for everyone or there is no equal protection under the law. I am not behind throwing out a standard that would have let Trayvon claim self defense despite having no injury just because a particular outcome is desired when it's Zimmerman on trial.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... it's a good reason to kill someone.
Regardless of what Z said his wounds were superficial and weren't life threatening.
Come to Florida where you can get a couple of scratches on your head and kill some people
onenote
(42,704 posts)you can suffer absolutely no injury at all and still claim and win on self defense. Its not that hard a concept but you seem completely incapable of understanding it.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...bastard!?
Seriously?!
There's no injury to the old racist bastard, I've conceded that MANY TIMES, but the old racist bastard shoots the big black guy and to that old racist bastard his fear... HIS... HIS fear was 'reasonable'....TO HIM
The big black guy was doing NOTHING...but walking down the street or ... playin rap music loudly like in the Micael Dunn case... then the old racist bastard gets scared of the big black guy FOR DOING NOTHING and shoots him because ....he was scared and in fear of his life FOR NOTHING RELATED TO REALITY.
Does that mean the old racist bastard gets to put that up to the judge and jury as "reasonable fear"!?!?!?!
According to FL Law yes....the defendant in a self defense case can proffer ANYTHING...ANYTHING no matter HOW absurd it is.
REGARDLESS of injury
onenote
(42,704 posts)Why is that so hard? Yes, the law in Florida (and some other jurisdictions) is that a person can have the issue of self defense presented to the jury unless it is demonstrably false. The fact that the injury someone suffered is not significant or that they had no injury at all does not render the claim that they feared that they were in imminent danger of incurring death or a great bodily harm or that a forcible felony was about to occur demonstrably false. Its really a very simple concept.
Indeed, it has been held to be error not to give the jury the opportunity to decide the issue of self defense when the basis for the claim is psychiatric evidence that the defendant suffered from paranoid delusions and may have imagined that he was in danger. It would be up to the jury to decide whether that was true and/or reasonable.
anomiep
(153 posts)The standard is the same for both (or, more realistically, *should* be the same for both, given that sometimes what the standard is not necessarily applied evenly) - would a reasonable person think the use of force was justified. (It's a slightly different standard for nonlethal force vs. lethal force, but it boils down to 'would a reasonable person have considered it self defense under the circumstances')
Think about it. Presume Zimmerman started the fight by trying to detain Martin for the police (which would have been an unlawful use of force, because he wouldn't have been justified in using force because he doesn't have authority to detain) and Trayvon defended himself. (I do not know if it happened that way, nobody does, but let's just presume it)
What standard would you want Trayvon to have to meet if he had lived and they decide to prosecute him?
If it's the same, then Trayvon, in that situation, would be justified in using nonlethal force to defend himself. He would get to bring up self defense.
If Zimmerman pulls his gun during that and then Trayvon manages to turn it around and shoot Zimmerman, then Trayvon gets to bring up self defense, too, under the same 'reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury' standard for use of lethal force.
But in the hypothetical 'Trayvon wins and lives' situation, Trayvon not only doesn't have serious injury, he doesn't have *any* injury.
If the standard were 'there has to be injury' then if the actual fight started by Trayvon defending himself against force from Zimmerman, then Trayvon would not get to claim self defense because he wasn't injured (again, assuming no gun in play, or assuming Trayvon turned the gun around on Zimmerman).
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...court and claim he thought Zimmerman was Bat Man and he had to kill him as the "reasonable fear" part of the self defense.
To Trayvon, in this scenario, he could've been REALLY REALLY scared of Bat Man but that's an absurd defense.
So is Michael Dunns " I was scared of rap music" (mine) defense which is just as absurd but it sounds like in Florida one can proffer that because the laws in the state are REALLY REALLY Screwed up
anomiep
(153 posts)Of course a defense of 'I thought he was batman and I am really, really scared of batman' should not fly - it is *not* reasonable, and you admit that in your own post by describing it as absurd.
Trayvon *should* be able to come into court and claim "Zimmerman attacked me, my use of force was in response to that attack" rather than just go to jail because he didn't have any injuries.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...people in America that ARE afraid of rap music?!!?!??!
anomiep
(153 posts)It is the jury who decides that.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...be deliberated on because it's absurd.
So is "i was getting my head bashed in" with no reality based evidence to prove such
anomiep
(153 posts)where the *sole* contention for self defense is 'I'm scared of black people'.
"I'm scared of black people" all by itself should not make it past a judge - and yes, in fact, the judge gets to make a ruling to determine if the basic facts of the case support a self defense claim. The burden of proof is on the defense for that, and although it is not a 'reasonable doubt' standard, there is a standard the defense has to meet.
In the case I think you're alluding to, the guy didn't just claim 'I'm scared of black people'. He claimed he saw a shotgun. There wasn't a shotgun. I think that guy is going to jail for a long, long time, because while testifying 'I thought I saw a shotgun' may be enough to get the claim to the jury, I haven't seen anything in that case that indicates to me it's anything other than him trying get himself out of trouble, and if that's the case a jury should have zero problems seeing through it.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...LITTLE EVIDENCE to prove such!!!
Come on, at what point should there be a REALITY standard?!
anomiep
(153 posts)Show me one case where the sole claim was 'I'm scared of black people' and that went to a jury.
Not 'the guy said they were listening to rap music and he saw a shotgun' (since the judge has to consider 'I saw a shotgun' as true when that hearing is held), but 'I'm scared of black people' or equivalent as the sole reason.
napi21
(45,806 posts)I havn't read the actual law there, but I've heard that it says "If an individual is IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE" That leave open a door where ANYONE can say "I believed I was going to die!". There's no way to prove or disprove a statement like that.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there should be a different way to state that law, and perhaps include a statement like "you cannot put yourself into a problem situation and then claim yu were unable to get out of it without deadly force."
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)..the dog and kill it because of my unfounded fear.
One person here is saying that kind of fear could not be allowed to claim self defense but Zimmerman did with his superficial wounds
onenote
(42,704 posts)776.012:
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.
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.
anomiep
(153 posts)a 'did not provoke' clause added, as a minimum, along with a clear definition of what provocation means.
Although, provocation may be otherwise unlawful depending on what the claimed 'provocation' is (If you're committing an aggravated assault to provoke, you're 'engaged in an unlawful activity'), someone posted an article in a different thread where it seems clear that the fact that there is no provocation clause is leading to some unreasonable results in Florida.
onenote
(42,704 posts)THere is however case law holding that provocation requires the actual use of force or actual threatened use of force (not just perceived).
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.
anomiep
(153 posts)That leaves the cases that worried me as improper application of the law, and that can be easier to fix than getting the law changed. (it can also be harder, but I think things like the article I read apply pressure to get it right)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)ermoore
(486 posts)1) He only has to believe that he is in danger of death or something like that. Hindsight doesn't count, nor should it, imo.
2) His injuries weren't life-threatening, but it's not inconceivable that they could have been. Particularly if the beating had continued. Fists are capable of inflicting serious damage.
I mean, I see your point, there's a lot of room for . . . whatever . . . here, but I guess that's how the jury figured it.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)It's not based on the reality of the injuries later, as examined by medical experts.
The perception, of course, could be wrong. But if the defendant truly believes his life to be in danger at the time of the event, this is enough for a self-defense claim.
The problem with this case was getting into Zimmerman's head and figuring out whether or not he was lying when he said he was afraid his life was in danger. Because he did not testify, the prosecution couldn't cross examine him and reveal that he was lying about that.
anomiep
(153 posts)It has to be a reasonable belief. The judgment of whether or not that perception was reasonable is in the hands of the jury, not the defendant.
You can completely and totally be actually engulfed with a fear of your life - but that does not mean the fear was reasonable. If someone truly believe that white guys with glasses and a freckle on the left side of their nose are all assassins trying to fulfill a contract on their life, if that person uses deadly force on the basis of that belief and fear, the jury is quite free to determine that fear was unreasonable and therefore the use of deadly force was not justified.
The belief can be *wrong*, but it has to be *reasonable*. (If someone points what looks like a gun at you, if it turns out it was a non-functioning, non-firing replica of a gun that is not actually legally classed as a firearm because it had a solid barrel and no action, for instance, your fear would be wrong but reasonable).
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Thanks.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...that the jury should diliberate on EVERY fear that an INDIVIDUAL thinks is valid.
Fear of the "big black guy" is a VALID FEAR among some individuals....should a jury SERIOUSLY have to deliberate on something so racist?
anomiep
(153 posts)that there was a reasonable fear.
Again, the standard is not 'whatever the individual thinks is a valid fear is a valid fear', and acting as though it is even when it's been pointed out that it isn't - I don't think you are being reasonable here.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...Zimmerman case allow for the head being based in and him being beat up part go to deliberation?!
There was NO evidence that what was in Zimmermans mind matched with reality.
- Zimmermans head wounds were superficial at beast
- TM was 20 feet away from the concrete when he was shot
- NO Zimmerman blood or DNA on TMs hands
- Zimmerman Drove home after having his head smashed 5 times on concrete doesn't even sound plausible not let possible.
- ETC (I'm sure I missed something)
Why did the judge allow this to go to the jury to be deliberated on!?
elleng
(130,956 posts)the issue is if he felt at the time that Trayvon was able to do life-threatening harm to him.
onenote
(42,704 posts)elleng
(130,956 posts)just provided my opinion 'for the record,' onenote.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...."reasonable fear"!!
elleng
(130,956 posts)Understand that such 'feeling' should be tested by cross-examination, and here there only was ME testimony about how bad it was, or wasn't.
Response to uponit7771 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Seriously, go consult a lawyer who does criminal law. You've choose to ignore all of the answers in your own thread because they don't fit what YOU think the law should be. So if you really want the legal answer, then pay to see a lawyer that does criminal law and he or she will walk you through what YOUR state law says.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...injury portion of Zimmermans self defense claim once his own FP said the wounds were superficial and not life threatening.
I'm goin to do an OP on how absurd the self defense laws in Florida are
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)Zimmerman could have had ZERO injuries and still have claimed self defense.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...you raise PART of my point....
If it's ONLY IN ZIMMERMANS MIND that the injuries COULD occur and (this is the hypothetical part) NOT BASED ON REALITY should that even go to the jury to be deliberated on?!
Regards
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)To give an extreme example: if a guy is swinging a hammer at your head but misses and you shoot him would it still be self defense even though you have no injuries?
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)...a reality IN THE PERSONS MIND that's more absurd?!
