Trayvon Martin and self defense

[AndyA]

So, this kid is minding his own business, walking to his Dad's home, and some guy basically starts following him. Is that right there not enough for Trayvon to have been concerned about his safety? I certainly think so.

So why is it that the actions Trayvon took weren't also viewed as being in self defense? Even if he did pulverize Zimmerman into the sidewalk, he had every reason to fear his safety, and to take action to protect himself.

Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor here, and I don't feel that aspect received enough attention during the trial.

Justice was not served in this trial.

[FreakinDJ]

1. We will never know what was said between the 2

You know full well Zimmerman changed the story to suit his needs

[Avalux]

2. I agree with you, but the law says otherwise.

The state was burdened with raising reasonable doubt and did a poor job. The way Trayvon's body was handled and the state's medical examiner testimony were detrimental to their case as well.

All the defense needed to do was portray Zimmerman as a helpless, concerned citizen who had no choice but to use his gun (which he was legally allowed to have) or be killed, and then portray Martin as the bad guy who was capable of killing Zimmerman with his bare hands.

With the lack of evidence, the defense's tactic worked.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. I honestly think that Zimmerman attempted to hold Martin for the police...

Martin lawfully resisted, Zimmerman probably fell, and then it escalated from there. Zimmerman was legally in the wrong at the point of trying to hold Martin, after that, it escalated to outright murder.

[YarnAddict]

5. Any evidence of that?

What could have happened, what actually happened, what would have happened IF . . .

Those are all unknowns, and were enough to introduce reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. The physical evidence seems to be consistent with such a scenario, Zimmerman is...

a violent man with a history of lying, distortion, and paranoia, so I would say his account should cause the most doubt. The prosecutors aimed way to high though, manslaughter, not murder 2.

[YarnAddict]

9. You're wrong about the evidence

the PHYSICAL evidence had nothing to do with Z's history of violence, paranoia, and lying. PHYSICAL evidence included Z's "injuries," DNA evidence (or lack of it,) grass-stained jeans, etc. And it wasn't the prosecution's job to introduce doubt (or who could introduce the MOST doubt.) It was up to the prosecution to PROVE their case, and up to the defense to introduce reasonable doubt. The defense did their job; the prosecution did not.

I do agree that murder 2 was too much, but manslaughter was on the table, too, and he was also found not guilty of that charge.

Maybe he could have been found guilty of a lesser charge, but they state didn't bring a lesser charge, and even if they had, I don't think people would have been satisfied with a guilty verdict on anything less than a murder charge.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. The impression I'm getting is this, black people don't have a right to self defense...

or if they do, it better be filmed(but not when defending yourself against police), because no one is sure going to believe you, and if you are murdered for doing so, you are going to be blamed for your own death, and not your murderer.

[YarnAddict]

17. No

No one is saying that African Americans have no right to self-defense. This case should stand on its own. If Trayvon's nose had been broken, or if he'd had cuts, scrapes, bruises, then there would have been evidence that Z had attacked.

Following, profiling, etc. is not illegal. If it were, there would be clear evidence that Z had committed a crime; but ultimately, no crime was committed up until one touched the other. And there was no evidence that Z laid a hand on Trayvon first.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. There's no evidence that he didn't lay a hand on Martin first either. n/t

[YarnAddict]

21. No, there isn't, but

it was up to the prosecution to prove their case, and up to the defense to introduce reasonable doubt. In the absence of proof by the prosecution, there was nothing left but reasonable doubt.

[Humanist_Activist]

27. I would say there was ample evidence for negligent homicide or manslaughter...

Zimmerman shouldn't have been there in the first place, he created the situation, brought a gun to it, so he is responsible.

[YarnAddict]

30. I don't know the law,

so I don't know the criteria for negligent homicide. Remember, manslaughter was on the table, and the jury didn't seem to think there was evidence to support that. Or, at least that the evidence presented introduced reasonable doubt.

We may someday know what went on in deliberations, to find out what was in the minds of the jurors, although if I were on that jury I would never speak out.

[Humanist_Activist]

32. I think it was jury nullification, Martin was just another dead N-word, after all.

and according to you, he orchestrated his own death by being black at night.

[dkf]

36. John Goods testimony that TM pinned Z down was the one they couldn't overcome.

Combine that with the injuries and there was no way the state had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmernan had not acted in self defense.

[YarnAddict]

38. Thank you

for being a voice of reason in a discussion that's becoming increasingly bizarre!

[dkf]

39. Many are running on emotion, not on analysis of the evidence or the law.

This was a bad case to hang up everyone's need for racial justice. Too much feeling and hurt to get to the merits of the case.

[YarnAddict]

41. It's a very emotional case

My heart breaks for the Martin family. I just don't see how with the evidence presented, that a responsible jury could come to any other conclusion.

If anyone is at fault for this outcome, it's the prosecution, and I really don't know how they could have done anything more.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. I believe that Martin had every right to self defense, and those injuries were superficial. n/t

[dkf]

54. They might have been superficial but there was no evidence TM would have stopped.

Thus you must consider that Z was thinking it would go on and on and on. Z's professor laid out Z's entire self defense case and he was a witness for the prosecution! You do not have to wait until you are seriously injured or dying to use self defense. If you can see no other way out, you can use deadly force.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. So fucking what, we don't know what exactly started the situation, but Martin also could...

reasonably assume his life was in danger from Zimmerman, yet people here seem to assume two things, one that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, and second that Martin didn't have a right to self defense, even if the first assumption is untrue.

[YarnAddict]

37. I NEVER said anything like that!!

I have talked about evidence, lack of proof, and reasonable doubt!

And the day that the outcome of trials depends on the inntuition of anonymous posters on message boards, will be a sad day indeed!

[dkf]

35. Self defense works for all those charges and grants immunity from civil charges too.

[dairydog91]

4. I don't think it's legally relevant whether Trayvon thought he was acting in self defense.

It's possible that both parties to a confrontation thought that they needed to use force to defend themselves. All that the jury had to consider was whether GZ had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. It wouldn't have mattered if TM thought the same thing about himself. Even if it was proved that TM thought he was defending himself, GZ could still argue that his own use of force was justified by his own belief that he was in danger.

[LittleBlue]

6. The law doesn't give him leave to pulverize someone following him

even if he suspects that person is up to no good. Otherwise we could all just beat on each other if we happen to be walking in the same direction.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Honestly I think Zimmerman did more than just follow, Martin was defending his life. n/t

[YarnAddict]

18. Again--

where is the evidence of that? Witnesses? Bruises? There isn't any evidence. If there had been, a guilty verdict would have been a slam dunk.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Did Martin have to get beaten up in order to defend himself? He could have been grabbed...

easily enough, that would have left no marks. Why does he need witnesses to be defended from this defamation by Zimmerman supporters, but Zimmerman doesn't need the same?

[YarnAddict]

24. Evidence

In order for Trayvon to have been seen as defending himself, there would have had to have been some kind of evidence.

The rules are: prosecution has to prove their case; defense has to introduce reasonable doubt.

What proof is there that Trayvon was defending himself? There is none.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. What evidence was there that Zimmerman was defending himself?

Oh right, he's white, Martin is black, so of course Martin is in the wrong here.

[YarnAddict]

28. Bruises, grass stains on Trayvon's knees,

grass stains and dampness on the back of Z's clothing, and eye witness, . . .

What evidence would you consider acceptable reasonable doubt of the prosecution's case?

[Humanist_Activist]

29. The eyewitnesses were unreliable and somewhat conflicting...

we don't know what started the fight, but given Zimmerman's history, he most likely started it.

[YarnAddict]

31. The jury didn't know Z's history

Fair or not, it was introduced. As for conflicting testimony, the jury probably weighted the testimony of Jon Good more heavily because he was closer and it was more specific. I don't know. For some reason, they seemed to think that the evidence supported Z's story. At least to the point of reasonable doubt.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. I expect Zimmerman to kill again, and again claim self defense, it will probably be another black...

teenager too. People like him aren't going to stop.

[YarnAddict]

42. Yeah, sure, whatever.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. He's a paranoid hothead who can carry a gun legally and already used it to murder one person...

and got away with it too, he will kill again.

[ctaylors6]

7. You should watch this

&feature=youtu.be

This is during the charging conference when the parties are arguing about whether the initial aggressor provision of self-defense law (776.041) should be included in the jury instructions.

[Taitertots]

10. Short Answer: Being followed is not legal justification to attack someone n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman and not the other way around? n/t

[Taitertots]

14. Irrelevant in the context of the current discussion

Did Martin have a legal justification to escalate to using force based on self defense laws? No.

[Humanist_Activist]

15. Wait a second, are you arguing that the unarmed person can't use lethal force in self defense...

but the armed person can? Does the law only apply to certain people?

[Taitertots]

22. Nope, I'm saying that self defense laws don't apply to people who are briefly followed...

Whether or not the person who is following them has a concealed firearm.

And:
A person who is following someone (armed or not) has a legal, rational, and ethical justification to use lethal force against the person they are following if that person attacks them in a way that they have the reasonable belief would cause grievous injury or death.

The law applies to everyone.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. Your assumption is that Martin attack first, there's no evidence for that, Zimmerman could have...

grabbed him and that escalated the situation, open and shut case for self defense, for Martin.

[Taitertots]

34. You are assuming that I'm saying that. If the hypothetical situation that you created was true.....

Martin would have the right to use reasonable force to end the attack.

Based on my understanding of the law, reasonable force in the context of someone grabbing you isn't straddling them and punching them in the face repeatedly while they beg for help. While in the context of being straddled and repeated punched in the face while begging for help, shooting someone once is using reasonable force in self defense. The witness closest to the incident corroborates Zimmerman's story. Forensic experts corroborate Zimmerman's story.

[Humanist_Activist]

40. Wait a minute, so Martin, believing his life was in danger(rightfully) didn't have the right to...

kill Zimmerman in self defense, but Zimmerman had that right? What the hell type of fucked up shit is that?

[Taitertots]

45. I'm not sure how much more simply I can explain it

Attacking someone who follows you - Not Self defense

Using reasonable force against someone who follows and then grabs you - Self Defense

Straddling someone and punching them in the face while they beg for help - Not reasonable force in response to being grabbed

Shooting someone who is straddling you while punching you in the face as you beg for help - Reasonable use of force

[Humanist_Activist]

46. Does any of this change if Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun?

Because I could easily imagine Zimmerman blurting it out, or Martin glimpsing it or something resembling a gun(in his mind).

[Taitertots]

50. Only if Zimmerman was brandishing it

[Humanist_Activist]

51. So, because Martin was unarmed, his options for legal self defense were more limited?

How the fuck does this work?

Even if Zimmerman grabbed him and said, "I have a gun", Martin still can't try to kill him? This is just fucked up.

[Taitertots]

52. If your hypothetical situation were true, he could use reasonable force to stop Zimmerman

The key component of this is reasonable force. He can't "try to kill him", but he can use reasonable force which can include killing him. You are conflating "trying to kill him" with using using reasonable force in self defense.

Reasonable force (in this context) does not include straddling and pummeling while the person begs for help.

You are correct, someone who is unarmed doesn't have the option of using a firearm. They can't use a firearm. But the have the same legal protections if the person attacking them died.

[Humanist_Activist]

53. You keep going to the whole "pummeling" thing, uhm, a bloody(not broken) nose...

and some light scratches on the back of the head does NOT equal a pummeling, the straddling could have been an attempt at restraint, considering how few wounds Zimmerman suffered. As far as the "cries for help" that could have just as easily been Martin rather than Zimmerman.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. You don't know if Zimmerman did anything else to escalate the situation. n/t

[ceonupe]

47. The law

Requires the state to prove that Zimmerman started the fight/threw first punch. Not that he could have.

You sound like the state prosecutors the state should not be using hypothetcals .

Their job is to prove not suggest.
This case was bad from the begging almost upside down when it comes to how both sides presented it.

I don't see DOJ going after GZ nor the police on this issue. There will be political pressure to change SYG but when u start looking in to the cases of it being used not many times is it controversial and most times it is intra race.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. Basically you are arguing that anyone who gets into a fight in Florida better kill the other person.

Because that way they can get away with it?

[ceonupe]

49. No I'm saying

FL just like everywhere in America the burden of proof is on the state in criminal cases. The state did not meet that burden.

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. Because it's Floriduh. If you recall, initially they didn't even want to charge him.

republican Floriduh prosecutors don't get reelected convicting white people for killing black people.

[Soundman]

55. Had the altercation taken place

Further down the "dog walk" I believe the outcome might have been different. IMO the jury came to the proper verdict.

The legal analyst that was listening too said that for all intent and purpose if the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of 2nd degree murder, he would have to be found not guilty of manslaughter as well.