So suppose a woman is walking alone along a dark road.

[DanTex]

A man starts to follow her. Feeling a bit frightened, she pulls out her mace spray and gets it ready. The man grabs her by the arm, she turns around and sprays him. Temporarily blinded and in extreme pain, the man panics and decides the woman he was stalking just a minute ago might be trying to kill him. So he pulls out his gun and shoots her.

This man would be innocent of any crime according to Florida law, correct?

Particularly if there are no solid witnesses, and the man makes up some story about how she said "you're going to die", and maybe he has a few scratches to show from being hit by her purse.


I mean, it seems to me, based on the Zimmerman precedent, if you want to kill someone, all you need to do is to bully them a bit until they fight back, and then claim you thought your life was in danger. As long as nobody witnesses the act, you can claim "reasonable doubt" about whether it was really self-defense.

[geek tragedy]

1. Only if the person who gets shot is black. nt

[lark]

28. Understand your point, but disagree

Women are the enemy to many right wingers just as much as minorities and college kids are the enemy. Trans-vaginal state decreed rape is not racist, it's just anti all women. There are many "enemies" these days to the PTB - women, blacks, workers, liberals, teachers - they hate all of us. Everyone except right wing religious gun huggers are in more danger than they should be with this verdict.

[LiberalLoner]

131. +1

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. More like "only if the person who does the shooting isn't black"

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

See eg http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_229

The woman who fired a warning shot was black; her abusive ex was also black. She didn't even hit him; she got 20 years.

On edit: even more relevant - this is a black shooter, white death - but the white guy started the fight. 71 year old Trevor Dooley, black, and 41 year old David James, white: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022944747#post6

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=283139

[Deep13]

126. and the shooter is white. nt

[live love laugh]

127. I won't say "only" if the person is black but it's way more likely if the person is black.

Other races . . . notsomuch.

[madaboutharry]

2. If you live in Florida,

the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense. And the defendant claiming self-defense doesn't have to testify.

[ReRe]

75. Easy-peezey...

"Set up a website for funds to finance your counsel and to support yourself and your family. Sit back, put your feet up and watch the money roll in. Be sure the funds go directly into your bank account. After the trial is over and the money runs out, you could become an economic vigilante hit man. Wash, rinse, dry and start all over again."

This dangerous contagious precedent in the form of the "Stand-Your-Ground" Law was born in Florida in 2005, nurtured by Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. In less than 10 yrs, the evil law metastasized to 24 more states. Vigilantism now consumes half of America. What a potent omen to stir into this fomenting, racist, melting-pot caldron.

Yet, when one speaks the truth and tries to tell the people, they call you a crazy zealot.

[bluedeathray]

3. Yeah but she was wearing a hoodie

[uponit7771]

6. +1

[lolly]

112. There is a female equivalent, of course

She was wearing a mini-skirt. Or a tight sweater. Or high heels. Or red lipstick.

She must have wanted guys to follow her. Therefore her stalker's behavior was entirely understandable.

[Avalux]

4. Correct.

The only person who knows what happens is the guy with the gun, the other one is dead. All else is circumstantial evidence. The guy with the gun tells his story, but doesn't have to testify in court. The burden of proof is on the state - they must somehow prove he didn't feel threatened, which is impossible.

[VWolf]

133. Moral of the story - make sure you kill the kid, not just wound him

Sad and twisted, I know.

[Blackford]

5. Unlike reasonable states, a self defense claim does not have to be demonstrated by the defense

The prosecution is under the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prove the negative, thus yes, the rapist is innocent.

[dkf]

7. TM had Z pinned and Z could not retreat according to eye witness testimony (John Good)

If Z could had gotten out of that hold there were other avenues to defend himself and self defense would have been harder to claim.

Likewise if the guy with the gun could have departed the scene he had an obligation to do so.

[DanTex]

8. And the rapist in this hypothetical story is blinded and in extreme pain from being maced.

Given the choice between a wrestling match with a teenager and having mace sprayed in my face, I'll take the teenager every time.

Neither one is justification for killing someone. Especially someone whose aggressive actions (if there actually were any) are a response to being stalked.

[dkf]

9. What is the credible theory about how this woman would have killed him

His self defense claim would be laughed out of court.

[DanTex]

11. There's no credible theory that TM was going to kill Zimmerman either.

But, since there were no good witnesses, there's "reasonable doubt". How is the prosecution going to prove that the rapist was not in fear for his life, with no witnesses? How do you prove something like that? After all, mace is very painful. Maybe he saw a shiny object and thought it was a knife?

If there are no witnesses, and the rapist refuses to testify, like what happened with Z, then the burden is on the prosecution, right? The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They can just say, look, nobody saw what happened, how can you be sure that it wasn't actually self-defense? How do you prove something about a murderer's state of mind when the only person who saw what happened is dead?

[dkf]

12. Witness testimony had TM pinning Z to the ground.

Injuries show blows to Z and injuries to TM's knuckles.

There is a completely realistic theory of how Z could have been killed or have been seriously injured. That would have been TM continuing to strike Z.

People do die from head injuries after all.

[DanTex]

17. Z had minor injuries. He was in much better shape than had he been maced.

The only reason Z got off is because of reasonable doubt. Yeah, maybe TM attacked him. Maybe he was actually in fear for his life. After all, nobody saw what really happened.

There's a "theory" of how Z could have been killed, and I could also come up with a "theory" about how a victim could have killed a rapist. Like maybe she had a knife on her and was planning to stab him after she maced him.

That's about as likely as the theory that TM was going to bash Z's head into the ground until he died. And it's also just as difficult to disprove.

[dkf]

38. Well that is the standard...beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.

[DanTex]

40. Yes, and by that standard, the hypothetical rapist would get off also.

Which is why the "reasonable doubt" standard is a dumb standard for self-defense cases. The burden should shift to the defense to prove that it was actually a justifiable homicide, like it does in other states.

[dkf]

46. Apparently only if there are jurors who believe as you do.

[lolly]

113. No--only if there are laws written to shift the burden to the defense

In this case, under Florida laws, the prosecution had to prove that it wasn't self-defense.

All but impossible when the other witness is dead, and the police did not collect evidence from the perpetrator at the scene.

Other states put more of the burden on the defense.

This is NOT the same as putting the burden on the defense to prove that he is innocent. Once it's been established that the defendant did, in fact, kill the victim--the defense should have to present a convincing case FOR self-defense.

Otherwise, the scenario in the OP is entirely plausible.

[mbperrin]

39. He had 2 band aids on his head and never went to the hospital.

In court, the "wounds" were called insubstantial.

In reality, they were scratches, and no DNA was found under TM's fingernails, so George likely did it himself.

I've had worse lifting my head up under a cabinet.

[dkf]

41. Sigh. Did anyone read the jury instructions?

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

[mbperrin]

98. Yes, I read the entire set.

So how does that make the scratches on George's head more serious?

[PsychGrad]

51. Exactly...

If that is what Zimmerman considers "life threatening" then he is even more of a coward than he has already proven he is. As a woman, I can take more than that before resorting to KILLING someone. I bet childbirth is more life threatening in fact, and women are doing that every single day without killing people.

[mbperrin]

99. Childbirth is definitely more life-threatening.

Even a bad paper cut would be about what George got.

He IS a coward, a liar, and the good part is that he will be shunned by most decent people for the rest of his life. His gun nut friends are through with him, so no more PayPal bucks, either.

[laundry_queen]

116. He is that much of a coward

His attorney was on CNN tonight saying how 'terrified' GZ has been all this time waiting for trial - so much so when he goes out he goes out in disguise and WEARS BODY ARMOR all the time. He's continuously scared for his life, according to his lawyer (poor baby). Seriously - he's the biggest chickenshit on earth. Racist too (they're all after me now!)

[PsychGrad]

119. Oh wow...

As much as I'm ashamed to admit this, I actually laughed out loud about this. Good. I hope he is terrified - bc I know in my heart of hearts that Trayvon WAS truly terrified that night - being stalked by an adult and having no idea why. But that cracks me up - body armor - whatever georgie... good luck with all that.

[rl6214]

120. Why would TM have Z DNA under his nails

If he was PUNCHING Z?

[mbperrin]

122. The only injuries that required band aids were SCRATCHES

on the BACK of his head. Concrete does not scratch and neither does a fist - but fingernails do.

Too bad they didn't check George's own nails that night.

[rl6214]

123. You're wrong, concrete can scratch

Never fallen down on concrete have you?

[mbperrin]

125. I poured concrete for a decade before I went into teaching.

Concrete scrapes nice big chunks of hide the width of the flat, not two fingernail-sized scratches several inches apart.

I've seen worse from a baby that needed their nails trimmed.

[PsychGrad]

49. Um...

One scratch on one of Trayvon's knuckles and a broken nose and two scratches on the back of his head for Zimmerman that did NOT require any medical attention. That doesn't sound like life threatening to me, at all. Could it have escalated to that? Maybe - but it wasn't there yet at all. It's no different than people saying that Trayvon overreacted by punching Zimmerman for "just following" him. Zimmerman KILLED Trayvon simply bc he got punched once and scuffled around.

[John2]

64. Why don't you provide any evidence

of a boy weighing 158 pounds at 17 years old, with a slim build, beating a 28-29 year old, 204 pound man to death in a fight where he can't move? You provide such evidence or case, then you win your case. If you can't provide such evidence, then you know what you can do with your theory.

[dkf]

69. CDC: Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a serious public health problem in the United States. Each year, traumatic brain injuries contribute to a substantial number of deaths and cases of permanent disability. Every year, at least 1.7 million TBIs occur either as an isolated injury or along with other injuries.1

A TBI is caused by a bump, blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain. Not all blows or jolts to the head result in a TBI. The severity of a TBI may range from “mild,” i.e., a brief change in mental status or consciousness to “severe,” i.e., an extended period of unconsciousness or amnesia after the injury. The majority of TBIs that occur each year are concussions or other forms of mild TBI.2

http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/

[SoCalMusicLover]

82. It's O.K., You Can Put Down That Bucket Of Water

Trial's over.

[John2]

83. I said about

the evidence of a boy of Martin's physical size beating to death a man of Zimmerman's size. That is the theory you tried to have us believe. It is almost as laughable as you claim a woman with mase. Only this boy does not even have mase. I'm asking you to present such an incident anywhere in this world's known history if you can come up with such an incident to win your argument. You can't even call it a reasonable theory because it has never happened.

That is how silly Zimmerman's claim was and that jury went for it. It is one of the reasons I believe their decision was based on race. They saw Martin as a monster. Like white women being afraid of black men. You ever heard of that, because that is not a theory. Trayvon was just a boy, and there was nothing special about his physical capabilities. It was a boy against a man 40 pounds heavier.

And what is your claim about mental incapacity. I hope you are not alleging Zimmerman was in some kind of trauma when he shot Martin? He knew perfectly where he was enough to kill Martin.

[truth2power]

66. I remember the Judge saying to the jury..

that they may believe or disbelieve any witness.

[olegramps]

71. This the first time I have heard that Travon had injury to his knuckles. Please verify.

[cthulu2016]

15. See #8. You do not understand what "reasonable" means in law.

[DanTex]

22. You seem to have trouble with the concept of "reasonable doubt".

Why don't you read up a bit and then joint us later.

[John2]

62. She saw his gun and went for it.

You got any thing else?

[cthulu2016]

13. Your unreasonable risk assessments are irrelevant to the jury

what you claim you would "take every time" is irrelevant. Nobody is as dumb as you are claiming to be for effect, but even if we stipulate that you really think that, whatever defect of mind that might cause you to think the way you are pretending to think here would not be evidence of reasonability.

A jury weighs what a hypothetical REASONABLE PERSON would think, not what you think. Your state of mind is not decisive in a self-defense argument.

You might believe your neighbor to be an alien monster.

That would not be self-defense, it would be insanity... that you lacked the capability to think right.

If a reasonable person would not have thought your neighbor an alien then nobody cares what you think.

(vis-a-vis self defense. Again, what you think would be quite relevant to an insanity plea.)

[heaven05]

29. good

was not unimpeachable. He was coached. He changed his original testimony. You zimpig supporters.......

[ellisonz]

54. If Zimmerman was pinned...

...how could he have removed a handgun from his holster on the backside of his waist and then shoot his attacker through the heart without having the gun taken away.

Zimmerman lied, the jury bought it, and justice was corrupted.

[xocet]

73. That is what I've been wondering, too...

SPECULATION:

This is an alternate theory for which there is no evidence of which I am aware:

Suppose that Zimmerman actually had his gun out, but (presuming that the gun has a safety) forgot to take off the safety. Trayvon approaches from a side from which he cannot see the gun and addresses Zimmerman. A verbal exchange ensues. Zimmerman turns and reveals and points the gun. Trayvon attempts to defend himself and takes Zimmerman to the ground while attempting to control the gun. Trayvon lands a few blows, but loses control of the weapon. Zimmerman takes off the safety and shoots - killing Trayvon. Zimmerman wipes the gun down to hide the fact that Trayvon had had to grasp the barrel to control it in Trayvon's attempt to defend himself.

Without a proper police investigation from the start, without any evidence from the gun, and without witnesses, none of this can be supported.

What I don't know among many things is whether Zimmerman's holster held his gun in place with a strap, whether Zimmerman's gun has a safety (all guns do, don't they?) and whether grasping a barrel/slide would leave enough DNA/fingerprints/palmprints to indicate that the gun had been grasped from the front.

Your question still remains though: how did Zimmerman successfully draw his weapon from a pinned position?

[Sparkly]

93. Then how did Z get his gun?

[cthulu2016]

10. The man would be convicted of murder in a heartbeat, under the SAME LAWS that acquitted Zimmerman

The man in your hypothetical would be convicted of felony murder in a heartbeat. This might suggest, to an honest mind, that the hypothetical has nothing to do with the case you are equating it to.

No reasonable person would shoot in that instance. And stipulating an assault changes the standard. (One may suspect Zimmerman assaulted Martin but it was not stipulated as unquestioned fact in the trial, unlike the hypothetical that just states a set of facts.)

The hypothetical is irrelevant... it lacks all comparability.

[DanTex]

14. Not true at all. And who's stipulating assault?

As with this case, we all might suspect that the man assaulted the woman, but with no witnesses, there's no way to prove that. In the same way that it makes absolutely no sense to think that TM just attacked Z out of the blue, but as you point out, there are no witnesses, so there's "reasobable doubt".

The rapist simply pleads the fifth, and his lawyers say he was maced an in extreme pain, after a hysterical woman lashed out at him and maced him for no reason, when he was just minding his business.

[cthulu2016]

16. You think you have a point. You do not, in fact, have a point.

So there is nowhere to proceed.

You do not understand what "reasonable" means in American law, and seem disinclined to seek such an understanding.

Nobody cares what the rapist thinks in this hypothetical. The law cares only what a reasonable person would have thought.

[DanTex]

19. You think you have found a clever way to dodge my argument, but you have not.

"there is nowhere to proceed" means you can't think of any rebuttal.

The key here is reasonable doubt. How does anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the rapist did not reasonably fear for his life. Remember, there are no witnesses.

The rapist claims the woman went berserk and maced him for no reason was about to kick him in the head with a spiked heel. How do you prove this theory false beyond reasonable doubt?

If it's so easy, let's hear your argument.

[Lurker Deluxe]

129. .

She didn't have heels on.

[heaven05]

30. neither

do you and you have no clue.

[COLGATE4]

130. Arguing legal issues with a non-lawyer

is like trying to teach a pig to sing - it doesn't get you anywhere and it just annoys the pig.

[Lee-Lee]

18. I agree

Given just the facts as presented, because the man grabbed the woman first her reaction using pepper spray was reasonable and justified- in a Stan your ground state.

In states with a duty to retreat the state could argue her use of pepper spray was excessive force and that she had a duty to try to run away first.

Had he not grabbed her, or shown some very clear intent he was attempting to, using pepper spray would have not been justified.

Self defense laws can get pretty muddled sometimes. But in the scenario you presented because the man initiated the use of force by gabbing her a self defense claim is out the window. Only exception would be if he attempted to withdraw from the fight and flee and she continued the use of force against him- then she shifted from victim to aggressor.

The laws in most states are fairly consistent in this regard.

[DanTex]

20. Yeah, but nobody was there to witness the man grabbing the woman first.

Just like nobody was there to witness GZ attacking TM.

If the Trayvon Martin incident had been caught on camera, Z would be in prison now. But with no witnesses, there's "reasonable doubt".

[Lee-Lee]

25. True

And that is how the system works- would you rather have that, or a system where you can be convicted without evidence.

Our system is set up to do its best to guard against convicting the innocent- and that does mean lots of guilty people go free. Lots of murderers go unconvicted or uncharged every year due to the state not having enough evidence, no matter if it stems from a self defense claim, a good job hiding evidence, or even that they hid the body so well the person stays missing.

I don't know what we could change in the system to prevent that without impacting civil liberties and freedom. Maybe we could set up CCTV so virtually everybody in a public space is recorded- do we want that however?

[DanTex]

26. I think if you claim self-defense, the burden of proof should shift, at least somewhat.

The burden of proof should be on the prosecution to prove you actually killed the person, as it is. But if you claim self-defense, you should have to prove that it was self-defense. Otherwise, it opens the door to vigilanteism like we saw in this case.

In a lot of other states, from what I understand, if you claim an affirmative defense, the burden of proof does change from a "reasonable doubt" standard to a "preponderance of evidence" standard.

[lolly]

114. Yes. This.

The self-defense claim stipulates that the defendant DID, in fact, kill the victim.

Those making the claim should have to make a credible case, not just dodge the prosecution's case.

That is a weakness with Florida's law, and will probably result in more unpunished murders unless/until it is rewritten.

[Lee-Lee]

121. This is a double edged sword with unintended consequences

We don't like how it worked in this case.

But look at some other possible cases- for example a woman who is attacked by a rapist in an otherwise unoccupied parking garage.

Should she have to worry about making sure she somehow records the events into evidence as she defends herself?

Should she have to make a snap judgement of "well, if I shoot him with no witness I may go to jail for 20 years, is it worth the risk to avoid a rape?". That is a horrendous position to ever put a person in, but that is what changing the burden of proof in self defense would do.

You might think "well obviously they can show he was up to no good" because you have a bias in favor of the woman.

Now lets say the woman has had a few small problems and a checkered past, and the man is a successful local politician who just happens to get off assault women and has to date never been caught doing it.

Now she has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was self defense or go to jail for defending herself?

When calling for changes to self defense laws, don't just view them through the tiny prism that this case provided, there are many more possibilities out there, and changes can have serious ramifications.

[heaven05]

32. disingenuous

bullshit and obfuscating crap....

[Art_from_Ark]

115. There is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin

There is no doubt that Zimmerman was armed with a gun, and that Martin had no weapon-- just candy and tea.
There is no doubt that Zimmerman was bigger and more imposing than Martin.
There is no doubt that Zimmerman had made dozens of calls to 911 about "suspicious" people of color, even including a little 7-year-old kid.
There is no doubt that Zimmerman got out of his truck to pursue Martin, even though he was cautioned against doing that by the 911 dispatcher.

[cthulu2016]

24. she would have no duty to run away in any state

Pepper spray is not lethal force, thus she has no obligation to retreat before employing it.

Also, a reasonability standard takes all factors into account. A reasonable person who was a woman, was alone in the dark, was grabbed out of the blue by a man following her would think X.

A reasonable person would, in those circumstances, have a real and reasonable fear of a subsequent more serious assault beyond having an arm grabbed.

On the other hand, a reasonable man at the state fair in a big crowd having a woman grab his arm would reasonably expect that she wanted directions or something, and would not mace her.

[Lee-Lee]

27. Some states

Say lethal force, some say defense force, and thy would include pepper spray.

[Daalalou]

48. A reasonable person would also assume that a teen alone in the dark ...

... who was grabbed by a man who had been following him has reasonable fear of subsequent more serious assault. But if there are no witnesses and the man claims otherwise, how can anyone prove that's what happened?

If the woman in the scenario is dead, no one but the person who killed her knows that he intended to rape her, or that he grabbed her. And if he claims she attacked him first, how can we prove him wrong?

[Niceguy1]

103. in the travon

Case lack of evidence is the issue, not the law.

One thing there is no lack of...opinion.

[Nay]

134. Lack of evidence was indeed the issue, but that was almost wholly caused by the PD's

complete inattention to the matter of collecting it. IMHO, that's why GZ got off -- the PD didn't do its job. And why didn't the PD do its job? Well, that's a matter of conjecture, but we'd have to consider that the attitude of the Sanford PD is that they had one fewer teenage black punks in the neighborhood, and good riddance. Of course, no one can prove that, so in the end we don't have justice done.

[HockeyMom]

102. Dumb

Get the hell out of there, sister. You won't need you silly pepper spray.

I just don't get the mindset of you have a RIGHT to be anywhere. Why do you even want to be?

[MADem]

21. Was she wearing a "menacing" black hoodie and holding a can of ice tea in a "threatening" manner? nt

[Voice for Peace]

23. seriously, this case is a hideous precedent on so many levels.

I'm still hanging on to hope, however.
I absolutely believe there is justice in Life,
if not in the courts.

[billh58]

31. The Zimmerman apologists

are swarming from the Gungeon and declaring "victory" for their precious guns and the vigilante "laws" in backward states like Florida. The tide is turning, and hopefully their penchant for supporting state-sanctioned murder will be their downfall as more sane Americans wake up and realize the extent of the NRA's obscene influence on our society.

[DanTex]

33. Well if something "good" comes out of this, at least it's waking people up to just how far the NRA

pushed things while nobody was paying attention.

[smirkymonkey]

74. This verdict was bullshit.

I can't believe he got away with it. I am so angry I could spit nails. And I am a white woman. I hope Zimmerman suffers for the rest of his miserable life.

[savalez]

34. This is an interesting take on that:

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong....

There is only one more paragraph. I wasn't sure if I could post the whole thing so I did not. I urge you to read the rest.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/how_much_is_about_florida_law.php?ref=fpblg

[DanTex]

35. Thanks for the link. That's basically what I was getting at.

Also, I think the rule for excerpts on DU is you can post up to 4 paragraphs, which means the whole thing if it's shorter than 4.

[onenote]

88. if he had posted a bit more of the article

he would have revealed that the Wisconsin lawyer doesn't even know his own state's law. The only state that meets his description of a "civilized jurisdiction" is Ohio. As stated in the article.

This lawyer ought to hope his identity remains anonymous since most people would be reluctant to hire a criminal lawyer who doesn't even know the law regarding the defenses he might raise on their behalf.

[DanTex]

90. According to Eugene Volokh, gun rights advocate and right-winger...

[onenote]

91. Okay. Would the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research convince you?

http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0984.htm

And this statement from a law firm in Wisconsin?
http://www.chirafisiverhoff.com/wisconsin-criminal-attorney/self-defense.asp

[DanTex]

94. If CA and WI have the same laws as FL, then I think those laws are bad as well.

[pasto76]

36. this law in florida removes any burden, they just have to say 'I was afraid for my life'

it's insane. and the OP is dead on. All I have to do now is go pick a fight, get my ass kicked then I can shoot them.

[onenote]

87. Wow. Not often that a lawyer publicly reveals himself to be a walking malpractice case

This guy thinks its "crazy" to put the burden of proof of disproving a self defense claim on the prosecution and that any "civilized jurisdiction" would put the burden on the defendant. Well, as the article goes on to indicate, by his standard the only civilized jurisdiction in the country is Ohio. And, quite amusingly, his own state of Wisconsin follows the rule of requiring the state to disprove a self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

I hope the Wisconsin lawyer's malpractice insurance is paid up if he is representing criminal defendants without a basic understanding of his own state's law.

[kestrel91316]

37. Yep. And this is the perfect way to commit First Degree Murder and

get away with it. If there might be witnesses, the shooter just has to be sure to tell the cops that the woman said in a low but threatening voice (that no one else could hear): I'm going to kill you.

The perfect crime.

[NutmegYankee]

42. It's an extremely bad precedent.

And it's a terrifying reality for so many in Florida now.

[hfojvt]

43. suppose the woman is only 600 yards from home

and has four minutes to get there with a two minute head start.

Why doesn't she make it home?

[EC]

45. So this woman would want to lead this guy

to her home?

anytime in my life that I have felt like I was being followed - I never went home - I went someplace public or hid, but I never lead anyone to my home.

[HockeyMom]

47. Embrace the gunner mindset

You SHOOT them, not FLEE.

[hfojvt]

50. easy enough to ditch them

with that two minute head start.

And presumably call 911 on the way there.

[polly7]

56. You are right.

Even when I was being actively chased and beaten, then got away for a few minutes, one of the first things I thought of was where could I go other than to where my family was. It would have killed me to think I was responsible for putting them in danger, as much as I know they'd have thought the exact opposite and done whatever they could for me. As silly as that may seem to some here ... running home or involving others to be hurt or killed actually is something that flashes through your mind, and it's terrifying.

[Daalalou]

57. Thank you!

I would do the same.

In addition, there's the question, "Why didn't Trayvon call 911 if he was scared?"

I've been walking alone late at night, and sometimes it seems like someone is following me. I usually call someone I know and tell them where I am and my fears, because I generally think the police won't respond unless an actual crime is taking place. But at least if something happens to me, someone I know, knows about it.

[7962]

80. excellent idea!

[RC]

84. A Black kid in a hoodie calling the cops?

Maybe he didn't want the cops to shoot him. Look how the local police handled this incident as it was.

[EC]

44. It would be a good place for somebody who wants

to kill someone to vacation or live.

[gtar100]

52. That's exactly what the jury decided - bully protection.

I've seen bullies do that same thing time again - push someone around until the other person reacts back and then claim the other person started it. That's the kind of mentality we're dealing with not just with this case but with all loud-mouthed republicans out there.

[HockeyMom]

53. Her FAULT if she wasn't ARMED

You have to understand the mindset of the pro-gun people. I have heard it a million times. GUNS are the great equalizers, don't ya know.

Women, blacks, disabled, Seniors are fair game if they are not arming themselves.

[protect our future]

79. And arming oneself with a sidewalk, like

Trayvon was accused of doing, does not seem to work very well.

[Kablooie]

55. If someone fights you in self defense you can kill them and the law says YOU exercised self defense.

In other states there is a duty to retreat.
If retreat is possible and you don't do so you can't claim self defense.
Not so in Florida.

[onenote]

70. There is a duty to retreat in Florida under the facts of the hypothetical

Because the guy initiated the attack and used more force than necessary.

Even in states that have a duty to retreat provision, if there are no witnesses and the guy claims she threatened him and maced him the state would have the burden of disproving his claim that, having been blinded by her unjustified use of mace (remember he is claiming she used force first) he could not retreat from what he perceived as a threat on his life with complete safety and thus was justified in using deadly force against her.

[1Greensix]

58. Wrong charge

Zimm should have first been charged and convicted of Stalking. Then, charged with murder in the commission of a crime.

[leftstreet]

68. +1

Anything along those lines would have worked

The Prosecutors seemed to want to blow this case

[onenote]

78. Except what he was doing doesn't constitute stalking under FL law

which requires "repeated" (and malicious and willful) following, harassing of another. Harassment requires a course of conduct that can occur over any period of time, but it still has to occur "repeatedly" and the law in Florida and under the model stalking law that many states have adopted in whole or in part, repeatedly is explained as meaning "two or more occasions." Getting getting in and out of one's truck over a single event isn't going to be regarded as two separate occasions.

[onenote]

59. You are mistaken

Under Florida law, when the man in your hypothetical grabbed the woman's arm, he "provoked" the confrontation and by so doing greatly limited his right to use deadly force and then claim self defense. Provocation requires the actual use of force or an actual threat of the use of force (not just a perceived threat). So in your hypothetical, the woman was entitled to mace the guy. He is only entitled to respond with force if the force used against him (1) is so great that he reasonably believes he is danger of death or great bodily harm and (2) has exhausted every reasonable means of escaping other than the use of deadly force.

In your hypothetical a jury almost certainly would conclude based on the evidence that the force used against the guy (mace) did not reasonably create a fear of death or great bodily harm and/or the guy did not exhaust every reasonable means of escaping.

[DanTex]

60. Good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the rapist grabbed the woman first.

It's also highly likely that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation with TM, but since there were no witnesses, the jury found reasonable doubt.

[onenote]

67. Actually there would be evidence that the woman was grabbed.

But I'm curious why you think the result in the hypothetical would be different in any of the many states (including blue states like Connecticut and Massachusetts) that take the same approach to the burden of proof in a self defense case as Florida?

[DanTex]

81. Really? Evidence of who grabbed who first? Like some form of short-term carbon dating?

Fascinating!

[onenote]

86. Okay, I'll give you that point. Now care to respond to my other point?

In a case with no witnesses, how would the result in Florida be different than the result in other states where the defendant would claim that he couldn't retreat with complete safety because he was blinded by the mace and the burden would be on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that wasn't the case?

[DanTex]

89. The result would be different if the burden of proof shifted when claiming an affirmative defense.

That is, if claiming self-defense required the defendant to prove self-defense, or at least if the burden of proof were lowered below "reasonable doubt". The way it works in some other states, as I understand.

[onenote]

92. Other than Ohio, can you cite to any other states with such a burden of proof?

Here is what the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research had to say on the issue in 1999. The trend since then has been, if anything, towards requiring the state to bear the burden of proof.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0984.htm

[DanTex]

95. I don't know the exact laws in every state. Are you a criminal lawyer?

Anyway, getting by to my original point. Do you agree with the laws in Florida (and elsewhere, perhaps) make it too easy to get away with murder by claiming self-defense, as illustrated by Zimmerman, as well as the hypothetical example in this OP? If not, why not?

[onenote]

96. I have practiced criminal law, although its not my principal area

And the trend towards putting the burden of proof on the state with regards to self-defense has generally been regarded as a progressive development consistent with a desire to afford more rather than less protection to those accused by the state of criminal conduct.

[DanTex]

97. OK. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll take your word on it.

So what's your opinion of the Z case? There seems to be a consensus that something went wrong, a consensus that I share. TM is dead, and from the evidence it appears that he didn't do anything that was too bad. I don't believe for a second that he was actually going to bash Z's head in. We don't know who started the fight, but we know that it was Z who provoked the confrontation by stalking TM. At the very least, you certainly wouldn't be able to prove in a court of law that he did anything wrong. And yet he got the death penalty as carried out by Zimmerman.

It seems to me that permissive self-defense laws are in fact facilitating vigilante justice. It offers more protection to people who carry out vigilanteism, and less protection to victims of vigilanteism.

I certainly don't think that any law that affords more protection to the accused is automatically progressive. Stand Your Ground is certainly not progressive. On the other hand, hate crimes laws are considered progressive, and those favor the state. Laws protecting corporate officers from criminal liability are not progressive. Etc.

And I don't really think that facilitating self-defense claims is particularly progressive either. I don't think that many wrongfully imprisoned people are wrongfully imprisoned because their legitimate self-defense claims were rejected. What I consider progressive would be laws making it less likely that the wrong person gets convicted, as opposed to laws allowing people to push the envelope of what is considered self-defense.

Maybe I'm wrong and haven't thought this through fully, and haven't considered all the ramifications. That's possible. But something certainly seems wrong when a teenager minding his business winds up dead and nobody is held accountable.

[onenote]

100. I didn't watch the trial in its entirety

But from what I've read, I didn't think it was a slam dunk case for either side. A case with limited and conflicting "eyewitness" (or "earwitness&quot testimony is always going to be a tough one for the state, as I think it should be. On the other hand, I think there was a basis in the record for the jury to conclude that, to paraphrase the instructions given to the jury, the appearance of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm [to Zimmerman] was not so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

The key to my thinking about the case is the word "only"-- was the danger that Zimmerman faced such that his only option was to shoot Trayvon (as opposed to fighting with him physically)? I don't think so.

[DanTex]

101. Neither did I, but from what I've seen/read, I can't really argue that there wasn't reasonable doubt

I'm not familiar with exactly what "reasonable doubt" means, but it appears to me that, given the lack of eyewitnesses, of course there's going to be reasonable doubt. I mean, who knows just how hard TM was hitting Z? Maybe TM really did snap and try to kill Z? It's possible.

My problems with the outcome are more general. TM is dead, he most likely didn't do anything wrong (or too wrong), and nobody is held responsible. Z, on the other hand, took actions that led to TM's death. I'd say there's a 10% or maybe 20% chance he was actually in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger -- unlikely, but enough for reasonable doubt. But if he hadn't been stalked and confronted TM to begin with, none of this would have happened. Somehow the whole thing feels wrong, and since I can't really find fault in the jury's reasoning about reasonable doubt, I'm blaming the Florida laws.

In terms of your "only" question, first of all, wouldn't SYG obviate that whole issue? If I understand SYG correctly, even if Z had other options besides deadly force (i.e. retreat), he's still allowed to "stand his ground" and use deadly force, as long as he reasonably feels he's in danger. But beyond that, even if the standard was that deadly force must be the only option, how does one prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, when there are no witnesses?

[Lurker Deluxe]

132. Done

I'd say there's a 10% or maybe 20% chance he was actually in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger

Case over.

Not guilty.

[rrneck]

61. Ooh, I like to play pretend.

What if your hypothetical woman is someone like Aileen Wuornos? It would be a simple matter to pop some guy in the face with pepper spray, kick him in the head and rob him. But this time he had a gun and somehow got off a lucky shot with his burning eyes closed. Now he has to prove he was defending himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used.

It looks like the jury was precluded from considering how those circumstances were created. In light of Zimmerman and Martin's respective history, it is obvious to me that Zimmerman was at fault. Although I haven't followed the trial that closely, I expect that if the jury had been allowed to take into consideration the histories of the two men, the verdict would have been much different.

There is a big difference between a woman walking along a lonely road and a teenage male full of piss and vinegar. And hypotheticals are easy to gin up to make a point.

[John2]

76. Lets be honest, because

I'm going to be honest. People was suspicious when they heard about the makeup and background of this jury. The defense gave them excuses to vote not guilty. I suspect if not all of them, some of them wanted to acquit him before they were on the jury. Just about all these women own guns. People made the assumption a lot of these women might have sons like Trayvon but they could have sons like Zimmerman too. If I had to make a guess, they are probably more conservative like Sarah Palin. There was a defense lawyer said it would be hard to get a conviction because it was a conservative area. The defense team knew the audience they were playing to. If he was in a more liberal area, Zimmerman would have been found guilty. What they did was just put Martin on trial and kept out Zimmerman criminal background. This guy was able to pass a background check. I guess you can have that kind of background and get a gun in Sanford. You can also be the captain of community watch. That is how much of a joke the law is in that jurisdiction.

[rrneck]

85. I don't think there was a jury nullification.

It's the defense's job to give the jury excuses to vote not guilty. That's the whole idea. Were they politically conservative? Probably. Did some of them own guns? I guess. But one's political leanings or ownership of certain things do not necessarily hamper their ability to impartially evaluate the evidence. The prosecution participated in the Voir dire and were certainly aware of the venue and could have asked for a change. The prosecution failed to make a difficult case. I don't think there is any reason to believe that if the political leanings of the area had been different the verdict would have been different.

Although I haven't followed the case all that closely, the prosecution's problems stemmed more from a lack of evidence than prejudice.

[Ilsa]

63. I think you nailed it. nt

[protect our future]

65. White women, once they process what this verdict

really means, will begin to realize they have as much to fear as do black women.

[WCLinolVir]

105. Uh, white woman here, in the know all along. I have been thinking today that we are all at greater

risk. I am also a gun owner. But I realize it is a liability as well. I am astounded that these women could not reach a guilty verdict. WTF. We have always had much to fear, all women, because they keep making excuses for violent male behavior and blaming the victim. Sexism. And racism. Another side of a dirty coin.
When I was 16 and raped, the police did not want to bother investigating because as they put it, "didn't I lead them on, and not want to take it all the way". I was abducted.

[protect our future]

107. Very well said. I, too, am a white woman.

[Skittles]

117. intelligent white gals already know

[protect our future]

118. I should have been more specific.

I wasn't referring to DU members, or readers, or like-minded friends and friends of friends, or politically inclined intelligent women, or intelligent women who have been following the trial. I was referring to women who may not follow politics, women whose daily lives take up so much of their time that they don't have any of that time left to scrutinize the news, women who have brains but choose not to pay attention to what's going on in this country because it's usually awful and too depressing, working women who spend their spare time with loved ones and therefore are not aware of events that directly affect them, women who prefer to live as happily as they can in this weird and sometimes terrible world that they cannot change, and women who, despite their intelligence, have so far been only exposed to the Zimmermanites.

That's a lot of women.

[ileus]

72. He can't stand his ground on her ground.

[Honeycombe8]

77. Silly. You left out the physical evidence that the woman had beaten up the tiny boy....

(size and strength matter), as well as the friend she was talking to on her cell phone (who said she heard her friend walk back to the boy following her and ask "Why are you following me?" or "What's your problem?&quot .

Then you go before a jury, who reviews the photos of the boy's injuries...and the lack of the girl's injuries (indicating who hit whom).....as well as the testimony, etc.

The jury will decide. I have respect for a jury's decision.

[WCLinolVir]

104. Moral of the story-If you are being attacked and have an advantage follow through.

Don't allow then to get back up if you can. And if you do render them immobile, put a weapon in their hand if possible and leave it on the ground next to them. Needless to say it should not have your prints on it.

[protect our future]

108. And if you fail to kill them, they can use the Zimmerman defense

and insist that you were the attacker.

[WCLinolVir]

109. Yes they could, but wasn't that the point of your story? I could feasibly do the same. No witness,

my word against his, if he can speak. I think the theory is to incapacitate them in that particular scenario. It would be one situation where you may not have other resources.

[protect our future]

110. I just wanted to make sure the meaning was clear.

[bloom]

106. With the Stand Your Ground Law

Couldn't any woman shoot any man she felt she had to defend herself from? Why bother with pepper spray - why not just shoot anyone who seems like they may be following you / looking at you in a certain way?

Pretty soon - there would be a lot less men - and people in general. What with all of these people who feel like they have to defend themselves from strangers.

[ctaylors6]

111. I think the man would probably be guilty

IMHO applying the reasonable person standard in the case of deadly force being used (him shooting her), it would not be reasonable that a man responded to being sprayed with mace and hit with her purse by shooting her. I suspect that if he had punched her, even more than once, and she died from the injuries, that might be a different result than if he shot her.

I really think that it's helpful to separate the burden of proof issue from the reasonable person/self-defense issue. If you saw someone being straddled on a sidewalk or street, yelling for help, unable to get up, and getting their head repeatedly pounded into the sidewalk, you could very reasonably fear that person was being inflicted with great bodily harm or even death.

Whether you believe that this is the situation Zimmerman was actually in, especially coupled with how you might feel about how the confrontation started in the first place, is an issue of proof. I assume the state's position was that Martin was on the bottom and/or Zimmerman wasn't really being hurt enough to fear for his life. The defense's position was that Zimmerman was on the bottom, couldn't get up, and thought he could die from the "pound and ground." The jury had to believe the state's position beyond a reasonable doubt for Zimmerman to be found guilty (assuming the jury thought the elements of murder or manslaughter were met.)