Stand your ground allows the provocation of an attack, and then a claim of self defense. Neither one of these people had a duty to stop or retreat, no matter how the altercation started. But I suppose that we can add in that Stand your Ground now also allows harassment and stalking, which is just great.
I don't see how that conclusion tracks with FL 776.041. Please explain.
DevilStick wrote:KingGorilla wrote:All of the sudden why does Martin need to run away and Zimmerman does not? That goes against the very sacred principles of Stand your Ground, and is kind of a p*ssy thing to do, which is why that law exists in the first place.
Zimmerman would have had to be threatening Martin with deadly force to give Martin a Stand Your Ground type defense.
So, if Zimmerman had his gun drawn and pointed at Martin while following Martin, then Martin likely would have had a Stand Your Ground type defense, and himself could have used deadly force in self defense.
Yet you are comfortable with Zimmerman killing an unarmed teen. That is fascinating.
Dude, he was armed with a freaking sidewalk. That is a scary weapon to wield.
KingGorilla wrote:Stand your ground allows the provocation of an attack, and then a claim of self defense. Neither one of these people had a duty to stop or retreat, no matter how the altercation started. But I suppose that we can add in that Stand your Ground now also allows harassment and stalking, which is just great.
I don't see how that conclusion tracks with FL 776.041. Please explain.
When you read the judge's jury instructions there was absolutely no instruction as to this. And this is a major part of the issue in Stand your Ground states, there is a conflict with stand your ground and statutes that are left on the books with a more traditional self defense language. Those traditional elements of instigation or escalation that would eliminate traditional self defense was in no way reflected in the jury instructions.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07...
I cannot reconcile this because the two statutes are indeed at odds, but only one was brought to the jury-stand your ground.
I know it wasn't mentioned in the judge's instructions to the jury though. I commented on its absence when the instructions came out. However, it is still the law in FL and I don't see how there's a conflict or why the judge felt it was appropriate to leave it out of the instructions.
jdzappa wrote:However, I can't condone Martin escalating things by knocking Zimmerman to the ground and then proceeding to pound his head into the concrete.
Eyewitness testimony is conflicted on this point, as is the physical evidence. As noted above, and repeatedly in this thread, the autopsy report does not show the kind of injuries to Martin that would be expected if he'd been dishing out the kind of beating Zimmerman described.
It's certainly possible that things unfolded in the way that Zimmerman has said - that a kid, frightened by someone who had followed him in a vehicle, and continued the pursuit on foot, decided that since "flight" wasn't working that he'd try "fight".
I don't think that's the most likely scenario (and even if it did unfold that way, I'd argue that Zimmerman bears the moral responsibility for the outcome), but there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt - in fact, the shoddy police work the Sanford PD performed that night all but ensured it.
How many times has Dimmerswitch now refuted the 'pounding into concrete' argument? I haven't seen anyone refute or argue it, but it keeps cropping up every other page.
It's maddening!
Neither Martin nor Zimmerman displayed signs of heavy fighting. There was no pounding into concrete. Zimmerman was lying.
It would be in traditional self defense, however. Stand your ground allows the provocation of an attack, and then a claim of self defense. Neither one of these people had a duty to stop or retreat, no matter how the altercation started. But I suppose that we can add in that Stand your Ground now also allows harassment and stalking, which is just great.
"Stand Your Ground" excuses someone from retreating when attacked. It would not protect the person (whether Martin or Zimmerman) that unlawfully attacked first (contrary to the bold text).
SYG doesn't itself "allow" stalking or harassment. SYG does, however, make it more likely an altercation will escalate. For that reason, I do think SYG is a bad idea on policy grounds.
However, SYG is only relevant in the Zimmerman case if you believe Zimmerman or Martin had an opportunity to retreat from an attack, but did not.
Florida Stand Your Ground Law[/url]](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.
Those are the real questions. If the jurists of Florida see no conflict, why not include both? Why would the legislators leave on the books a seemingly conflicting self defense statute (the answer is they do not give a good god damn about conflicts)? If there is a conflict, why does the newer Stand your Ground law take preference? Because the old law includes the duty to retreat even if you are an instigator.
In practice, in this case there seems to be acknowledgement of a conflict, and that stand your ground won out over traditional self defense. It appears to be some tacit agreement that stand your ground supplants that traditional rule.
How many times has Dimmerswitch now refuted the 'pounding into concrete' argument? I haven't seen anyone refute or argue it, but it keeps cropping up every other page.
It's maddening!
Neither Martin nor Zimmerman displayed signs of heavy fighting. There was no pounding into concrete. Zimmerman was lying.
Perhaps more fairly - while it is not conclusively shown by the physical evidence that Zimmerman's description of the altercation is a lie, at least some of the physical evidence is problematic for / inconsistent with Zimmerman's version of events.
How many times has Dimmerswitch now refuted the 'pounding into concrete' argument? I haven't seen anyone refute or argue it, but it keeps cropping up every other page.
It's maddening!
Neither Martin nor Zimmerman displayed signs of heavy fighting. There was no pounding into concrete. Zimmerman was lying.
Earlier in the thread, I pointed folks to a page showing Zimmerman's injuries in photos taken that night. Perhaps you'd argue these wounds were self-inflicted. Given the photos and the autopsy report, I think reasonable minds can disagree here.
This is what the autopsy report said about Martin.
Wikipedia[/url]]The Volusia County medical examiner found that Martin was killed by an injury resulting from a single gunshot to the chest, fired at "intermediate range", between 1 and 18 inches according to a forensic expert.[11][Note 7] An FDLE analysis of Martin's body and clothes described the distance as "a contact shot".[117] The autopsy also found that Martin had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle. No other injuries were found on Martin's body at the time of his death.
First, if Zimmerman has slowed down to call 911, that's the perfect time to take off running. An in-shape teen is easily going to outdistance a guy who loves his Taco Bell fourth meals a little too much. Secondly, why the hell didn't Martin call 911 himself?
Zimmerman gained over 100 pounds between when he killed Martin and when the trial started. He was training for MMA fighting when he killed Martin as well. He was not a guy who loves his taco bell when he killed Martin.
Those are the real questions. If the jurists of Florida see no conflict, why not include both? Why would the legislators leave on the books a seemingly conflicting self defense statute (the answer is they do not give a good god damn about conflicts)? If there is a conflict, why does the newer Stand your Ground law take preference? Because the old law includes the duty to retreat even if you are an instigator.
In practice, in this case there seems to be acknowledgement of a conflict, and that stand your ground won out over traditional self defense. It appears to be some tacit agreement that stand your ground supplants that traditional rule.
The Stand Your Ground did not introduce the conflict. 776.041 was always there to limit the claim of justification of self-defense. Before 2005 it applied to sections 776.012 and 776.031. The exact nature of the changes to the statutes can be found here:
http://archive.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/...
jdzappa wrote:First, if Zimmerman has slowed down to call 911, that's the perfect time to take off running. An in-shape teen is easily going to outdistance a guy who loves his Taco Bell fourth meals a little too much. Secondly, why the hell didn't Martin call 911 himself?
Zimmerman gained over 100 pounds between when he killed Martin and when the trial started. He was training for MMA fighting when he killed Martin as well. He was not a guy who loves his taco bell when he killed Martin.
Don't bother, you will just have to explain it again in 14 pages.
dejanzie wrote:How many times has Dimmerswitch now refuted the 'pounding into concrete' argument? I haven't seen anyone refute or argue it, but it keeps cropping up every other page.
It's maddening!
Neither Martin nor Zimmerman displayed signs of heavy fighting. There was no pounding into concrete. Zimmerman was lying.
Earlier in the thread, I pointed folks to a page showing Zimmerman's injuries in photos taken that night. Perhaps you'd argue these wounds were self-inflicted. Given the photos and the autopsy report, I think reasonable minds can disagree here.
Zimmerman's medical records show that those were far from life threatening wounds. First and foremost, he didn't even bother going to the hospital that night. He simply had his wounds cleaned by the EMT who was on site.
And he only went to a clinic the following morning because he needed a doctor's note to return to work, not because Martin had beat him within an inch of his life.
Miami Herald[/url]]
The morning after he killed Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman went to a clinic with what appeared to be a broken nose, two black eyes and two cuts on the back of his head. But the physician’s assistant who treated him determined he neither needed X-rays nor had he suffered head trauma, newly released medical records show.Zimmerman declined to go to an ear, nose and throat specialist even though it was recommended, the physician’s assistant wrote.
So what's more likely? Martin savagely beat down Zimmerman "MMA style" and yet neither his body nor Zimmerman's show any real physical evidence of an attack of that nature or Zimmerman got popped in the face, fell down, and smacked his head on the walkway?
We've done all this before, but a brutal beating would leave serious evidence on Martin's fists.
We've done all this before, but a brutal beating would leave serious evidence on Martin's fists.
Maybe black people have magic fists?
Those photos don't look like blunt force trauma from an unyielding object. There's no bruising like you would normally see.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/justic...
Also released Tuesday was an unredacted capias request, a request that someone be taken into custody, prepared by the lead police investigator in the case, Christopher Serino.
"Investigative findings show that (Zimmerman) had at least two opportunities to speak with (Martin) in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter," Serino wrote in the report. "On at least two occasions (Zimmerman) failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch volunteer."
The detective also said Zimmerman's actions "are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."In the same report, Serino wrote that Zimmerman's injuries were "marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him."
KingGorilla wrote:Those are the real questions. If the jurists of Florida see no conflict, why not include both? Why would the legislators leave on the books a seemingly conflicting self defense statute (the answer is they do not give a good god damn about conflicts)? If there is a conflict, why does the newer Stand your Ground law take preference? Because the old law includes the duty to retreat even if you are an instigator.
In practice, in this case there seems to be acknowledgement of a conflict, and that stand your ground won out over traditional self defense. It appears to be some tacit agreement that stand your ground supplants that traditional rule.
The Stand Your Ground did not introduce the conflict. 776.041 was always there to limit the claim of justification of self-defense. Before 2005 it applied to sections 776.012 and 776.031. The exact nature of the changes to the statutes can be found here:
http://archive.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/...
But this is the procedural boondoggle.
The defense did not argue stand your ground, they argued a more traditional self defense-the cartoon and all that jazz. However, they win their request to get a stand your ground jury instruction. This is where I blame the prosecution a bit, because the defense won an instruction not on the grounds that they argued. So that the jury is presented with stand your ground and traditional self defense as same/similar.
So for a shiny Buffalo Nickle, how does a traditional self defense instruction never find its way into the jury instructions? Is it simply prosecutorial incompetence? Is it just skillful defense?(not likely) Is it that there is in the courts a conflict there on what instruction to give with a lot of hazy unknowns in between? Does stand your ground insert an unecessary degree of convolution to self defense claims?
Because I agree with you, in the black letter it seems that there is not a conflict. But in practice in the case, there is a big foggy gulf in between the traditional self defense statute and stand your ground. And in a situation where stand your ground is the only instruction, traditional self defense is left on the wayside. It is the practice where I see the conflict, the devil in the details.
dejanzie wrote:How many times has Dimmerswitch now refuted the 'pounding into concrete' argument? I haven't seen anyone refute or argue it, but it keeps cropping up every other page.
It's maddening!
Neither Martin nor Zimmerman displayed signs of heavy fighting. There was no pounding into concrete. Zimmerman was lying.
Perhaps more fairly - while it is not conclusively shown by the physical evidence that Zimmerman's description of the altercation is a lie, at least some of the physical evidence is problematic for / inconsistent with Zimmerman's version of events.
That would indeed be more fair, thanks.
So what's more likely? Martin savagely beat down Zimmerman "MMA style" and yet neither his body nor Zimmerman's show any real physical evidence of an attack of that nature or Zimmerman got popped in the face, fell down, and smacked his head on the walkway?
My point was that some of the physical evidence supports Zimmerman's claim, and that there's room for reasonable disagreement over conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. That was enough to prevent a criminal conviction, but perhaps Martin's family would be successful in a civil case, where the burden of proof is lower.
I too would expect to see more than a single abrasion on Martin's hands. Does that mean Zimmerman's wounds were self-inflicted, he rubbed grass on his back and his neighbors gave false testimony? Perhaps more evidence will come out in a civil trial that would sway everyone's opinion one way or the other.
Does that mean Zimmerman's wounds were self-inflicted, he rubbed grass on his back and his neighbors gave false testimony?
Who here has claimed that Zimmerman's wounds were self-inflicted? A simple review of the timeline will show that the police unit that Zimmerman called for arrived at the shooting scene less than a minute after the shot was heard on one of the 911 calls. He simply had no time to injure himself if he even had the presence of mind to do so.
No, what I'm saying is that Zimmerman's wounds weren't severe enough for him to claim self-defense. There is no question that there was a confrontation between the two, the result of which was Zimmerman getting a bloody nose and being knocked to the ground where he very likely struck his head on the concrete walkway. What neither the photos nor Zimmerman's medical examination the following day showed was that Martin repeatedly slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground.
As far as the neighbor's testimony is concerned, I give it little credence since it changed from Martin straddling Zimmerman and beating him "MMA style" in early accounts to it was a "tussle" and that he "couldn't tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces" during the trial.
3. Zimmerman didn't chase Martin down, he followed him. "Chasing down" is deliberately misleading.
From a few pages back but not to be overlooked.
Zimmerman followed him armed with a gun.
Following with a gun is looking for a confrontation.
Following without a gun, the motive could be questioned.
The onus should be on the gun owner to prove why it was necessary to follow someone while armed. That is responsible ownership. Hell, I would go on to say that anyone driving a vehicle should have to prove why they were following someone.
Who here has claimed that Zimmerman's wounds were self-inflicted?
This was a somewhat rhetorical response to comments such as Dejanzie's: "Neither Martin nor Zimmerman displayed signs of heavy fighting. There was no pounding into concrete. Zimmerman was lying."
It's possible Zimmerman is fudging his story, but it seems clear there was some sort of altercation, and Zimmerman was injured. I suppose one can debate whether Zimmerman's injuries are "signs of heavy fighting".
No, what I'm saying is that Zimmerman's wounds weren't severe enough for him to claim self-defense.
And I'll agree that is an intriguing question. Perhaps the Martin family will make this argument in civil court.
It's possible Zimmerman is fudging his story, but it seems clear there was some sort of altercation, and Zimmerman was injured. I suppose one can debate whether Zimmerman's injuries are "signs of heavy fighting".
No one's contesting the fact that there was an altercation. But Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious, he was armed, and the cops (who Zimmerman called) were literally seconds away. It seems a giant leap from those facts to "I felt so threatened I had to shoot someone."
And it's not just Zimmerman's injuries you have to consider. Martin's autopsy only showed a single 1/4" by 1/8" inch abrasion on his left ring finger. That physical evidence definitely contradicts "signs of heavy fighting."
And I'll agree that is an intriguing question. Perhaps the Martin family will make this argument in civil court.
If they file a civil case they'll simply show Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death because he was the one who continually escalated the situation by following Martin for no real reason other than he was black and in Zimmerman's neighborhood.
Would slamming someone's head into the ground as you were kneeling over them/on top of them reasonably cause the attacker serious injury though?
Would slamming someone's head into the ground as you were kneeling over them/on top of them reasonably cause the attacker serious injury though?
Yikes, quite a zinger!
It's a reasonable question - people are claiming that Treyvon's lack of injuries undermine Zinnerman's account of the fight, but he said Martin rushed him, punched him a few times which knocked him down, and then straddled him and bashed his head on the ground. I don't see how a minor hand injury is completely inconsistent with that account.
But keep being glib about, no biggie.
Would slamming someone's head into the ground as you were kneeling over them/on top of them reasonably cause the attacker serious injury though?
Would having one's head slammed into the sidewalk only result in two little nicks and no concussion?
No one's contesting the fact that there was an altercation. But Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious, he was armed, and the cops (who Zimmerman called) were literally seconds away. It seems a giant leap from those facts to "I felt so threatened I had to shoot someone."
Unless you're arguing that someone had to actually deal you a life threatening wound in order to legitimately "feel threatened" that's pretty much irrelevant. It's a completely contextual/situational thing - I could dangle you off a bridge, not cause you any injury at all, but you'd be right to feel like your life was in danger.
But Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious, he was armed, and the cops (who Zimmerman called) were literally seconds away. It seems a giant leap from those facts to "I felt so threatened I had to shoot someone."
Serious injuries aren't required for a claim of self defense. However, the extent of Zimmerman's injuries would be evidence for a jury to consider in deciding whether Zimmerman had a "reasonable belief" that "[deadly] force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm".
And it's not just Zimmerman's injuries you have to consider. Martin's autopsy only showed a single 1/4" by 1/8" inch abrasion on his left ring finger. That physical evidence definitely contradicts "signs of heavy fighting."
Right, and I have considered the autopsy description (I quoted it in a post above after all). That's one of the bits of evidence that weakens Zimmerman's story the most.
Pages