The Trayvon Trial
- Thread starter Chukzombi
- Start date
- Status
- 24,487
- 45,378
You need to check the statutes, who was the "aggressor" in the situation (i.e. who initiated the confrontation, did Zimmerman approach Martin or the other way around) has no bearing on an affirmative defense of self defense.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
And you'd lose any hope of mounting a legal defense around self defense if you attacked someone for simply following you!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Interesting, wasn't aware.
You should expound on this though, because its interesting, and those of us who aren't lawyers would probably find the details of how self defense is determined in a court of law enlightening in regards to this case.
Like I said I'm neither lawyer nor armchair lawyer, so everything I've said on this, of course, comes with the implicit acceptance that I don't actually know fuck all about what I'm talking about.
- 24,487
- 45,378
We'd be making fun of some gator-chasing florida redneck who testified in a similar manner too, mocking her black culture is just easy.
- 24,487
- 45,378
Well first, you look up the statute that governs self defense in the jurisdiction you're interested in. In florida, that appears to be 776.013. You can peruse the statutes there, but it seems to me that (3) is pretty relevant here.
Now I'm sure the racist trolls will go "PROFILING IS UNLAWFUL! HURR!" and all manner of things that there is no proof of, but you'll see in the statute there that there's nothing about who initiated the confrontation.
You'd also want to go read Florida Supreme Court (or whatever their highest criminal court is) opinions interpreting this law to get a more nuanced analysis, which sounds like what I get paid to do so I'm not doing it for free on a message board.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Seems to me that the word "attacked" in the statute would imply that the person with the right to "stand his or her ground" is being aggressed against. Is this not the case in a legal context? Also, the end of the statute's language implies that this can also occur in a situation where someone is attempting to prevent a forcible felony. Does that language not imply that this law applies specifically when a non aggressive person is being the target of an attack, or is attempting to prevent an aggressive person from committing a violent act on another person?
Seems to me like the statute clearly infers that the person employing stand their ground isn't the aggressor, but maybe the legalese is perceived through a different lens for court workers/lawyers/judges/juries and the layman, much like the terms hypothesis and theory are confused amongst laymen versus researchers, so I'm just wondering if that is the case, basically.
Seems to me like the statute clearly infers that the person employing stand their ground isn't the aggressor, but maybe the legalese is perceived through a different lens for court workers/lawyers/judges/juries and the layman, much like the terms hypothesis and theory are confused amongst laymen versus researchers, so I'm just wondering if that is the case, basically.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Really dude?
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity andwho is attackedin 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.
Makes it pretty clear you're only allowed to use deadly force if you are the person being attacked. Who initiated the confrontation is pretty important.
Let's not forget that even if Martin did retrace his steps and go back to where Zimmerman was, it doesn't mean he started the fight.
Let's also not forget that if Martin was in a dominant position during the fight, that also doesn't mean he started the fight.
Unfortunately, it's very likely we will not be able to prove either way who started the fight, which in the end is the only thing that matters, legally.
- 24,487
- 45,378
Actually no, who was attacked is not the same as who initiated the confrontation.
Lets go with one sequence of events: I follow you out to your car, tap you on the shoulder, and say "excuse me, I think you're trying to unlock my car. What are you doing?" and you've actually walked up to my car. You turn and jump on me, hitting me, thinking that I am trying to carjack you (reasonable under the circumstances?) and I lose this confrontation, but I happen to have my pistol. I defend myself from your attack (from my perspective, I am just asking you whats up and why you are approaching my car) which is quite brutal, you are on top of me on the ground hitting me. I shoot and kill you.
Who initiated the confrontation in this situation and who was the attacker? And don't say "this isn't what happened to Martin" because you're right. I just want you to analyze the situation.
The prosecution is in a hopeless position because they charged Zimmerman with murder rather than manslaughter. The difference being they have to show Zimmerman acted with malice to get a murder conviction. Not going to happen.
- 24,487
- 45,378
Manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense with the murder charge.
Those are both true, but why would Martin retrace his steps at all without some intent? One side in the discussion has bruised knuckles and a bullet hole in them and the other had a messed up head. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's story. The prosecution needs something beyond "OMG Racist" to get me to go down your line of reasoning.
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 26,689
- 38,953
No matter if Zimmerfag was questioning Martin or not the moment Martin was bashing Zimmermans head into the sidewalk shooting him is legal in pretty much any state. Pretty sure bashing someones head into something is considered imminent danger as death or severe injury is a likely result. If Martin lived he would likely be the one on trial.
- Status