For those who claim that you don't need to be injured in order to kill in self-defense: A question.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

On the face, the position has legal merit.

If, for example, you are walking along and someone sticks a knife to your throat and threatens to kill you, you can use deadly force against that person. You don't have to suffer a scratch.

Or, if someone sticks a gun at your head and threatens to pull the trigger, again, deadly force could be jusitifed. Again, no need to show that you suffered any physical injury.

If you have a reasonable belief your life is in imminent danger, use of deadly force could be justifed.

However, let's apply this all to an actual real life case, this being the George Zimmerman case.

In opening statements, the defense claimed that "Trayvon Martin was armed with a deadly weapon: The concrete sidewalk."

In numerous statements to police and other sources, Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete sidewalk by Trayvon, repeatedly. Anywhere from 10-30 times, he says.

Subsequent medical testimony, however, has called into great doubt this claim, finding that the injuries sustained by Zimmerman that night (a bloody nose and two small abrasions to the head) are not consistent with such a claim.

So my question as it specifically relates to the Zimmerman case is: If not the concrete sidewalk, what would have still allowed Zimmerman to use deadly force?

Did he have a knife? No, he did not have a knife.

Did he have a gun? No, he didn't have a gun.

So what was it? Was it the Arizona soft drink? The skittles?

What would have justified George Zimmerman being in reasonable fear of imminent deadly harm?

[hobbit709]

1. Personally, I believe that if you go looking for trouble, it's not self defense.

I learned a long time ago that when looking for trouble you usually end up finding more trouble than you had intended on.

[truebluegreen]

27. Exactly! "Clean hands."

Zimmerman doesn't have them. If he hadn't gotten out of his car, with a gun, and followed Martin, none of what followed would have happened.

[LiberalFighter]

138. And that needs to be stressed over and over.

Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation. His life was not in jeopardy when he has a firearm and he stays away.

GZ was also not defending his vehicle under an attack neither was he chasing someone that had been on his property.

If I see someone that I suspect as not being legitimately present I will observe, maybe question, and maybe report. Depending on whether I suspect any criminal activity occurring.

[daleanime]

2. Of course Zimmerman is in fear......

there are people who don't look like him living in this world.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Nothing but a rec

[In_The_Wind]

4. Kicked & Recommended

[dballance]

5. I'm pretty sure that fists can also be considered a "deadly weapon."

I'll have to try to find it but I'm pretty certain that just squaring off with someone to fight hand-to-hand can be considered threatening enough. If you're 6'2" and built like a brick wall and I'm 5'1" and wimpy then I can feel appropriately threatened for my life if you try cause some sort of stand off and I'd probably be justified in shooting you in self-defense.

[Thor_MN]

6. OK, now turn it around...

Zimmerman had 40 lbs on Martin. Martin was the smaller guy. By the very logic suggested, Zimmerman should NOT have felt threatened by Martin.

[Escargot]

8. Because more weight always corresponds to more muscle/strength.

[Thor_MN]

11. It generally does, hence weight classes in boxing/wrestling.

On the other hand Zimmerman has turned himself into a mass of flab, probably to counter the perception that he was, at the time Martin's death, the favorite in a fair fight. Which, of course, we all know it wasn't - Zimmerman brought a gun to a skittles fight.

[Major Nikon]

21. Weight provides more advantages than just muscle

Even if muscle mass were the same (unlikely), Z would have had a much easier time throwing around M than the other way around.

[joeglow3]

122. I suggest you watch the first ever MMA event.

Before they had weight classes. It clearly demonstrates that athleticism and muscle mean more than weight.

[Major Nikon]

137. I suggest you get into a bar fight sometime

A scuffle between two people just isn't going to last that long. They don't allow guns in MMA either.

[LiberalFighter]

139. GZ has also been involved in confrontations suggesting

that he gained enough experience to handle it physically. Without fear.

[brush]

10. Z outweighed Martin

by 30-40 lbs. He was also a 28-year-old adult male, with grown man strength (athletes are said to be in their physical prime beginning at 28).

No way was the slender Martin teen (just turned 17) the physically threatening one.

And then of course there is the humongous elephant in the room that zimmy supporters don't want to acknowledge or go near at all.

zimmerman had a gun and knew he could pull it at anytime. No way was he afraid.

Matter of fact, his words to the dispatcher and his actions after that show that he was just itching for a confrontation.

Well, he inititiated one and an unarmed innocent teen ended up dead.

Guilty as charged.

[truebluegreen]

29. "...if you try cause some sort of stand off..."

That's the key. If you start something, it is your fault. In this case the guy who started it lived, but that doesn't mean he is innocent.

[itsrobert]

31. The coroner testified Trayvon was 5' 11"

I don't understand the false reports that he was 6 feet 2 inches. Unless there is an agenda behind it.

[Lurks Often]

53. Those reports came from the family

There is some inconsistency in reports of Martin and Zimmerman's height and weight. In the original police report, Martin is described as being 6' tall and weighing 160 pounds. But his family told CBS News that he was 6' 2" and between 140-150 pounds. Zimmerman is described in the police report as standing 5' 9" tall, with no weight listed. In a 2005 police report, Zimmerman's ex-fiance describes him as 5' 7" and according to the Miami Herald he weighs about 200 pounds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57407115-504083/trayvon-martin-shooting-what-do-we-know-/

So who is right? The family? The ME? Or is there another explanation that allows both numbers to be right?

[itsrobert]

61. 5' 11" was done by the medical examiner

He would have the proper measurement devices. 6 feet is not too far off, and like you say, that was the original police report. What did the final police report end up with. 6' 2" sounds like the family did not do any scientific measurements.

[Lurks Often]

66. Never said I could explain the difference

just that it was there. The ME report did say he measured 5'11" while in rigor, so it is possible Martin was not completely straight when measured by the ME, but that is speculation.

I'm fairly certain it will get addressed during the trial, probably by the defense since the State has, as far as I can remember, avoided any mention of Martin's height & weight.

[Just Saying]

83. It's an agenda

Just like people who keep saying Tayvon was a football player (hadn't played on a team in years) up against a fat guy (who was in way better shape at altercation and worked out MMA gym.). They want this to be a thug against an innocent overweight guy but reality is Trayvon was a thin, gangly kid and Zimmerman was in decent shape with 40 lbs weight advantage and A GUN.

[kestrel91316]

89. Fists are only "deadly weapons" if you are a professional or amateur BOXER, IIRC.

Otherwise, anytime you punch someone it would be ADW, and it's not.

Trayvon was UNARMED. Zimmy was ARMED. These facts have been established. No, public sidewalks are not "deadly weapons" except in the minds of deranged, desperate defense attorneys.

[dballance]

90. Thanks. I thought that was part of the deal.

I'm very sure you are correct.

[Voice for Peace]

151. and Zimmerman had the disadvantage of having only one hand, while Trayvon had two

by which I mean

he got out of his car with his hand on his gun,
ready to pull from its holster if needed.

and he never took his hand off that gun until
after shooting it.

Which is probably why he has bumps on his
head, and was on the ground. A little shove
from Trayvon ("get OFF&quot could have caused
him to lose his balance. One hand meant he
bumped his head instead of breaking his fall
as we normally do.

And.. he had only one hand to fight with,
the second being kept gun-shooting-ready.
He was probably using the free hand to hold
on to Trayvon's hoodie so he couldn't escape.

And Trayvon was on top trying to pin his
arms so he couldn't aim or shoot the gun.
And screaming for help.

[Crepuscular]

7. The ME

testified that the abrasions on the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with being hit on concrete and that more than one blow could have occurred. Keep in mind that she was a prosecution witness but her testimony backs up Zimmerman's claim of being on his back, with Martin on top of him having a physical altercation. In addition, it was confirmed by medical professionals that he suffered a broken nose. Couple that with his claim that he thought that Martin saw his gun and was reaching for it and he probably will be able to meet the metric for reasonable fear in the minds of most of the jurors. All it takes is one for a hung jury and if that happens, I highly doubt this prosecutor is going to want another trial.

Again, he does not have to wait until the injuries are severe before he responds to force as long as there is the reasonable expectation that severe injury MAY occur. He was getting the crap beat out of him, that's not going to be all that hard to convince a jury of.

Just for fun, how long would it be reasonable to expect someone to keep from responding with force, in the circumstance where someone is straddling them, punching them and pummeling them? Should they wait until they are knocked unconscious? That can happen with a single blow. Or do they need to keep some kind of a running tally like, "Ok, he has only hit me 5 times, so I can't respond yet but when the count reaches 8, then it's reasonable to respond"?

[brush]

12. ". . . getting the crap beat out of him?"

Get real! The ME testified that the only treatment he needed for the back of his head was a band-aid.

zimmy is a liar and a killer and you are either naive, in denial, stupid, or your biases are clouding your judgment to believe that anyone can get up and just walk away from having his head "BASHED REPEATEDLY ON CONCRETE 20-30 TIMES" without suffering a severe concussion, a cracked skull, much bleeding and/or being knocked totally the fuck out.

A band-aid? That's all he needed. C'mon, open your eyes.

It's pretty apparent that zimmy made up that cock and bull story to cover his ass because he had just murdered an unarmed teen who was minding his own business.

And by the way, Martin still had the bag of skittles in his hand when the body was examined.

So much for your theory of him beating the crap out of zimmerman.

[Crepuscular]

51. What matters is what can be proved to the jury

Witnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman with punches being thrown. Zimmerman had a broken nose and abrasions on his head. Regardless of the severity of the injuries, it's pretty clear that Martin was getting the better of the physical altercation. It's not going to be very difficult for the jury to find reasonable cause, when the prosecution has done little to contradict that claim. We'll see what they decide but I'd prepare yourself for a let down, as it's likely that he is going to walk.

[brush]

59. Witnesses also place zimmerman on top of Martin

One said that the person on top got up after the gunshot. That would be zimmerman.

Martin's mother just testified that her son was the one screaming on the tape.

The defense attorney just blew any small chance zimmerman had with his callous line of questioning as all those women on the jury are mothers as well who just witnessed an anguished, hurting mom, who's son has been murdered, handle the lawyer's disgusting questions with dignity and restraint. They know that a mother knows the sound of her child.

zimmy's goose is cooked.

[ceonupe]

88. Not a single witness testified to that

Not a single witness testified to that.

But a witness underoath and the closest person did say GZ on bottom and TM on top with downward motion and ME report of gun shot and trajectory support that claim.

[brush]

110. You're wrong

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

One of the first witness did. You kinda need to keep up if you're going to keep making these claims about that killer's innocence.

And he is a killer. There's no question about that is there?

[GreenStormCloud]

126. The same witness also claimed that TM was shot in the back.

She was the one that became hysterical while on the phone to police. She claimed she heard three shots and that the shots came after she saw Z on top of TM. When asked she was not able to explain why TM had only one bullet hole in front instead three in the back.

[brush]

141. And the Good witness you cite

first stated to the police that he saw Martin raining down blows onto zimmerman MMA style.

He later recanted that on the stand to say he only saw downward moment, a huge difference.

[ceonupe]

143. Please post witness name and sum. testimony

Because I have followed this case.

No person has testified to GZ being on top.

One witness said at one point she thought one was on top and other on the bottom but had clothes and physical descriptions mixed up. The pros did not challenge mr Goode statement and testimony and that has been the same the whole case going back over a year.

[brush]

144. Guess you haven't been following that closely

because Good first told police that Martin was on top of zimmy just raining blows MMA style.

He recanted in actual court testimony though and just said he saw downward movement. Quite a big difference wouldn't you say?

[Finnmccool]

111. People trained in MMA fight

great from the bottom. It's called the bottom guard position it offers many submission holds It seems very strange to me for Zim to claim TM tried to kill him by pinching his nose and covering his mouth.Why not just choke him? Cause Zim knows that worldl've marks so he came up with a method that would only work on babies and very old people.I'll ask you this if you were in a fight for your life what would you do if anyone put their hand close to your mouth?.

[brush]

119. Exactly

You'd bite and bite hard. Yet there were no marks or zimmy dna on Martin's hands.

These zimmy apologists have long since reached the point of delusion.

[mercuryblues]

87. Can you claim self defense when you intiated the

the confrontation?

[dkf]

103. Yes you can.

Once you are in reasonable fear of your life or serious bodily injury you have a right to deadly use of force in self defense.

[mercuryblues]

117. So I can

follow someone down a dark alley, provoke them, then kill them and it is self defense. Not legalized murder?

[dkf]

118. If they did something that put your life in danger.

I didn't realize this was the case til this trial. I am surprised how liberal it is in Florida.

[mercuryblues]

121. Maybe I'd

lie and say I saw him reaching for something in his waist. Hey dead people don't talk.

[dkf]

124. Yes. But if they have no gun then it doesn't seem reasonable.

Jury won't go for it.

[whopis01]

146. Actually that is not the case

The test for assault with a weapon charges is whether or not the victim believed the aggressor had a weapon.

There doesn't have to be any actual weapon involved.

In such cases this is well explained to the jury - so the lack of a weapon does not preclude the use of that type of self defense claim.

[GreenStormCloud]

130. It is more complicated than that.

The character of yourself and of the dead person come into play. If you are an upstanding member of the community and the other guy was an escaped violent offender, and the evidence supports you, you would likely walk. You still have to show that the dead guy had the means, motive, oportunity and a demonstration of intent. Since there are no witness forensics will support or conflict your story. Why you got into that situation will be also questioned.

Watch for the defense to brink up TM's character in their phase of the trial. It isn't gonna be pretty. TM wasn't a choir boy who was about to discover a cure for cancer.

[hfojvt]

120. I don't think you should be able to

although I have read that Florida law says you can.

But what, in this case, was the confrontation. Is following somebody = initiating the confrontation?

I don't think so, but others seem to feel differently.

I am reminded of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin is sneaking around with a water balloon which he intends to throw at Hobbes, And Hobbes sneaks up on him and taps him on the shoulder and says "I have a hypothetical question for you. If today was the last day of your life, what would you do different? Especially, if by doing something different, today might not be the last day of your life?"

and the last panel shows Calvin saying "I don't think that question was very hypothetical."

People say that Trayvon was fighting for his life, with the evidence of that being - he ended up dead.

Yet, in my mind (and no I do not know for certain that it happened this way, but no evidence really contradicts it) if Trayvon had not assaulted Zimmerman, he probably would not have died.

Therefore, it is wrong to say he was fighting for his life, because until he started fighting, his life was not in danger.

[Shankapotomus]

148. Zimmerman's life was not in enough

danger to justify use of deadly force.

Trayvon Martin was not armed as was Zimmerman.

The police had been called by Zimmerman himself so he knew they were on the way.

The neighbors were alerted to what was going on and Zimmerman knew this, as well.

Zimmerman was in the process of being beat up. There is not enough evidence to conclude he was in the process of being killed to justify use of deadly force.

[Crepuscular]

149. According

to the prosecutions witness, Captain Carter, yes, you can. He testified that the dynamic in a confrontation can change after it is initiated and the initial aggressor can become the defender and employ reasonable force if justified.

[kestrel91316]

92. Zimmy asked for it - he followed Trayvon and either attacked him outright or provoked a fight.

AFAIAC he doesn't get to claim self defense. Trayvon WOULD be able to, had he lived. The kid was terrified and had the right to protect himself.

[Old Codger]

9. I am pretty sure

That the law is that if you are the one that initiates the contact/starts the fight you cannot claim self defense

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Not quite.

If the initial agressor attempts to retreat or otherwise disengage, or verbally wants to quit, then if the "defender" keeps up the fight the roles then switch and the previous defender becomes the agressor. If the new agressor is using enough force, then the previous agressor can use deadly force to defend themselves.

In my CCW class we were shown a video of very simular situations to teach us when self-defense applied and when it didn't. In one scenario the armed person initiates the fight, gets knocked down, the other person grabs a brick to hit the knocked down agressor in the head. At that point, the previous agressor would be justified is shooting the guy with the brick.

Of course, TM didn't have a brick, but you see the point. TM wasn't defending himself when he got on top of Z. TM at that point became the agressorl

The initial agressor in the video scenario doesn't get off free. He can still face other charges for starting the conflict.

[Duckwraps]

18. Sounds to me like you had an excellent instructor. I wish all taught those things.

Where did you train, if I may ask?

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Texas Handgun Academy N/T

[Duckwraps]

54. Thanks. Suarez International here.

[Old Codger]

20. I have seen those videos also

At this point they have not shown that TM had any weapon whatsoever that would constitute an ability to seriously harm anyone to the point where a "reasonable" person would have a fear for great bodily harm or death. Z was larger, supposedly had martial arts training. If he was attempting to disengage he should have been running away from TM forcing TM to chase him and probably tackle him from behind which I would think should cause some frontal injury such as scraped knees and probably palms of hands also.. Since Z is the only survivor and there are somewhat conflicting statements from witnesses it is a hard task to prove anything more than Z initiated the contact and probably started the fight, either through straight aggression or vocally in order to make TM angry enough to attack him, he comes off as wrong in either instance.

I am afraid it will drop to manslaughter if any conviction at all...lack of real eyewitnesses to the onset of the confrontation probably do so...

[Duckwraps]

24. "where a "reasonable" person would have a fear for great bodily harm or death. "

Yep and that is what the defense is going to try to show.

Well stated sir. See we can have a reasonable discussion of these sorts of things as long as the hot heads and those unwilling to listen stay out of it.

[Old Codger]

28. Yes we can

I am of the mind personally that Z is a racist wannabe tough guy who was looking for trouble and had a desire to use his training(or lack thereof) and use his gun, he is the type that give the rest of us that enjoy guns and carry concealed a bad rap. Unfortunately they are the ones that get the attention..

[Duckwraps]

33. Yep +1000

[Auntie Bush]

142. I feel the same as you...100%

He was looking for trouble with his MA's training, hand gun, stand your ground training and want a be cop attitude. He thought he was going to make a big impression on the cops and maybe get accepted into the police force. Guess he had a rude awakening.

They say Sociopaths don't show emotion. If the shoe fits wear it!

[itsrobert]

34. Actually Trayvon was defending himself

Trayvon cannot outrun a bullet. If Zimmerman showed any hint of that gun, Trayvon was acting in self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. Straddling someone and doing a pound and ground is NOT self-defense.

Mr. Good has testified that he saw TM on top, straddling Z, with downward motions of TM's arms. Are you completely throwing out his eyewitness testimony?

[itsrobert]

41. Trayvon cannot outrun a bullet

Travyon needed to take any means necessary to prevent Zimmerman from killing him. Judging by two minor scrapes on Zimmerman's head and a nose bleed, Trayvon did not use enough force to stop Zimmerman from carrying out the execution. That is why Trayvon is dead, his use of force was not strong enough to combat Zimmerman deadly use of force.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. You're getting desperate.

Sorry, but TM became the agressor when he was seen straddling and hitting Z.

[itsrobert]

49. Wow, you are twisting trying with all your might

First it is said that Zimmerman thought Trayvon had a weapon in his hand and that is justification for fear and use of deadly force. But Travyon actually seeing a gun on Zimmerman, that is now not justification for self defense by Trayvon.

Very sad, that there is two different set of rules in play being applied by the Zimmerman defenders.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Z's gun was concealed.

So TM could not possibly have seen it until he was on top of Z. Once he was on top of Z, Z's shirt may have ridden up and exposed the gun. But since TM was already on top, administering a beating, TM was already the agressor. Trying to grab Z's gun when he was already the agressor merely compounds his agression.

Thinking TM was armed in NOT sufficient grounds for Z to do anything at all. Z can't use self-defense until TM shows means, motive, opportunity and an act that demonstrates intent.

[itsrobert]

63. You were there now?

Why didn't you step in and help?

[GreenStormCloud]

68. So now you claim that his gun was wasn't concealed?

His license was for a Florida Concealed Weapons License. Absent conflicting information I assume that he was obeying the law. Being a stupid asshole is not yet illegal.

For your scenario to be possible, the gun had to be visible prior to TM being on top.

[itsrobert]

69. He disregarded the 9/11 dispatcher telling him not to follow

Zimmerman has a history with not following the law, Spousal Abuse and striking a cop. Why would he comply with the law now? And if he thought Zimmerman had a weapon his first instinct would to reach for his gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. You are engaging in too much speculation.

You want a guilty verdict and are willing to manufacture any scenario that would bring that about. Do you have any evidence that Z had the gun out prior to the confrontation?

[itsrobert]

75. Do you have any evidence he didn't or at least flash it?

Just Zimmerman's word? correct? And Zimmerman has been shown to be a liar. And I am the one engaging in too much speculation? When someone lies, the commonsense thing to do is look for reason why he is lying.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Impossible to prove a negative.

You make the accusation, you need to provide the evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You claim Z exposed his weapon prior to being straddled, you provide the evidence.

[itsrobert]

82. The evidence is Trayvon defending his life

Why else would Trayon use self defense?

[whopis01]

147. It isn't two sets of rules...

It is just that only one person is on trial.

Whether it not Trayvon was defending himself is really not critical to the case. If he were on trial it would be, but he isn't.

It is possible to have a situation where both parties are in imminent fear of harm from each other and are both justified in using force. So saying person A was defending themselves does not exclude person B from defending themselves at the same time.

I believe that in this case there is just not going to be enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not believe that his life was in danger.

I think Zimmerman went out looking for trouble, decided that Trayvon was a a criminal thug based on the color of his skin and his clothes, and decided to attempt to apprehend him. I believe that if it were not for Zimmerman's profiling and wanting to be the tough guy type attitude, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.

However, I think that Zimmerman has managed to weasel himself into a legal position where he is not going to be able to be punished for his actions.

[LanternWaste]

104. Committing wire fraud from jail with one's wife as an accomplice is not self-defense either.

Committing wire fraud from jail with one's wife as an accomplice is not self-defense either.

[GreenStormCloud]

116. Irrelevant to this trial.

That would be a separate trial if the state decideds to prosecute.

[Hoyt]

42. You better go back and get an attorney and non-gun-humping instructor. If you gotta gun and start

a fight, the other guy can protect himself -- and better go for the jugular because one who walks out of their house with a gun is also taught (by fuckers such as Massad Ayoob and others who make money off "instructing" yahoo gun toters) to shoot center mass.

Or maybe, you just heard what you wanted to hear -- "In my CCW class we were shown a video of very simular situations to teach us when self-defense applied and when it didn't. In one scenario the armed person initiates the fight, gets knocked down, the other person grabs a brick to hit the knocked down agressor in the head. At that point, the previous agressor would be justified is shooting the guy with the brick."

[Duckwraps]

57. Why are you so belligerent and bitter?

Tons and tons of case law on this.

[kestrel91316]

96. If some guy with a gun attacks me, I am defending myself with anything and everything I can.

That doesn't make me the bad guy, and certainly doesn't justify the attacker with the gun shooting me. If that were the case, muggers and robbers who kill their victims when they fight back couldn't be charged with murder.

You are deranged.

[Duckwraps]

102. Yeah, me and several million others and 100 years, or so, of case law.

Obviously you have not read the entire thread and are "cherry picking". Name calling reflects your lack of uderstanding of issues here.

[kestrel91316]

105. Show me a single case where a robber walked because his victim fought back.

Because that is exactly what you are arguing is legal.

I'll be waiting, noob.

[Duckwraps]

109. That is not the issue or even the

law that is being argued here. Go do your homework and maybe then we can discuss it.

Please no more name calling.

[Sheldon Cooper]

112. Heh. You ask for no more name calling, and yet you said this to another poster:

Why are you so belligerent and bitter?

Are nasty adjectives okay, but name calling isn't?

[Duckwraps]

113. Those were very honest questions on my part.

I had read several of his/her posts in the past and they all showed the same contempt for other people's differing opinions so I truly wanted to know why he/she was so belligernt.

I really wanted to try and understand where he/shemwas coming from. Sorry, if you misinterrped my intent.

[Sheldon Cooper]

134. Oh, suuuure!

Calling someone belligerent and bitter is in no way insulting. All perfectly honest and innocent. Got it.

[Duckwraps]

140. Bazinga, Shelton, yeah got me.

[NickB79]

133. Unless you don't know the guy has a gun

In which case, if you go after another person you believe is also unarmed with "anything and everything I can", that person could then justifiably fear for their life and pull said gun in self-defense.

If Z was carrying concealed, and TM didn't know the guy had a gun on him and threw the first punch, the law could very possibly be on TM's side.

I don't envy the jury; this will be a very difficult case for them to figure out.

[galileoreloaded]

132. dude. your pills! nt

[maxsolomon]

46. I see the logic of that scenario

but beating an armed agressor into unconsciousness with the sidewalk could still be seen as defensive - an unconscious agressor can't fire a weapon. a wounded one can, and in this case did.

if martin was on top beating him, how did he have maneuvering room to get to his gun? if martin then became aware that zimmerman was armed and attempting to use his firearm, would he then be defensively beating zimmerman's head against the pavement?

[GreenStormCloud]

72. You are assuming that TM knows, before the fight, that Z is armed

Depends upon where TM's legs were. He could easily have straddled Z with his legs below Z's waist. Z claims he yelled for help, backed up by Mr. Good's testimony. That counts as a surrender or an attempt at disengagement by Z. By continuing to stay on top and hit Z TM becomes the agressor. At that point, if he sees Z pulling a gun, its too late.

TM has no right at all to straddle and beat Z.

[itsrobert]

76. The only explanation is Zimmerman was lying

He had his gun out already, because if Trayvon is beating him to a pulp like he says, there is no way Zimmerman gets to his gun.

[hack89]

15. No - there are situations where the aggressor can claim self defense

hence Zs defense.

[Duckwraps]

17. Not necessarily. There is a principle

called the Use of Force Continuum or Force Escalation that can come into play. The police are well trained in that principle. You can Google it if you like.

[Duckwraps]

14. Your points are well taken.

During the defense's argument they are going to try to show the reasons Z felt that his life was in danger or that he was in danger of serious bodily harm.

It would seem to me that the prosecution has been trying to show that that was not the case.

The biggest thing Z has going for him is his injuries and his statements following the incident and since there are no actual witness' to the shooting who knows what will happen. The most common tactic following a shooting, by a legally armed civilian, is for her to immediately claim and point out that she was the victim, then shut up until you get a lawyer. In fact in some shooting schools this is drilled into you. Rather you agree with that or not, I'm just telling you how it is.

[uponit7771]

16. 200lb 27yr old 3 times a week training MMA man with gun gets beat up by skinny 150lb 11th grade boy

...OK, that's easy to believe /sarcasm

[Duckwraps]

19. We will just have to wait and see.

[maxsolomon]

52. a out of shape overweight man gets beat up by an athletic young man

fast and light can beat slow and heavy.

especially when he's fighting for his life, as martin was.

this is why out of shape overweight men with vigilante fantasies carry guns. the equalizer.

[uponit7771]

106. This is false, if you're calling Z out of shape at the time then the new Superman must be all over

...the place

[maxsolomon]

123. i am merely saying that martin was not a 90 lb. weakling

and zimmerman wasn't an MMA professional. adrenaline counts in fights.

i think he looked fat and out of shape even then. but its my OPINION, i'm SPECULATING, and no one knows their relative abilities or strengths. not even you.

[hfojvt]

70. yeah the injuries don't prove anything, do they?

and I heard that Trayvon was heavier than that, like 165 pounds.

Also, I am not sure how big Zimmerman was. From the taped deposition to today, he seems to have gained weight. He doesn't look that big in the tape.

[uponit7771]

107. TM was in the 150s and VERY VERY skinny, Zimmerman was 200lbs according to his FP and in good shape

[hfojvt]

114. wiki says 5'11" and 158 pounds.

according to CBS news he weighed 160 on the police report, but they didn't list a weight for Zimmerman.

Kids today seem to be bigger, but I do not, myself, consider 5'11" or 6' and 160 pounds to be very very skinny. In my senior year of high school that was about my height (I was/am somewhere over 5'11.5", don't think I ever reached 6'. I stopped measuring when the numbers stopped going up some time around my 18th birthday). And I weighted about 130. Five years ago, I weighed about 150.

Even at 130, I was not as weak as I looked. People may have thought a strong wind would knock me over, but I have seen myself outwork much bigger guys when it comes to physical labor.

160 pounds makes him a welterweight. As big as Tommy Hearns and Sugar Ray Leonard.

So I don't believe people of that weight are too small to hurt anybody. I wouldn't even want to get in the ring with Hector Camacho and he weighed less than 130 pounds and doubtless had a shorter reach than me too.

[rrneck]

22. Zimmerman can't really make that claim.

If he's claiming that Martin slammed his head on the sidewalk that much, he would have been unconscious and Martin would have left the scene before the cops got there. He would have had a concussion and maybe a fractured skull. Such injuries would warrant self defense with a firearm, but he did not suffer them.

It's possible for one person to inflict enough trauma on another with their bare hands to warrant self defense with lethal force, but that didn't happen here.

[1-Old-Man]

23. It would appear that you have not looked at the information available about the case

I say that because if you had watched the video (reportedly taken by police the morning after the shooting) of the retracing of Zimmerman's version of how the shooting took place you would pretty quickly notice that he repeatedly claimed that it appeared to him that Martin had something in his hand (and implies he believed it to be a weapon) or at other times that he seemed to be reaching into his waistband for something (once again implying that Martin seemed to be reaching for a weapon).

Having said that I think Zimmerman was lieing out his ass, but that does not negate the fact that he made the claim and if it was true, and there is absolutely no one alive to dispute him, then in fact he could claim that he felt his life was threatened, just like in your knife to the throat example, without a scratch having been inflicted on him.

The video is available at HLN network, sorry but I don't have a link handy. It is at the very bottom of the clips they have on the case.

[fifthoffive]

25. If that is true,

Zimmerman had plenty of opportunity to remove himself from the perceived danger. He could have stopped following TM and returned to his vehicle. Instead he initiates conversation with TM which evolves into a fist fight then a shooting.

[1-Old-Man]

44. Watch the tape, he covered his ass on that one too. Remember this was trained on Stand Your Ground

The story he tells, and it is a very convoluted story but in fact it seems to match closely to what he says on his 911 call, is that he kept walking in order to find a building with a street address on it so he could direct the police to his location. He then says that he had turned back but that all of a sudden Martin sort of appeared out of nowhere.

This clown is slick.

Go watch the tape. He, Zimmerman, holds his story together pretty well until he gets to the actual confrontation and then it all starts to fall apart. If you can listen to him describe the incident and then figure out how all at one his head was both on the concrete and on the grass or how he was both on top of and under Martin at the same time and then explain it to me I'd sure be appreciative because I could not make heads or tails out of his story or, to be quite honest with you believe a word of it. But really, watch the tape and make up your own mind.

[itsrobert]

36. If Zimmerman thought for an instant that Trayvon has a weapon in his hand

Zimmerman first move would to reach for his own gun. But Zimmerman says he did not reach for his gun until much later. Doesn't add up.

[1-Old-Man]

71. I agree, but he never actually said he saw a weapon, just that he thought he saw something.

I'm telling you, this SOB was slick when the camera was rolling. Remember, he said he wasn't following Martin, he was just looking for a street address to direct the police to the proper location. Then he said he thought he saw something in Martin's hand, not a gun or a knife, just something. He also said at least once that Martin seemed to be reaching into his waistband, but once again, not that he actually saw anything.

Then my memory of the tape is not clear but I believe he said something to the effect that these things he thought he saw, the 'something' in the hand, and the reaching for something (implicitly) concealed in the waistband, made him afraid for his life.

It was as if this asswipe had a checklist of things he had to say to cover his ass and he got every one of them covered.

[itsrobert]

73. It's like Zimmerman had some legal/law enforcement courses

on what justifies a cop to use deadly force.

[1-Old-Man]

77. Exactly, and in fact he did and that is in the testimony too.

Zimmerman took some sort of training courses that covered the legal requirements of a Stand Your Ground defense (which I note his Attorneys are not employing) apparently in an attempt to enhance his appeal to potential employers in law enforcement.

So it appeared, at least from the taped testimony shown on TV (I never trust snippetts on TV), that Zimmerman was well versed on what he would have to say happened in able to walk.

[itsrobert]

80. Yup, but his story is that Martin jumped him and started pounding his skull into the ground

and at the same time Trayvon looks like he is reaching into his waistband. He is also covering Zimmerman mouth. How many arms does Trayvon have?

[ceonupe]

91. I thought only teabaggers were anti education

What's wrong with knowing your rights.

I belive all that ccw should know their rights and responsibilities and I also belive an 8hr course (what most stars require) only scratches the surface.


It's interesting to see people scream "he knew how to lie cause he knew the law"

I gues some want everyone to be ignorant.

[1-Old-Man]

101. It was not his rights that he was reciting, it was a checklist of defenses

My point was not right's related, it was defense related. As a CCW license holder myself I am well aware of the rights and responsibilities, though the required 'training' that I had to take to secure my license generally ignored anything beyond the rights part.

No, my point was that he methodically covered all the bases as he walked the police officers through his version of the previous night's events. It wasn't a matter that he knew he had a right to own and carry a gun, it was not a matter of he had every right to defend himself from imminent threat to his life. It was that he knew every T that needed to be crossed and ever I that needed to be dotted and got them all jam packed into one 10-minute police video. It is one hell of a performance, worth your time to watch.

[Iggo]

26. All you have to be is afraid.

Like most gun-fuckers, Zimmy had that in spades when he woke up that morning.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Requires more than just fear.

For self-defense has to be valid the dead guy has to have had motive, means, opportunity and a demonstration of intent that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear.

[Deep13]

30. Self defense and accidental discharge are mutually exclusive, fyi.

Some of my relatives, old white people, mostly, seem desperate to find a reason why the defendant is innocent. I keep hearing how the victim went for the defendant's gun. And I keep hearing about how the defendant was afraid for his life. It seems like they are arguing both self-defense and accident at the same time. Unfortunately for the defense, those claims are mutually exclusion. An accident means that the defendant did not intend to shoot. In that case, the shooting may have been some lesser crime, but not murder. Self defense means that the defendant really did mean to kill the victim, but he had a compelling reason for it, namely that his life was in danger and he was defending himself. I'm sure the defense lawyers realize this, so it is inconceivable that they would be arguing both accident and self defense.

[Poll_Blind]

32. Not to sound snarky, but reasonable is any explanation a jury finds reasonable. The actual...

...explanation could be quite complex, convoluted or unconventional. It might not even pass the smell test to many. But, if that jury hears the facts and arguments, deliberates and considers the action reasonable, then it is. And then it is a matter of record. At least until such time as an appeal takes place.

I think in such a proceeding, rarely does the defense rely on just one thing, but paint a desperate and dangerous situation which a jury would reasonably agree with. A defense or a conviction, IMO anyway, is a holistic thing.

PB

[Deep13]

85. Um, no.

1st, the defense must prove an affirmative defense like self defense. Second, while accident is not technically an affirmative defense, they will have to offer something to rebut the presumption that the defendant intended to shoot what he shot at. The use of a firearm always justifies the jury inferring intent to kill.

Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable, but even if it is not, the state may not appeal an acquittal.

The defense is not allowed to argue factually inconsistent defenses theories. The defendant is the one surviving eye witness to the shooting and, therefore, knows the truth. He may not invent defenses out of thin air and test which one might seem plausible in view of the evidence. Further, arguing inconsistent defenses is tactical suicide. The jury will not believe it and assume the defense is making shit up because the defendant is guilty.

[Vattel]

98. Your first sentence is incorrect.

In Florida the defense need only provide a prima facie case that the defendant's behavior was justifiable self-defense. If they do, then the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's behavior was NOT justifiable self-defense.

[Deep13]

135. What constitutes the defense "providing" such a prima facie case? nt

[Vattel]

136. Good question. I have been looking for an authoritative and definitive answer to that question.

It seems that the defense has to identify "facts" that, without any consideration of any evidence to the contrary, would make it reasonable to believe that the defendant's behavior was justifiable self-defense. But in one Florida court opinion, the court says that the defense does not even have to show that the "facts" it introduces are more likely to be true than false. And in another court opinion it is suggested that the defense need only show that the defendant's behavior might have been justifiable self-defense. So it seems to me that the burden that the defense must meet is a very small one.

[Pelican]

37. Perception...

As he was getting his head bonked against the ground (1-unknown times) he had no way to know if Martin was going to stop or not.

As you said, you don't have to suffer great harm but rather be under the reasonable perception that it might be coming your way. A reasonable person can state that they were in fear for their bodily safety or their life if someone is smacking their head against the ground once or 100 times...

[krispos42]

40. IMO,

Zimmerman lost the ability to claim self-defense when he left the vehicle to go stalking Martin. As the instigator, he lost the ability to legally defend himself with the gun unless Martin was able to disproportionally respond to Zimmerman's fists and feet.

Martin was not using an improvised or purpose-built weapon (stout tree branch, dagger, etc.), nor was he a martial-arts experts. Therefore, it was impossible, IMO, for Martin to respond in a disproportionate fashion to Zimmerman. Zimmerman was not a martial-arts expert, either, and was armed with a purpose-built weapon, his pistol.

Martin was in the process of defending himself from Zimmerman when he discovered Zimmerman had a gun on him. Of course, to continue to protect himself from the threat of Zimmerman, Martin tried to remove the handgun. Unfortunately, he failed.

If Martin had pulled the handgun from Zimmerman's holster, he would not have had the legal authority to shoot him unless Zimmerman continued to try to grab the gun. He had gained the upper hand on his aggressor at that point and was no longer in danger.

I don't think Zimmerman had the legal authority to draw the gun. Now, if he had drawn the gun anyway and Martin had frozen, then backed off, Zimmerman should still have been arrested for something. Brandishing. Threatening. Assault. Stalking.

IMO, of course.


Now, generically speaking, an UNOPENED can of iced tea is an improvised weapon. It is hard and heavy. 16 ounces of water (or tea) weighs a pound, and I would not want to be whacked in the head with one. And of course, a can of anything in a piece of fabric (like a tee-shirt) makes a good improvised club when swung.

But in this situation, I don't recall the iced tea can being employed as a weapon at all, and when they were rolling around on the ground it was hand-to-hand.

[Hoyt]

45. Agree with your opinion.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Straddling and beating someone is NOT self-defense.

At that point, TM became the agressor, if he wasn't before.

[krispos42]

84. It is if Zimmerman is still fighting

Being underneath somebody does not make them lose the fight, nor does it prevent them from continuing to fight.

Martin, reasonably, had the right to eliminate the threat that Zimmerman posed.

Remember, Zimmerman had more than enough sense and ability to grab the gun before Martin could. He realized that Martin had discovered the gun and was reaching for it.

Zimmerman was still in the fight.

[ceonupe]

93. Case law disagrees with you

Case law disagrees with you

And this DA has convictions for feel only assailants and other crimes where the injures were less sever or no injuries at all.

Great examples are people getting attempted murder charges for bar fights in which the person punched hit their head on the concreate.

[krispos42]

145. Probably

The way I think things should be and the way things are are generally in disagreement.

But how will the jury think?

Zimmerman was not so stunned or otherwise incapacitated that, when Martin saw Zimmerman's pistol in Zimmerman's belt and spoke of it (allegedly), he was helpless to stop Martin from taking it.

Zimmerman heard Martin speak of it, reacted to the statement with enough speed to get the gun out before Martin could, point the gun in such a manner that Martin was not able to deflect it in time, and pull the trigger.

That does not speak of impairment.

I know that lawyers like to treat the rare cases where slight physical injuries lead to death or serious injury (spine or brain seems to be the favorite) but let's face reality: the human body is pretty tough and pretty resilient.

[kestrel91316]

97. It certainly can be. I am a woman, and small. I wouldn't be able to outrun an assailant, so if

I got attacked, my only defense would be to try to completely disable the guy so he couldn't kill me.

[Duckwraps]

62. Well, everyone here is certainly entitled to their opinion as the jury will be. nt

[raccoon]

115. "Zimmerman lost the ability to claim self-defense when he left the vehicle to go stalking Martin. "

ITA!

[The Straight Story]

47. Well, we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's. They never even punched us and

we killed a bunch of em.

Got away with it too.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Completely irrelevant to the trial. N/T

[The Straight Story]

55. Perhaps that went over your head a tad

The basic principle that the US itself uses, has used, is that if you perceive someone as a threat, even with no proof, that is reason enough to defend yourself and your freedoms (cause they hate us for our freedoms).

Many people cheered on the war and supported it, those same people probably feel the same about this case. Some of them might be on the jury.

Simply bring up at the trial that he was following the lead of bush/cheney and protecting himself and it must be the right thing to because those two never got charged.

He did call 911 over his fears. He probably should have waited for a cop to show up and shoot him, then it would have been legal...

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Your rant is still irrelevant to the trial. N/T

[The Straight Story]

60. This whole thread is because no one in the court cares about it ;) (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

65. This thread if for DUers wo want to follow and discuss the trial.

Perhaps you may wish to start your own thread for your rant.

[Duckwraps]

81. In an intelligent and civilized manner. Thanks GreenS.....

[treestar]

95. Bad analogy

It would work much better if Zimmerman had some reason, even the slightest, for thinking Trayvon had a gun.

[The Straight Story]

99. Ah, but he did

The rw thinks all muslims are terrorists (hence the reason they had no problem with going to a war with them with no evidence). He was black. Blacks are bad and cause crime, and they all have guns....

At least, that is what I am guessing he was thinking.

Look at it another way. We judge the 99% with guns that don't use them in a bad way by the less than 1% that do. You see someone carrying a gun (other than the good people in government) and you think 'that feller is a gonna shoot up someone'.

Take that same argument and apply it in this case. More blacks are in jail by percent than the above, and since we use less than 1% to form a bias and want to make more laws than one can see how a racist feels since they use the same logic.

Look at stop and frisk, driving while black, etc - our society in general distrusts black people (wrongly so I might add). Zimmerman was doing what cops do all the time, assuming the worst.

He should go to jail IMHO since he is the one that caused this. We also should look at our own biases at the same time and how we judge others (we bash people of faith, make fun of catholic priests, assume men are sexist, etc and so on).

Zimmerman is crook to be sure. But he also is a dark mirror filled with the storm clouds of prejudices we all carry about some others.

Difference is, we don't kill others based on them (well, except with drones....)

[Grey]

67. K&R

[Duckwraps]

79. Attention Old Cougar. See what's happening now to this thread. Sigh

[ceonupe]

86. Worldstarhiphop dot com

Take a look at the fight clips.


98% involve no weapons beyond hands and feet.

[treestar]

94. Exactly.

Zimmerman's belief is not "reasonable" here. He knew he had a gun. He quickly had to have realized that Trayvon did not have a gun. Or a knife. Trayvon weighed less. Zimmerman should have considered his own pre-conceived ideas that Trayvon was "up to no good" which at most would have been some sort of burglary. Why did Trayvon look "up to no good" to Zimmerman? Zimmerman's prejudices are what formed those beliefs.

Even applying the stereotypes of young black men and believing in them fervently, there is no reason for Zimmerman to think Trayvon was on his way to kill somebody or assault them in a deadly way.

[Honeycombe8]

100. You left out the most important point, I think. That GZ thought TM was going for his gun...

while saying, "You're gonna die tonight."

That's why GZ was in fear for his life, right? And why GZ pulled his gun out? That's my understanding.

GZ did not say, GTW, that TM grabbed the gun. He says TM's hand went down GZ's side (his jacket had been pulled open, making the gun visible), toward the gun and its holster.

TM's DNA was found on GZ's holster.

As for hitting his head, where did he say TM hit his head on concrete 10 - 30 times? I saw the videotape where GZ walks through the incident, and he said that TM hit GZ's head once on the concrete sidewalk, but then he was able to shimmy his way onto the grass for the next hit. (The area was where a concrete sidewalk meets a grass area.)

The Skittles were in TM's pocket, so GZ didn't see that. But he tell the cop on teh phone that TM had something in his hand, as TM walked toward him...so GZ couldn't make out what TM was carrying.

Doesn't mean GZ is not guilty. But we do want to get the evidence right.

[brush]

125. he changed his story on the video you saw

Early on is this saga he made the 10-30 repeated head bashes on concrete. That's not even in doubt. He embellished what he said in that video to make it seem he was justified in killing Martin.

Now he'd to walk that back because there should have been very serious injury from 10-30 head bashes on concrete, which is why his attorney tried his best to get the ME to say there may have been more than one hit on the concrete with his head.

If you don't know, she also said that the injury was so minor that the only treatment zimmy needed was a band-aid.

HAH!

A band-aid? A band-aid?

zimmy's whole story is of the cock and bull variety.

[Ruby the Liberal]

127. You are confused

TM's DNA was not found on the gun or the holster. Only Zimmerman's.

[Honeycombe8]

128. Well, I saw the testimony that the holster tested positive for TM's DNA.

I'll doublecheck, though. There's a lot of small bits of evidence, and it's easy to get it confused.

[Ruby the Liberal]

129. That is incorrect.

Skeletor tied himself into knots trying to get the DNA analyst to admit that they didn't check the gun thoroughly enough. He failed.

[Honeycombe8]

131. You are correct. TM's DNA was NOT found on either the gun or holster. What I heard

was apparently questioning back and forth about the procedures and the swabbing and such about TM's DNA, and I misunderstood (seems like the attorneys were confused, too!).

The point being made was that TM's DNA could've been there, or not, but we don't know because neither the gun nor holster were properly swabbed, and even the areas swabbed weren't properly noted. So basically, whoever did that procedure screwed up.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

150. So Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of his own gun?

That's the biggest caveat empetor if I've ever seen one.

[MNBrewer]

108. What if Martin felt the same way?

Might his use of the "deadly weapon"... the sidewalk... have been motivated by a reasonable fear that Zimmerman was threatening Martin's life?