The Trial of George Zimmerman

[chitoryu12]

The most important factor in the case is that Zimmerman was the one who started the confrontation. If someone is walking down the street, whether or not you think that they're "up to no good", YOU are the one who started the fight if you run up and start acting aggressively toward them. It's a different case if the person is obviously in the process of committing a crime, such as if you see him rapidly closing on someone who hasn't noticed him. But all evidence indicates that Martin was simply walking home, unarmed.

The attempts to paint Martin as a thug from his past behavior, regardless of their truth, are irrelevant to the case. Zimmerman didn't know Martin's past or predilection toward crime and violence. All he saw was a black kid in a hoodie walking down the street at night. On the other hand, Zimmerman's past behavior IS relevant because there's evidence of him specifically mentioning black youths as potential threats when giving safety spiels as part of his Neighborhood Watch duties. Also, any evidence of past aggression would be relevant as it backs up any indicators that Zimmerman approached Martin and started the confrontation rather than the other way around.

[Askold]

I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

[mellenORL]

Stand Your Ground.

Riot inducing stupid law.

Let's hope the jury won't do it.

[chitoryu12]

I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

It's still ambiguous. If Martin attacked out of fear (which would be highly justifiable in this case), Zimmerman has much less defense when he kills the person. In this case, Zimmerman was the aggressor and inciting a fight. Who threw the first punch is relevant, but so is WHY the first punch was thrown.

[erictheblue]

I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

Zimmerman wasn't defending himself in his house.

Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

In plain English, in order to use SYG, you have to be preventing a felony in your home.

[ironbite]

....so this is Castle Doctorine?

Ironbite-OH HAPPY DAY!

[Jack Mann]

I've heard it said that it specifically does NOT matter who started the confrontation, all that is needed is to prove that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

Zimmerman wasn't defending himself in his house.

Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

In plain English, in order to use SYG, you have to be preventing a felony in your home.

That's the federal Stand Your Ground guidelines, which are basically a subset of the Castle Doctrine.  However, the Florida Stand Your Ground law applies anywhere you have a legal right to be.

EDIT:  In fact, if Martin had killed Zimmerman instead, it would have been defensible under the Stand Your Ground Law. 

[Sigmaleph]

Eric's quote is directly from Florida statutes.

[mellenORL]

If you read the rulings history on cases where stand your ground is used in FL, you will encounter dozens of examples that the law in fact enables use of deadly defensive force, regardless of physical location. It is an awful, abuse-able law. It is highly controversial in this state for that very reason.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

There are so many excellent examples in the above linked article, I cannot decide which sample to quote here. Just click the link. The article is jaw dropping. Worth the read, I assure you.

[Distind]

I haven't gone over that, but did any of the other cases involve acting directly against directions from law enforcement personel?

[mellenORL]

Just the Tampa newspaper archive search mentions going through over 200 cases. As badly as this law is applied in some of the cases, who knows? Quite possibly. It is estimated in the article, that by polling several country and district prosecutor's offices, that the law is cited in hundreds of assault, manslaughter, and murder cases each year throughout the state.

I absolutely agree that the fact Zimmerman ignored the Sanford officer's assertion to stop following should be what the jury focus on, but, you will see some cases listed where the SYG citing defendants actively pursued victims, assaulted victims who were incapacitated, and even shot or stabbed victims in the side or back of their bodies, as the victims turned to retreat. Many, many victims were unarmed, and still some of the armed defendants won their freedom. The key to that inanity is that the law "does not require retreat" being interpreted to also not exclude pursuit. SYG is also applicable to a bystander, not under threat of harm themselves, to go over and intervene with an altercation or what they believe to be a felony crime in progress.

[Distind]

The key to that inanity is that the law "does not require retreat" being interpreted to also not exclude pursuit.

I almost understand their logic, it's as if the law doesn't come into effect until the defendant felt threatened. So pursue, corner, "It's coming right for us!" and blammo, one prison time free corpse. The problem is... well the entire line of thought I ran through to get there.

SYG is also applicable to a bystander, not under threat of harm themselves, to go over and intervene with an altercation or what they believe to be a felony crime in progress.

This isn't quite as bad, aside from the gun totting psychos it seems to get applied to. Most of the nastiest altercations I ever got into involved poking my nose where it didn't necessarily belong because it looked remarkably one sided. Then again, I was never the armed one. I'd never really considered the implication that someone could simply see something, assume what it was, shoot someone without direct confrontation and be considered legal under this law. That's pretty nuts, but the entire law is about not having to put yourself at extra risk when you feel threatened, so they certainly wouldn't want to add any thing requiring the threatened individual to analyse the situation.

[Askold]

I haven't gone over that, but did any of the other cases involve acting directly against directions from law enforcement personel?

That bit of Zimmerman's behaviour has been mentioned often in arguments about the case and usually it is claimed that Zimmerman had no oblication to obey the person on the line since he/she wasn't a cop. Wether that is true or not I have no idea.

Also, I'd like to know if the people supporting Zimmerman would be just as eagerly defending Martin if he had won the fight...

[Witchyjoshy]

They'd be asking for his head on a silver platter if Martin had killed Zimmerman in self defense.

[Distind]

Yeah, if you call the police and they tell you to stop doing something, it's typically a pretty clear indication of what a cop would have told you even if the person saying it isn't one. Things such as 'Do not go chasing after someone with a gun' should fall into basic logic in most cases, and not require much offical training.