<p>Just curious on this case. Basically we know he killed Martian. Why does he pled self-defense. Even IF he was acting in self-defense, being the bigger guy (with experience) against a weapon-less younger person, why would he even have to use a gun?</p>
<p>About 7,000 blacks are murdered each year. 93% of these murders are perpetrated by other blacks. To put this number in perspective, 4,486 US soldiers were killed in Iraq from 2003 - 2012.</p>
<p>Where’s the outrage over the number of blacks murdered each year? Why does the president and the media only focus the national spotlight when it’s a white (or Hispanic in this case) on black incident?</p>
<p>How long are the good citizens of this country going to allow themselves to be divided by politicians, the media, and race baiting hucksters?</p>
<p>Why are you so desperate to make this a racial issue, riprorin?</p>
<p>It’s a bad law. Most of us are saying this is a bad law.</p>
<p>I’m not being divided by anyone. I have perfect clarity on the fact that this law allows lawless shooting of innocents who are the target of an original attack. Bad law.</p>
<p>The law in FL is this, if it hasn’t been listed before. Self defense is an available claim if:</p>
<p>“776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”</p>
<p>(1) doesn’t apply and neither does (2)(b). The issue is (2) and (2)(a). </p>
<p>Of all the testimony covered in this hideous play-by-play manner - which obscures the reality of the legal issues - we’ve seen evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin (and was told not to) and testimony that he saw someone following him plus testimony that he said things like “get off”. That is pretty good evidence for “provocation” under FL law, especially if you look at the cases. (FYI, though I’m admitted in FL, I’ve never looked at a criminal case there and only spent 10 minutes checking this out.) So the prosecution is making it’s case that self-defense can’t be asserted.</p>
<p>The defense is trying to present the case that (2)(a) is in play, that Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in danger of great bodily harm AND that he’s exhausted every reasonable means to escape. This is why there are questions about who was on top; that speaks to escape because Zimmerman has an actual duty under the statute to escape. As to imminent danger of great bodily harm … the prosecution is trying to show that Zimmerman had some scrapes, meaning his physical injuries weren’t at the level of reasonable belief of great bodily harm. </p>
<p>I have no interest in the outcome of the trial. The legal issues have, thankfully, been narrowed it seems to traditional statutory language and case law about the availability of self-defense as a claim. </p>
<p>To be clear, however the case comes out, if there is a finding of provocation, then that requires escape, etc. before you can use force. I’m trying to say explicitly that notions of “we got into it and he got killed” aren’t at issue: if there is legal provocation, you can’t claim self-defense unless you can show a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm AND that you’ve exhausted every reasonable means of escape. Let’s say for example they do find provocation and the evidence shows there was a confrontation that escalated. As I looked quickly through the FL cases, Zimmerman would be out of luck legally because that would mean he failed to exhaust his reasonable means of escape by continuing to tussle. Just thinking the other guy may come after you if you try to back off is not, as I look at the cases, justification for self-defense if you provoked the confrontation.</p>
<p>thank you for the clarification Lergnom.</p>
<p>I think this is getting muddied up with SYG. But I do think the SYG law muddies it up, for whatever reason. Maybe it’s confusing because that was the original stance with Z? Or maybe just because it was something we know Z was thinking of when he used deadly force on Trayvon Martin?</p>
<p>“Why are you so desperate to make this a racial issue, riprorin?”</p>
<p>This incident was made a racial issue by the president who interjected himself into this incident from the very beginning, and the media who doctored a 911 tape to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist.</p>
<p>“When President Barack Obama commented about the Trayvon Martin case, T. Willard Fair, president of the Urban League of Greater Miami, told The Daily Caller that “the outrage should be about us killing each other, about black-on-black crime.” He asked rhetorically, “Wouldn’t you think to have 41 people shot (in Chicago) between Friday morning and Monday morning would be much more newsworthy and deserve much more outrage?” Former NAACP leader Pastor C.L. Bryant said the rallies organized by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men,” adding: “The epidemic is truly black-on-black crime. The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.””</p>
<p>[Should</a> Black People Tolerate This? - Walter E. Williams - Page full](<a href=“http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/05/23/should_black_people_tolerate_this/page/full]Should”>http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/05/23/should_black_people_tolerate_this/page/full)</p>
<p>If you are interested in the legal issues in 776.041 that (should) determine the outcome in this case (not that the moral and political issues aren’t also of interest), google “legally, who was the first aggressor.” This should bring up a blog by an attorney Richard Hornsby. It is very understandable and has links to Florida case authority on how these issues have been interpreted.</p>
<p>Right, riprorin. But, we are talking about this case.</p>
<p>I happen to live in Chicago. If you want to talk about Chicago, start another thread. We’ve discussed the violence issues in Chicago.</p>
<p>For me, it seems to be one of the most challenging questions we face, as a nation. We have the second amendment, and it is such a different situation in different parts of the country, and it makes for a very tense and uncomfortable debate. For one group, we could get rid of guns and that would be a huge benefit to the community. For another group, those who hunt, those who live in areas where police protection is remote or non existent, who live among bears and wolves, or whatnot, gun rights are essential.</p>
<p>But, this case has nothing to do with any of that. This case is it’s own case, and it illustrates a problem with vigilantism and SYG laws.</p>
<p>Black on black gang killings are a tragedy. We would like them stopped but a kid walking home from the store and getting killed is also a tragedy. I believe many people think kids should not join gangs but they place themselves at risk when they do. That is why we see this case differently. The kid was just minding his own business and walking home. You do not see the difference in that and gang violence. That does not mean I or we do not want gang violence to stop.</p>
<p>The violence issue in Chicago can be directly traced to the jobs issues. But, that is another thread, entirely, and it is not doable on here because of the TOS.</p>
<p>@Tom:
Except many of these death are senseless murders. I keep hearing news from Chicago about the victims (women, little kids, and babies are being killed over there.) This is more than a “gang” issue. This is clearly a social issue.</p>
<p>@Lerhnom: Thank for the clarification on the law surrounding this case.</p>
<p>riprorin, you are making the case for exactly why President Obama commented on the incident and why even Republican Gov. Rick Scott called for an investigation…because all too often when a black youth is murdered, it doesn’t make the news and when it does, everyone just shrugs it off since it is so common. There was something about the circumstances of this case–a gangly, regular 17-year-old kid armed with nothing more than a bag of Skittles and an iced tea–that got people (justifiably) riled up, as did the case of Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago (the honor student who was murdered in a drive-by gang shooting while standing at a bus stop in the rain after school). President Obama commented on that murder, too, by the way. </p>
<p>Compounding the Trayvon Martin story is the very real issue of racial tension in Florida. To say that race was not at all an underlying factor is disingenuous. Miami had some of the worst race riots in our nation’s history in 1980 over the beating death of a black motorcyclist by four white police officers who were later acquitted. I lived there at the time and it was a very, very horrible and scary time. In the TM case, there was already a perception that the Sanford PD had not treated black victims fairly in the past, and the fact that GZ wasn’t even charged for weeks reinforced the perception that TM’s life was of no value because he was black. I would not suggest that GZ has to be convicted at any cost to preserve the relative peace in the community–he absolutely deserves a fair trial–but I think it is important to understand the context in this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the jury instructions follow Wharton’s and/or Gibbs v. State, what do you think (not wish or hope)?</p>
<p>^ I think we have to wait for the Judge’s instructions to the Jury. I’m sure people can interpret this (extensive, but broadly drafted) list in different ways.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure that the Judge will be using Florida Standard Jury instructions - [Standard</a> Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases](<a href=“http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml]Standard”>Jury Instructions - Supreme Court) – and not Wharton’s.</p>
<p>“a gangly, regular 17-year-old kid armed with nothing more than a bag of Skittles and an iced tea–that got people (justifiably) riled up.”</p>
<p>When Martin’s backpack was search by a school resource officer it turned up at least 12 pcs of ladies jewelry, including silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds and a man’s watch, in addition to a flat head screwdriver described as “a burglary tool”.</p>
<p>He was also suspended from school multiple times.</p>
<p>That’s not a “regular kid” to me.</p>
<p>You don’t think that allegations of racist motivation for both the shooting and police conduct, and intense media reporting that was sometimes inaccurate and included doctoring the 911 tape which made Zimmerman look like a racist, contributed to riling people up?</p>
<p>It annoys me to no end when people in this thread keep discussing Zimmerman’s injuries as if he had a few scratches.</p>
<p>Watch this clip: [Forensics</a> in the Zimmerman trial ? Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs](<a href=“http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/forensics-in-the-zimmerman-trial/?hpt=ac_bn3]Forensics”>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/forensics-in-the-zimmerman-trial/?hpt=ac_bn3)</p>
<p>The forensic expert makes it clear that Zimmerman had a broken nose and wounds on the back of his head consistant with massive blunt force trauma. He all but says any reasonable person would fear for his or her life. </p>
<p>There is zero evidence that Zimmerman started the fight. Following someone is not a crime and is not relevant to the case. The prosecution needs to prove that Zimmerman started the fight AND that he was not reasonably fearing for his life. I don’t see how based on the evidence presented they’ve proven this at a level of balance of probabilities, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>Realistically Zimmerman should never have been charged. Alan Dershowitz has made it clear that there was no evidence to charge Zimmerman and that Angela Corey should be disbarred for charging him. </p>
<p>[Alan</a> Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit “Irresponsible And Unethical” | RealClearPolitics](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/12/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_arrest_affidavit_irresponsible_and_unethical.html]Alan”>Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical" | RealClearPolitics)</p>
<p>This is Duke Lacrosse all over again.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with Duke Lacrosse. At all.</p>
<p>Not even slightly.</p>
<p>The only reason Zimmerman was charged was because of political pressure.
The police found no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.</p>
<p>The only reason he wasn’t originally arrested was because his father is a judge.</p>