No, Martin would have been convicted. There were witnesses placing Martin on top during the fight. Martin had no visible marks from being in a fight except for being wet and a single gun shot wound. That is hardly someone who has to defend themselves. Had Martin possessed a gun, and all else being the same, shot and killed Zimmerman, he would have been convicted and it wouldn't have made the news. The jury also would have been told of Martin's background (which wasn't the sweet choir boy people want to pretend he was in the media). He had a history of being in fights, he was under the influence of an illegal substance, and he used a racial slur towards Zimmerman slightly before the altercation took place.
People seem to think that because these laws exist, you can claim them anytime you kill someone and get away with it. A lady in Houston tied her husband to the bed and stabbed him like 193 times. Not only that, she stabbed him so many times she had to get another knife to continue stabbing him. She claimed self defense. It didn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Wright_(murderer)
I fail to see how it is easily abused. It is not like you can just claim "oh it was self defense" and they just drop the case. It requires there to be a lot of evidence supporting it.
And even then, what is the alternative? Require victims of violence to have to flee and not retaliate?
Except, you are blaming the victim (Zimmerman) in this case. It is the same as blaming a scantily clad women for getting raped. Sure, she could have dressed in sweat pants and a hoodie, but that does not mean it was her fault (in any way) that someone else chose to break the law.
In the Zimmerman case, all evidence points to him not doing anything illegal and not showing any reason to be punched in the face. Martin, decided to escalate a situation to illegal status by attacking Zimmerman. And not just attacking, but getting on top of and pummeling. If Martin had punched Zimmerman and then ran away, Zimmerman had no reason to use force, as the situation was over.
The problem is the opportunities to "not escalate" something is of no relevance in the way you are using it. The only point in which escalation matters is when a person attempts GBH or a forceful felony, and assaulting a man who might be following you, is that escalation. In this case, Zimmerman was legally allowed to be in the area, was making no direct threats against Martin, and had no reasonable expectation to be attacked. Yet, it very much looks as if he was. The escalation after the attack, was also not him.Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say that Zimmerman was at fault. I also didn't say that Trayvon was at fault. That was the whole 'Maybe, maybe not' comment around escalation of the altercation. The plain fact of the matter is that there were lots of opportunities on both sides for that not to escalate to someone being killed. Lawfully or unlawfully, from a moral standpoint killing someone should be avoided if possible. However, defending yourself with lethal force if required should also be allowed (according to me anyway) So the 2 are at odds with each other, there is no black and white answer from what I see.
About the law in general, which I will admit I haven't been completely on topic on, I do believe they are written well enough to prevent real abuse. And I have not gotten a real reason why they should not exist, except for they have the ability to be abused. But we can't base laws on what someone willing to break them will do.We are talking about the law type in general and if it should exist. All laws are an attempt to codify morals, and since morals are a shifting thing that are difficult to quantify, I am saying it is difficult to write such laws and used the Zimmerman/Trayvon case as an example. Codifying laws that may result in death is a difficult one.
Zimmerman went out looking for trouble, found it for himself, and created it for Martin. Martin is alive today if Zimmerman doesn't make a string of bad choices that leads to the physical altercation. How can it be right during such an altercation that one party can take the life of the other just because he/she fears for his/her own life?
'Under the influence of an illegal substance' is a false description if I understand correctly there were 'trace amounts' of marijuana.
Marijuana does not increase people's tendencies to violence, it does the opposite, and trace amounts do not affect behavior.
Although we have no witnesses (other than Zimmerman) to say who started the fight, I agree it's likely that Martin also made some bad choices. If both parties make bad choices, then it'd seem reasonable to expect both parties to shoulder some responsibility for the consequences. It seems in this case Martin's consequence is death and Zimmerman's consequence is exhoneration. Something's wrong here.
That's good information. I gather that Florida's SYG must not include an escalation exception because it would have clearly precluded Zimmerman from considering its use?
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.
If you pull a gun on me and I don't think my chances of running away are good I'm going to attack you with everything I got.
That is a poor response to such a scenario.
Lol ok. Thanks for proving my point though.
We are indeed judging people for their sub conscious fight or flight reactions.
If you pull a gun on me and I don't think my chances of running away are good I'm going to attack you with everything I got. If you still shoot me am I now to blame? How would you prove a dead guy was fearing for his life and not the orher way around?
He didnt go looking for trouble. He was the god damn head of the neighborhood watch and saw something/one suspicious and did his job. I'd be pissed as a neighbor had he not done his job.
What is your scenario, some guy just pulls a gun on you? See, here's the problem - you seem to be among the people that view people like me, people who carry guns legally, as just pulling our guns out to frighten people or something.
In reality, people like me who carry a gun only pull the gun out when we're threatened. So, assuming we're being lawful, you threaten me causing me to pull my gun out, running at me will get you dead, very fast. If you at that point turn around and start to walk away, I cannot lawfully shoot you, unless you're also armed with a gun and running for cover to return fire.
Yeah you aren't getting it.
And yes, victims of violence are expected otherwise to retreat rather than use deadly force when they can. You imply you know for a fact who started violence here; you don't.
So if someone is pounding on you should do what exactly? If you see or think someone is going to pull a gun or knife on you what do you do?
If you pull a gun on me and I don't think my chances of running away are good I'm going to attack you with everything I got. If you still shoot me am I now to blame? How would you prove a dead guy was fearing for his life and not the orher way around?
My father taught me this in the early 70's when I was 13 or 14.
1) Avoid starting/getting into a fight at all cost as the other person may be armed with a knife or gun.
2) If attacked use any and everything at your disposal to defend yourself.
This is as true today as it was then and I have passed this same advice on to my kids.
I don't support Florida's self defense by an aggressor provision and am glad Texas does not allow a person who provokes an incident the right to claim self defense.
Even with this being said nothing GZ did on the night of 2/26/12 meets the requirements for provocation in Texas. Provocation must be a physical threat or act.
What law in Florida allows self defense to be claimed by an aggressor?
[SIZE=-1]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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
[/SIZE]
Regardless of the mid altering abilities of marijuana, it is still an illegal substance that Martin was under the influence of. If you are seriously going to argue in court that weed does not, even in the slightest bit, alter your judgement, good luck winning that battle.
He didnt go looking for trouble. He was the god damn head of the neighborhood watch and saw something/one suspicious and did his job. I'd be pissed as a neighbor had he not done his job.
Although we may not have any evidence of who started the fight, people can draw a reasonable inference of how the confrontation started. We know Martin was near his home and had essentially escaped Zimmerman's view. We then know that a confrontation occurred between the two where only Zimmerman received injuries from being physically assaulted (other than the bruises on Martin's knuckles from the punching). The reasonable inference is that Martin started the fight.
Additionally, hindsight has allowed most of the armchair quarterbacking public to judge Zimmerman's actions as "bad choices." If you are a part of a neighborhood watch, you're duty is essentially to be on the lookout for suspicious activity (made particularly pertinent by the string of robberies that had previously occurred in the neighborhood). Following a suspicious individual as a member of the neighborhood watch seems fairly reasonable to me. If someone was following me and the following was unwarranted, I would most likely either run away (Martin's first action) or ask the person why he was following me. My first instinct would not be to attack the person.
Florida's SYG and self-defense statutes (Title XLVI, Chapter 776, Sections 776.012 and 776.013) are covered by an escalation clause in Section 776.041. The statute is as follows:
...
Essentially, these concepts were developed from English Common Law and were then codified into most state laws. The issue is that while Zimmerman may have caused Martin to become suspicious, Zimmerman's actions were not sufficient to provoke the use of force against him. Following someone and even approaching that person is not cause to use force against that person or we'd have a comically injured society of people embroiled in endless fights. Thus, Zimmerman's actions are not within the "escalation" exception to self-defense and even if it were, he would likely still be covered by clause 2(a) when Martin mounted Zimmerman during the attack.