What's reasonable for a member of a neighborhood watch (note that word) to do is report a suspicious individual to the police. Zimmerman did that, but then decided (against the specific request of the 911 dispatcher) to follow and confront the individual. An action that Zimmerman obviously believed was dangerous enough to warrant arming himself with a gun. His bad choices are so immediately obvious that neither hindsight or an armchair are needed to see them.
If Martin's first action was to run away, why are you then suggesting that his "first instinct" was to attack Zimmerman? If you try to run away but you can't shake your pursuer, then what do you do? Perhaps the string of robberies you mention makes Martin think that Zimmerman (and maybe unseen accomplices) are about to attack and rob him. Maybe you'd decide to go with a verbal challenge, but I can see why some others might immediately flip from flight to fight.
Not sure where you're getting the evidence to make the rather blatant assumption that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The available evidence weighs towards Martin confronting Zimmerman and not vice versa. When I use "first instinct," I am discussing when the confrontation occurred after Martin had escaped from Zimmerman's view. Anyways, this discussion is getting too off topic, so I will just say that we are going to disagree on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence presented.
If your interpretation of the escalation clause is correct, then I think the law needs to be changed. It makes no sense to me that a person who "provokes the use of force" gets to use deadly force against the other person just because the aggressor is now worried about his/her own bodily harm. Why can't a mugger use this argument to justify killing a victim who successfully fights back? What am I missing?
You need to reread the quoted statute. First, mugging falls under section 1 of section 776.041. You cannot claim self-defense or SYG when you are committing a felony. Secondly, you are entirely misinterpreting that section. I will give you an example that will hopefully clarify your misunderstanding of the statute. If I provoke someone to use force, i.e., punch or lunge at them, and they defend themselves by fighting back, i.e., punching back, I cannot claim self-defense or SYG. Now, let's say the fight continues on and the person I'm fighting decides to pull a knife. I still cannot use deadly force unless I either have exhausted every reasonable non-lethal method to escape the danger, i.e., run away from the fight, or I somehow indicate in good faith that I am withdrawing from the fight and would like to stop fighting and the person I am fighting decides to continue the fight by coming after me with the knife.
So, as you can see, SYG and self-defense laws have a fair amount of protections against abuse, especially when there are witnesses. But like most crimes, when no one witnesses a crime, it becomes very difficult to contradict a person's statement with regards to the crime.
Last edited: