Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[AmbulanceDriver]

It doesn't really matter to Zimmerman's case, and we can't answer that without talking to Martin.  

FYI, we've been over that multiple times on this thread - both people can be guilty of a crime.   The victims reaction only has to be a foreseeable consequence, not a legally justified or sensible one, to give the shooter a problem.

See, here's where I'm gonna *really* disagree with you.  If Martin's actions were not legally justifiable (i.e. he was not in REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily injury) then *his* attack on Zimmerman is sufficiently disproportionate to Zimmerman's actions (whether he was following or chasing) that Zimmerman becomes once again justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself (since he *did* have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury).

Florida Law deals *specifically* with this scenario:

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.

776.041 (2)(a) deals *EXACTLY* with the scenario you are describing.  Even if Zimmerman "provoked" the confrontation by following (or chasing) Martin, Martin's response was disproportionate to the situation.  Let me line it right up here:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:  (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.

So unless Zimmerman was "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; "  I would imagine that barring other evidence coming forward that Zimmerman shot Martin unprovoked, this case is heading towards dismissal or acquittal.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Dagnabit wrong button.

[T.O.M.]

Sorry guys.. Spent last evening and all day today working with my Scout units to make sure every veteran's grave in the  area has a flag on it.  It's important to teach the boys of today the sacrifices of the boys (and girls) of the past.
Mak, wanted   to answer your question. A citizen can approach someone on the street, ask what's happening, and still claim self defense.  My concern with this situation is how far George went after Treyvon.  I'mm worried a jury may hang up on his leaving a position of safety to follow Treyvon into a dark place between houses. And I'm worried the  force used by Treyvon ay be seen as  insufficient to justify deadly force in return.  And,, again, my biggeat worryis that bad laws will e passed in response to the outrage which will make the situation more complicated than it already is.
Remember, my   opionions   are based on my interpretations of the law and  18 years of experience as a prosecutor and mmagistrate.  Whether I think  the law is morally right is a different issue.

[dogmush]

  And,, again, my biggeat worryis that bad laws will e passed in response to the outrage which will make the situation more complicated than it already is.
Remember, my   opionions   are based on my interpretations of the law and  18 years of experience as a prosecutor and mmagistrate.  Whether I think  the law is morally right is a different issue.

I share this worry, regardless of the outcome of this trial.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I share this worry, regardless of the outcome of this trial.

same here... I worry about the repercussions not just for Florida, but nationwide.

[Regolith]

On TalkLeft.com, a criminal defense attorney goes through all of the witness statements and various evidence that is available, and concludes that Zimmerman would probably succeed even in a classic self defense case, without SYG:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872

The problem being that none of the witness statements that supposedly contradict GZ's statements are credible. They all changed their stories months after it happened. She doesn't state this, but given how crappy the human memory is, it's very likely that the witnesses who changed their story were influenced by the media, which misreported several facts (and outright lied about others).

She also concludes, like many of us here, that following and questioning or confronting someone isn't illegal in and of itself and is not enough to provoke force out of someone else, and therefor isn't enough to disable the right to defend oneself.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Dang.  Just read her post and another linked post...   I do like what she points out with regards to the judge playing "kick the can" and wanting to send this to a jury to decide, not rule on provisions of the SYG law.

[De Selby]

Her analysis of what it takes to "extricate" someone from a provoked situation is incorrect; attempting to stand up during a fight you provoked absolutely will not do it.  It might make the other guy guilty of a crime too, but it doesn't give you the right to use lethal force.  

That's the problem - she's arguing the facts to legal standards that aren't correct.  Even if you accept her most-favourable to Zimmerman interpretation, her assertions that following someone cannot be provocation and that resisting during a fight "extricates" is enough to reenable self-defence are not legally correct.  Both of these can indeed be found by a jury to constitute guilty conduct, and I'd trust Chris's analysis on what a jury is likely to do with these.

[dogmush]

Her analysis of what it takes to "extricate" someone from a provoked situation is incorrect; attempting to stand up during a fight you provoked absolutely will not do it.  It might make the other guy guilty of a crime too, but it doesn't give you the right to use lethal force.  

No snark, just a question:

In Zimmerman's story, After he got jumped what (that he could have done) would have been trying to extricate himself?  As I understand the claim he was pinned down, bleeding and screaming for help.  What more should he have done to  "indicate clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force"?

[Jamisjockey]

Her analysis of what it takes to "extricate" someone from a provoked situation is incorrect; attempting to stand up during a fight you provoked absolutely will not do it.  It might make the other guy guilty of a crime too, but it doesn't give you the right to use lethal force.  

That's the problem - she's arguing the facts to legal standards that aren't correct.  Even if you accept her most-favourable to Zimmerman interpretation, her assertions that following someone cannot be provocation and that resisting during a fight "extricates" is enough to reenable self-defence are not legally correct.  Both of these can indeed be found by a jury to constitute guilty conduct, and I'd trust Chris's analysis on what a jury is likely to do with these.

What crime did zimmerman commit?  I'm not sure I remember if you said what crime you think he committed.

[De Selby]

No snark, just a question:

In Zimmerman's story, After he got jumped what (that he could have done) would have been trying to extricate himself?  As I understand the claim he was pinned down, bleeding and screaming for help.  What more should he have done to  "indicate clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force"?

Wouldn't take it as snark- the reason why people heavily litigate whether they are the initial aggressor is that once you are deemed an aggressor, it's basically impossible to meet the standard for withdrawal.

Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit.   Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.

Again, this is why a decent lawyer or instructor always advises you not to give chase - once you're deemed the aggressor, if violence results, it's essentially impossible to absolve yourself of liability.   All that you can do is reduce your sentence.

[De Selby]

What crime did zimmerman commit?  I'm not sure I remember if you said what crime you think he committed.

Sorry, I thought Id said multiple times that I think the tapes show he committed manslaughter, by engaging in negligent behaviour (not necessarily itself a crime) that caused the death of another.   

Yet another important feature of self defence law:  bad decisions don't have to be demonstrably criminal in the abstract for you to end up facing the jury.   A really bad choice that leads to a lethal confrontation is a text book example of manslaughter.   There are no predicate offences;   in reality, committing a crime that leads to death usually makes it either depraved indifference (murder two, most places) or a capital offence.   

Manslaughter is a lesser offence largely  because the people who commit it haven't committed other crimes occasioning death.

[Jamisjockey]

Sorry, I thought Id said multiple times that I think the tapes show he committed manslaughter, by engaging in negligent behaviour (not necessarily itself a crime) that caused the death of another.   

Yet another important feature of self defence law:  bad decisions don't have to be demonstrably criminal in the abstract for you to end up facing the jury.   A really bad choice that leads to a lethal confrontation is a text book example of manslaughter.   There are no predicate offences;   in reality, committing a crime that leads to death usually makes it either depraved indifference (murder two, most places) or a capital offence.   

Manslaughter is a lesser offence largely  because the people who commit it haven't committed other crimes occasioning death.

You answered my question. 

[makattak]

Sorry, I thought Id said multiple times that I think the tapes show he committed manslaughter, by engaging in negligent behaviour (not necessarily itself a crime) that caused the death of another.   

That's a VERY poor description of this incident.

"Negligent behavior?" So, if I forget my keys which makes me turn around and head back to my house, where I find someone breaking in and I shoot them to protect my family, I'm guilty of manslaughter?

After all, I was negligent in forgetting my keys and if I hadn't returned, that poor misunderstood youth likely wouldn't have died! (Now, my family may have, but since his crimes are apparently unrelated to my crime, we can just ignore that.)

With the evidence available Zimmerman's only "negligent behavior" was exiting his vehicle and attempting to see where Mr. Martin had run off to. (No, not your supposition that he MUST have chased that poor boy down and accosted him.)

[De Selby]

With the evidence available Zimmerman's only "negligent behavior" was exiting his vehicle and attempting to see where Mr. Martin had run off to. (No, not your supposition that he MUST have chased that poor boy down and accosted him.)

Ok, you recognise that as negligent (following someone running away from you, which he says happened on tape) into a dark space between two homes.  He did so without identifying himself.

That is undoubtedly a decision that, if it had not been made, the shooting would not have happened. 

Hence the lead investigator's conclusion, before this became a media frenzy, that the confrontation was "ultimately avoidable," and therefore there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

That's what manslaughter is - culpable negligence that causes death.

[makattak]

That's what manslaughter is - culpable negligence that causes death.

FINALLY, you get to the most important part of the definition. You are arguing that getting out of his vehicle makes him culpable, not negligent.

And this is where I disagree. Culpababilty and the proximate cause of Martin's death was his own decision to assault a person who was committing no crime.

Just as my forgetting my keys did not force the thief to attempt to break into my house, exiting his vehicle did not cause Mr. Martin to violently assault Mr. Zimmerman.

Further, I would argue that jumping on a downed person indicates intent of great bodily harm, and that THIS was the proximate cause of Mr. Martin's death, not exiting a vehicle, which has as much relation to this case as my return trip to retrieve my keys.

[dogmush]

Hence the lead investigator's conclusion, before this became a media frenzy, that the confrontation was "ultimately avoidable," and therefore there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

My problem with this line of reasoning, is that every confrontation is "ultimatly avoidable".  I think that you (and to be fair, others) are putting too much weight on Zimmerman following Martin to see where he went.  Or rather, I think that decision is far enough back the decision chain to make it not manslaughter.  

To make it criminally negligant (as I understand it) it needs to be a behavior that made it likely to end in physical violence.  And I don't think it was.  Certainly a verbal confrontation was likely, but 90 times out of 100 that decision ends in a verbal contact (maybe not polite) and that's it.

It was Martin's decision to initate violence without justification that led to the shooting.  

[MechAg94]

And I'm worried the  force used by Treyvon ay be seen as  insufficient to justify deadly force in return.  

No disagreement with the other statements you made.  

On this one, I thought Florida law was similarly worded to Texas as including "serious bodily injury" as justification for deadly force.  I could be wrong.  In Texas, case law has established that beating someone with fists can cause "serious bodily injury".  I have idea how far case law in Florida has gone to define this.
I would be curious if anyone here is familiary with that point.

[AmbulanceDriver]

De Selby, how does your assertion that "both are guilty of a crime" correlate with Florida state law?  Big long post at the beginning of this page (page 8 ), but I"ll repost the relevant section here for you:

---------------------------------------------------
See, here's where I'm gonna *really* disagree with you.  If Martin's actions were not legally justifiable (i.e. he was not in REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily injury) then *his* attack on Zimmerman is sufficiently disproportionate to Zimmerman's actions (whether he was following or chasing) that Zimmerman becomes once again justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself (since he *did* have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury).

Florida Law deals *specifically* with this scenario:

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.

776.041 (2)(a) deals *EXACTLY* with the scenario you are describing.  Even if Zimmerman "provoked" the confrontation by following (or chasing) Martin, Martin's response was disproportionate to the situation.  Let me line it right up here:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:  (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.

[TechMan]

Wouldn't take it as snark- the reason why people heavily litigate whether they are the initial aggressor is that once you are deemed an aggressor, it's basically impossible to meet the standard for withdrawal.

Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit.   Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.

Again, this is why a decent lawyer or instructor always advises you not to give chase - once you're deemed the aggressor, if violence results, it's essentially impossible to absolve yourself of liability.   All that you can do is reduce your sentence.

So if GZ did what you are saying (stop fighting) and TM just kept attacking would GZ then be justified in shooting TM?

[Regolith]

Being pinned down mid fight, it would take stopping the fight, clearly indicating that you were done and meant no harm, and doing so in a way that no reasonable person could mistake for anything other than a genuine desire to quit.   Crying out while being pummeled doesn't do it because it doesn't provide an opportunity for the other guy to sit back and think about what's happening.

This is just...flabbergasting. How exactly is someone who is pinned down and being pummeled supposed to disengage? You really can't at that point, and if shielding yourself and yelling "HELP!" doesn't show that you don't wish to fight, what the hell does?

In MMA and other such sports, someone who is pinned down often requires the ref to come in and stop the beating, because it's impossible for the person who is pinned (someone who is a trained fighter) to disengage or adequately fight back. And that's in an organized fight. "Tap outs" aren't recognized in street fights.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

zimmerman need to be declared black  then this will be like the other 90% of black kids shot no one will care except his family who can go on tv to talk about him turning his life around. no one will care and the rev's slim fast and pay to play will go away and rainbows and unicorns will return

[AmbulanceDriver]

Everyone is stuck on the provision that Zimmerman would need to disengage (myself included) however, FL law has an OR in the language.  The "disengagement" clause is actually the second part of the "or".  The first part (and I'll quote it again) is the "proportionality" clause.

(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.


Even if Zimmerman had chased Martin, even if Zimmerman had grabbed Martin, even if Zimmerman had smacked Martin upside the head, BECAUSE MARTIN USED DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE THAT COULD LEAD TO GREAT BODILY HARM, *AND* Zimmerman could not escape (because Martin had him pinned down), Zimmerman was justified in using deadly physical force to defend himself.

[De Selby]

So if GZ did what you are saying (stop fighting) and TM just kept attacking would GZ then be justified in shooting TM?

It would take more than that - if they'd both stopped and GZ said "I'm just in neighborhood watch, I don't want to hurt you, etc" and then TM said "oh, we'll I don't care, I'm going to hit you anyway".

That's why withdrawal is mostly a write off - its best to spend your time and lawyer money arguing that you weren't the aggressor.  Once you become the aggressor, the scenarios that would let you reclaim self defense are mostly unrealistic.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Once you become the aggressor, the scenarios that would let you reclaim self defense are mostly unrealistic.

Really?   The Florida statute I've been quoting seems to provide a pretty clear cut example of how the "agressor" reclaims self-defense.