Originally posted by: Nines
That' the way I recall the outcome as well.
Zimmerman was driving his truck when he stopped and got out to confront Martin. That altercation could have been easily avoided; Zimmerman sought it out.
Originally posted by: Nines
That' the way I recall the outcome as well.
Zimmerman was driving his truck when he stopped and got out to confront Martin. That altercation could have been easily avoided; Zimmerman sought it out.
Originally posted by: David Miller
The reality of why he was shot - The "Ground and Pound" Altercation: Zimmerman's defense presented physical evidence—including injuries to the back of his head and nose—and witness testimony indicating that Martin had pinned Zimmerman to the ground and was actively assaulting him. Forensic pathology also supported the claim that Martin was leaning over Zimmerman when the fatal shot was fired The New York Times +3 Self-Defense Justification: Under Florida’s justifiable use of force statute, an individual is legally permitted to use deadly force if they have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The jury agreed that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger
Zimmerman was driving his truck, stopped, got out, and confronted Martin. He didn't have to do that. He was in no physical danger from Martin whatsoever. He assaulted Martin and was losing the fight when he shot Martin.
There was no valid self-defense claim. Zimmerman could have just kept on driving, but he was a self-appointed neighborhood vigilante. He may have had a fear for his life when he shot the kid, but that's because he had just assaulted him and was getting beaten up as a result.
Originally posted by: Nines
@ Kevin
The defensive shooter should have been prosecuted and imprisoned / executed if found guilty by a jury of his peers.. It's that straightforward.
Yes, but justice is a foreign concept in race hatred-soaked MAGA cesspools where gun love is a religion.
I wish it WAS that straightforward. Zimmerman was unlawfully "patrolling" the neighborhood, acting as a vigilante, stopped his truck, and got out to confront Martin. There was a physical fight; no one knows who threw the first punch. Of COURSE, Zimmerman said that Martin attacked him.
Testimony from people who knew both individuals suggests that Martin was just minding his own business and would not have initiated the confrontation. Zimmerman was a known hothead who had railed against the "invasion" of his neighborhood by black people. So any reasonable jury would have dismissed his claim of self-defense.
It's not self-defense if you initiate a fight, you're losing it, and you kill the other person.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
......It's not self-defense if you initiate a fight, you're losing it, and you kill the other person.
On that we are in 100% agreement.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
On that we are in 100% agreement.
In some jurisdictions both parties would be justified shooting each other under stand your ground.
Originally posted by: Mark
In some jurisdictions both parties would be justified shooting each other under stand your ground.
In some scenarios possibly. But generally, if one is the aggressor and intitiated force they can no longer claim self-defense.
There is a lot of confusion around what "stand your ground" means. Most states are stand your ground. California is stand your ground.
Generally the required elements of self defense are:
1) Innocence
2) Imminence
3) Proportionality
4) Reasonableness
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
In some scenarios possibly. But generally, if one is the aggressor and intitiated force they can no longer claim self-defense.
There is a lot of confusion around what "stand your ground" means. Most states are stand your ground. California is stand your ground.
Generally the required elements of self defense are:
1) Innocence
2) Imminence
3) Proportionality
4) Reasonableness
Self defense is different than stand your ground. I believe Florida's only requires a fear of serious BI or death. I'd say that actually makes it easier if both parties had guns because most people would see that scenario as it's either me or him.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
In some scenarios possibly. But generally, if one is the aggressor and intitiated force they can no longer claim self-defense.
There is a lot of confusion around what "stand your ground" means. Most states are stand your ground. California is stand your ground.
Generally the required elements of self defense are:
1) Innocence
2) Imminence
3) Proportionality
4) Reasonableness
As a counter to "stand your ground," isn't there a concept called "duty to evade"? That you're expected to get out of there if you can--to try that first--and only use lethal force for defense if that doesn't work?
I do realize that that may not be practical in many scenarios, and that may be why the concept is dying out--or it may be that the macho man concept srill lingers; running away is considered cowardly, and manly men fight god damn it.
Re proportionality: Isn't that whereby in order to justify the use of lethal force, there must be a lethal threat? And imminence would mean that the decision is urgent, right? So how exactly does Joe Average determine that his life is in imminent danger? With only seconds or even less to make a decision?
It's a bit much to ask. And of course, if Joe takes too long to evaluate the threat, he could be toast. Thus the doctrine of shoot first and ask questions later, which is the new normal.
Originally posted by: Mark
Self defense is different than stand your ground. I believe Florida's only requires a fear of serious BI or death. I'd say that actually makes it easier if both parties had guns because most people would see that scenario as it's either me or him.
And if neither party had a gun, the death rate per such confrontation would drop from about 1.3 (sometimes both are killed) to near zero. I think that when both have guns, there will be less running away and more trying to kill the other guy.
Guns = death. No way to sugarcoat it.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
As a counter to "stand your ground," isn't there a concept called "duty to evade"? That you're expected to get out of there if you can--to try that first--and only use lethal force for defense if that doesn't work?
I do realize that that may not be practical in many scenarios, and that may be why the concept is dying out--or it may be that the macho man concept srill lingers; running away is considered cowardly, and manly men fight god damn it.
Re proportionality: Isn't that whereby in order to justify the use of lethal force, there must be a lethal threat? And imminence would mean that the decision is urgent, right? So how exactly does Joe Average determine that his life is in imminent danger? With only seconds or even less to make a decision?
It's a bit much to ask. And of course, if Joe takes too long to evaluate the threat, he could be toast. Thus the doctrine of shoot first and ask questions later, which is the new normal.
Correct. The handful of states that are not stand your ground add a duty to retreat to the elements of self defense. Only if it is safe to do so.
A few states have a universal duty to retreat, several have a general duty to retreat with an exception inside one's home.
Essentially though I would argue that it effectively doesn't make much difference because if one has the time and ability to retreat then they likely have an imminence problem and already fail the elements.
For proportionality. Yes, in order to defend with lethal force one must be in imminent and reasonable fear of lethal force. Either for themselves or others. (Lethal Force being defined as likely to cause serious injury or death). And one could use ordinary force if threatened with ordinary force. (Ordinary force being something like a shove or a punch)
