I am actually wondering where the stand your ground law comes into play here. From what I know, SYG states that you have no requirement to retreat when retreat is an option. If Zimmerman was on his back being pummeled by Martin, then there was no option to retreat anyway, and its just regular old self defense.

The reason self defense laws exist is because its reasonable and expectable human behavior. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Maybe he did so out of anger at being followed, or maybe Martin had reason to fear for his safety. Either way, when you are on the ground with someone pummeling you, and you have a gun, what do you do? I don't think anyone would honestly answer "Take my licks"

We don't know exactly how we got to the point of Martin being on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him. But whatever the circumstances, that's where the situation ended up, and in that situation, I would fully expect Zimmerman to pull his gun and fire.

cthulhuspawn82:
We don't know exactly how we got to the point of Martin being on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him. But whatever the circumstances, that's where the situation ended up, and in that situation, I would fully expect Zimmerman to pull his gun and fire.

If Martin also had had a firearm and used it to kill Zimmerman (for following him and approaching him) would that have been self defense?

If so how can both sides claim self defense?

What if I go to a bar and I start a fight.

I am getting beaten up so I pull my firearm and shoot my opponent.

Is that self defense?

reonhato:
self defense should be if they attack unarmed then you can fight back unarmed or if you are disadvantaged a non-lethal weapon and not worry about an assault charge. it should not be if someone gives you a shove then you get to shot them in the face point blank.

Recently a drunk guy (from a party across the road) tried to get into my house at 2 am.

He repeatedly tried to open the door, knocked on it and demanded to be let in.

Under 'stand your ground' I could have shot him (as actually happened in Florida).

Instead of shooting him, I gave him a hand to get back to the party and made sure his mates took better care of him.

reonhato:

one of things america does not seem to get right is self defense is suppose to be with equal or reasonable force. even if martin had attacked zimmerman, how the hell is shooting him when you have 100 pounds advantage and have about as much chance of being killed by an unarmed 17 year old hitting you as being killed by the house this happened near falling down on top of you.

self defense should be if they attack unarmed then you can fight back unarmed or if you are disadvantaged a non-lethal weapon and not worry about an assault charge. it should not be if someone gives you a shove then you get to shot them in the face point blank.

Zimmerman obviously wasn't able to defend himself using equal force since he was getting his ass kicked. The gun was the only other option he had. If he had been carrying a tazer, which he should have been, then there would have been another option.

And why do people keep bringing up the weight difference. 100 pounds might make a difference if its muscle, but 100 pounds of fat doesn't make you Mike Tyson. Assuming you're a reasonably health young man in his accepted weight range, why not go out and beat up a fat guy. You'll notice they are not the bad asses you make them out to be.

TechNoFear:

What if I go to a bar and I start a fight.

I am getting beaten up so I pull my firearm and shoot my opponent.

Is that self defense?

depends on what you mean by "starting a fight". If you throw the first punch, then you probably have no right to kill the guy. But if you are just taking smack and he attacks you, then I think you can get off with self defense.

All we know is that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin. We don't know if he threatened him in any way, and we certainly don't know if he attacked first.

cthulhuspawn82:
depends on what you mean by "starting a fight". If you throw the first punch, then you probably have no right to kill the guy. But if you are just taking smack and he attacks you, then I think you can get off with self defense.

How about if you are playing basketball in the park with your 8 year old daughter.

You and I have an argument over another kid skateboarding.

I pull a handgun.

You fear for your safety, know of 'stand your ground' and pre-emptively attack me to prevent me from using my firearm.

I shoot you you dead.

Can I claim self defense?

[this actually happened and it appears I can legally kill you.]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/aftermath-of-deadly-shooting-in-valrico-leaves-community-bewildered/1124429

EDIT: Corrected situation and added link.

reonhato:

one of things america does not seem to get right is self defense is suppose to be with equal or reasonable force.

This again?

*eyeroll/whistle noise*

.45 ACP is reasonable force if you're being attacked in your home, or you've already filled the duty to retreat. Doesn't matter how many times you keep trying to claim otherwise. It's pretty much been decided here, what with SCOTUS saying that owning handguns for the purpose of self defense is constitutional. Personally, I'm a bit a fan of that caliber.

Only two more years...

Anyhow!

Basically, the saying "no jury will ever convict me" holds rather true in the states. If you honestly think that in a case of self defense that ended in the death of the attacker, that the jury would convict... well, you don't know American law very well. Not that that's at ALL the case in this matter, mind you.

Now, if any of you have some case law relevant to my country, I'm all ears.

EDIT: Also, I'm not defending Zimmerman. Just wanted to make that clear. I'm arguing about self defense in general, not this.

TechNoFear:

Not G. Ivingname:
While I stand by the "Stand your ground laws," this doesn't even begin to count as Self Defense. He followed him when told not to, and wasn't threatened at all. It wasn't the flaw in the law, it was a flaw in the person.

Martin had a legal right to attack Zimmerman under the 'Stand your ground' law.

Martin was followed by a stranger, was not committing a crime, and so is legally able to use force to prevent a threat to his safety.

Zimmerman can also claim protection under the 'Stand your ground' law as once he was attacked he can claim he was in fear for his safety and had to escalate the level of violence to protect his safety [if we ignore Zimmerman precipitating the encounter].

That is the problem with 'stand your ground', it legally allows the escalation of violence and rewards the most violent combatant.

Clearly if Zimmerman had not followed Martin, Martin would still be alive.

capatcha: Enjoy life

EDIT: Point being is that the 'stand your ground' law allows both parties in a violent confrontation to believe they have the right to kill the other combatant.

This just leads to escalation of violence and death, as we see in this case.

In many of these cases if one party had just walked away, someone else would still be alive.

Since he followed him, that invalidates any claim of self defense. That is like how you can't invite a person to your house, shoot them, and then claim castle doctorine.

The cops on the scene are at fault, not the law.

reonhato:
one of things america does not seem to get right is self defense is suppose to be with equal or reasonable force. even if martin had attacked zimmerman, how the hell is shooting him when you have 100 pounds advantage and have about as much chance of being killed by an unarmed 17 year old hitting you as being killed by the house this happened near falling down on top of you.

self defense should be if they attack unarmed then you can fight back unarmed or if you are disadvantaged a non-lethal weapon and not worry about an assault charge. it should not be if someone gives you a shove then you get to shot them in the face point blank.

Er, assuming Martin had seriously attacked Zimmerman, it would be certainly preferable for Zimmerman to stop him without harming him, but that's not necessarily possible.

Being larger and stronger is all very well and good, but it doesn't guarantee your safety.

Now, Zimmerman's safety would have been guaranteed if he hadn't decided to go after a kid for being black and hooded, and probably even then. But if Martin had decided to assault him, lethal force isn't that bad a response.

...

Hey, just noticed the ad for escapist hoodies which features various guns. Um...might want to change that.

Not G. Ivingname:
The cops on the scene are at fault, not the law.

What did the police do wrong?

According to officer Smith's report (pg 3) they handcuffed Zimmerman, got him first aid and took him to the station where he was questioned by a third more senior officer (from the investigation unit).

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

thaluikhain:
But if Martin had decided to assault him, lethal force isn't that bad a response.

What would you do if you were being followed at night by a stranger?

Doesn't 'stand your ground' say you can attack the stalker before they can attack you?

Because it appears Martin had a legal right under 'stand your ground' to attack Zimmerman.

TechNoFear:

thaluikhain:
But if Martin had decided to assault him, lethal force isn't that bad a response.

What would you do if you were being followed at night by a stranger?

Doesn't 'stand your ground' say you can attack the stalker before they can attack you?

Because it appears Martin had a legal right under 'stand your ground' to attack Zimmerman.

yes, and that's likely the argument that will be made, if the facts in the case do add up. Also, as I mentioned, I'm still searching for that case that said you can't put yourself in danger and claim self defense.

TechNoFear:

thaluikhain:
But if Martin had decided to assault him, lethal force isn't that bad a response.

What would you do if you were being followed at night by a stranger?

Doesn't 'stand your ground' say you can attack the stalker before they can attack you?

Because it appears Martin had a legal right under 'stand your ground' to attack Zimmerman.

Oh yes, absolutely, there are all sorts of things wrong with this. I'm just saying, IMHO, using lethal force if Martin actually had attacked Zimmerman isn't necessarily one of them.

TechNoFear:

cthulhuspawn82:
We don't know exactly how we got to the point of Martin being on top of Zimmerman, pummeling him. But whatever the circumstances, that's where the situation ended up, and in that situation, I would fully expect Zimmerman to pull his gun and fire.

If Martin also had had a firearm and used it to kill Zimmerman (for following him and approaching him) would that have been self defense?

If so how can both sides claim self defense?

What if I go to a bar and I start a fight.

I am getting beaten up so I pull my firearm and shoot my opponent.

Is that self defense?

Yes.

However, in that case, "stand your ground" does not apply (because you are engaged in unlawful activity, if you are the aggressor) you do have a duty to retreat ("have exhausted every reasonable means to escape...").

So, you start a bar fight, get knocked down and your attacker has you pretty well pinned. If you can reach, pull, and aim your gun, you can shoot him dead.

That is my assessment. However, IANAL. I've just had plenty of experience reading legalese.

CM156:

TechNoFear:

thaluikhain:
But if Martin had decided to assault him, lethal force isn't that bad a response.

What would you do if you were being followed at night by a stranger?

Doesn't 'stand your ground' say you can attack the stalker before they can attack you?

Because it appears Martin had a legal right under 'stand your ground' to attack Zimmerman.

yes, and that's likely the argument that will be made, if the facts in the case do add up. Also, as I mentioned, I'm still searching for that case that said you can't put yourself in danger and claim self defense.

It appears to me that the best defense under 'stand your ground' is to ensure that you are the only surviving witness.

As Martin is dead, no one can dispute Zimmerman's claims he was attacked first and acted in self defense.

I wonder why, if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Martin was shot in the chest, that are there no reports of the front of Zimmerman's clothes being covered in Martin's blood.

TechNoFear:

CM156:

TechNoFear:

What would you do if you were being followed at night by a stranger?

Doesn't 'stand your ground' say you can attack the stalker before they can attack you?

Because it appears Martin had a legal right under 'stand your ground' to attack Zimmerman.

yes, and that's likely the argument that will be made, if the facts in the case do add up. Also, as I mentioned, I'm still searching for that case that said you can't put yourself in danger and claim self defense.

It appears to me that the best defense under 'stand your ground' is to ensure that you are the only surviving witness.

As Martin is dead, no one can dispute Zimmerman's claims he was attacked first and acted in self defense.

I wonder why, if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Martin was shot in the chest, that are there no reports of the front of Zimmerman's clothes being covered in Martin's blood.

As they taught me in my CCW class, the best way to win a gun fight is to avoid them if at all possible. I feel Zimmerman violated this rule, if the facts are in fact as they appear to be.

from what I gather there seems to be nothing connecting this to a hate crime
my guess is that the shooting is not race related at all and the only reason their skin color is being brought up is to get more views

stop it people, tv is bad for you

I'd say the police fucked this up by not gathering more evidence when they had the chance; there would have been plenty of it. Did any of Martin's blood get on Zimmerman? Was the residue from the shot consistant with Zimmerman's story? What was the distance the gun was fired at and the angle that it was aimed?

There would be plenty of evidence to take Zimmerman to court if things didn't add up, but it seems like the police dropped the ball hard on this one.

We also have to consider Zimmerman's claim that he was the one screaming for help for 30-40 seconds. People have been saying that Martin may have been right to fear for his safety and defend himself. Even if that was the case, when the guy you are defending against is subdued and screaming for help, I think you are obligated to accept his surrender. If Martin kept attacking then the victim/aggressor relationship would have switched at that point.

cthulhuspawn82:
We also have to consider Zimmerman's claim that he was the one screaming for help for 30-40 seconds. People have been saying that Martin may have been right to fear for his safety and defend himself. Even if that was the case, when the guy you are defending against is subdued and screaming for help, I think you are obligated to accept his surrender. If Martin kept attacking then the victim/aggressor relationship would have switched at that point.

Thanks to Stand Your Ground, if Zimmerman started it, Martin could legally kill him with his bare hands if he wanted to--and it'd be Zimmerman who would be required to "exhaust all reasonable options" for retreat.

Florida law's pretty fucked up ain't it? Other Stand Your Ground states might be less so, I haven't looked up any of them.

cthulhuspawn82:
We also have to consider Zimmerman's claim that he was the one screaming for help for 30-40 seconds.

Martin's mother claims the voice crying for help on the 911 recording is Martin's.

cthulhuspawn82:
If Martin kept attacking then the victim/aggressor relationship would have switched at that point.

If we imagine Martin was on top of Zimmerman and hitting him for 30-40 seconds and Zimmerman was calling for help.

Martin's blows were causing enough injury to make Zimmerman fear he would be killed (justifing the use of deadly force).

Where are those injuries on Zimmerman?

Martin was on top and in control of Zimmerman, but Martin was unable to prevent Zimmerman shooting him?

If we assume Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot in the chest, at less than 50 cm (2 feet) distance and probably closer than 30 cm (1 foot).

Why was Martin's blood not found on Zimmerman?

Blablahb:
And it's utterly a mystery to me how you can continue to defend that crazed murderer Zimmerman while all the cards are stacked against him.

Murderer, yes, but crazed? It's very easy to look a criminal and say "just some lone nut", but it's a bit disingenuous.

Ok, I get that you weren't meaning that so literally, but a lot of people would jump to him being an outlier, of no relevance to any larger problems whatsoever.

Im trying to understand how we can surmise that Martin Attacked Zimmerman/that it was Zimmerman screaming for help OR that the stand your ground law works in this case.

1- Zimmerman claims that after LEAVING HIS CAR TO FALLOW TRAYVON that he lost him and trayvon eventually doubled back to attack him. This just sound suspicious. I know kids, even the most "thuggish" kids wont seek out an altercation with a strange person following him.

2- Zimmerman sought out this confrontation by following Trayvon even after police instructed him not to. Stand your ground says you dont have to retreat, but following is a different subject all together. I dont see how he can claim that Trayvon ran away (listen to the tape) and then claim self defense, nor how the above story adds up.

3- Im sorry when i hear the screams it doesnt really sound like a 28 year old man screaming. I can imagine that it could be, but maybe im too jaded by the first two points to see how a 28 year old man with a gun could have been losing a fight under this circumstance. You can look at the Trayvon Martin pics and tell that this was a little boy not some big mesomorph football player.

4- The ugly truth is that had the victim had been white or even if it were a black on black altercation, there would have at least been an investigation and not what we had here. This is what i think most African Americans are bothered by.

Unless there is something far outside of the given information that shows otherwise, i really dont see how the Fla district attorney's office can not file charges against this man.

feeqmatic:

4- The ugly truth is that had the victim had been white or even if it were a black on black altercation, there would have at least been an investigation and not what we had here.

You had some good points until I read this. That's crap and you know it.

DaKiller:

cthulhuspawn82:

dmase:

The whole argument there is they heard screaming a gunshot then nothing. They also had could hear the scream(better than the audio in 911) and could guess a 17 year old vs a 28 year old was screaming.

Those arguments aren't really admissible in court, and any cop, lawyer, or judge would know that.

The statement that it sounded like a young kid and not a 28 year old man is by far the most ridiculous. I'll bet you can search for "big guy screams like girl" on Youtube and find dozens of Zimmerman sized guys screaming even higher pitched than what is on that 911 call. And at any rate, you cant make assumptions about who was screaming based on what it sounded like. I remember somebody got in big trouble in the OJ case when they entered witness testimony where the witness claimed a voice sounded black.

The fact that the screaming stopped after the gunshot proves nothing. If Zimmerman was the one screaming, it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that he would stop when the guy hitting him went down.

Theory and speculation are a long way off from beyond a reasonable doubt. Also "if" it was Zimmerman screaming, and that could be proved, then Zimmerman would have a rock solid libel case against every news outlet in the country since they claimed that he shot a man who was screaming for his life.

Those are too many "if" statements you got there

After listening to the 911 tape that Zimmerman made I also find it hard to believe that Zimmerman would have the balls to follow a guy that he claimed to look suspicious, against the directions of the 911 operator mind you, whilst carrying a concealed weapon and immediately begin screaming like that. Wouldn't a 17 year old back off if someone with a hundred pounds on him said "I've got a gun" also? The events you proposed don't flow at all in comparison to the much more rational alternative.

THe rational alternative being the KID ran when his gf said he did. Ran down the block after fighting off zimmerman where he was then cornered in shot, but like I've said before it's all speculation. I find my story of events a bit more reasonable then trayvon was shot on top of zimmerman then an overweight man slid out from under the child, with none of trevyon's blood on him mind you, and left the kid facedown. He would have had to lift the kid up to either the left or right and slowly slip out of his cornered position.

Me I'd think I'd push a slumped over perfusaly bleeding dead man straight off me as quickly as I could. But i'm still drunk from last night so maybe i'm just letting my common sense... i mean imagination get the best of me.

Well, that's what happens when you have armed vigilantes who aren't Batman running around.

The doctrine itself seems fine - no one should be obligated to cowardice - but it is certainly strange that the matter did not go to trial.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

BIG NEWS.

Apparently it might not be just "the word of the big white man against the black one," Fox is now saying they have talked to a "secret witness" (meaning witness's identity won't be revealed before the trial) has said enough for the DA of the area to bring Zimmerman in front of a grand jury.

Not G. Ivingname:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

BIG NEWS.

Apparently it might not be just "the word of the big white man against the black one," Fox is now saying they have talked to a "secret witness" (meaning witness's identity won't be revealed before the trial) has said enough for the DA of the area to bring Martin in front of a grand jury.

That is huge news. The testimony is so good that it can raise the dead.

TechNoFear:

reonhato:
self defense should be if they attack unarmed then you can fight back unarmed or if you are disadvantaged a non-lethal weapon and not worry about an assault charge. it should not be if someone gives you a shove then you get to shot them in the face point blank.

Recently a drunk guy (from a party across the road) tried to get into my house at 2 am.

He repeatedly tried to open the door, knocked on it and demanded to be let in.

Under 'stand your ground' I could have shot him (as actually happened in Florida).

Instead of shooting him, I gave him a hand to get back to the party and made sure his mates took better care of him.

How much do you actually know about head injuries? He was getting beaten hard enough on his face that it was drawing blood on the back of his head. In that situation it is entirely possible to cause a subdural hematoma. Which are more often than not life threatening when caused by acute trauma. All this bullshit about fists not being life threatening is just that, bullshit.

reonhato:

CM156:

reonhato:

one of things america does not seem to get right is self defense is suppose to be with equal or reasonable force.

This again?

*eyeroll/whistle noise*

.45 ACP is reasonable force if you're being attacked in your home, or you've already filled the duty to retreat. Doesn't matter how many times you keep trying to claim otherwise. It's pretty much been decided here, what with SCOTUS saying that owning handguns for the purpose of self defense is constitutional. Personally, I'm a bit a fan of that caliber.

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZldGZyaWVuZHMuY29tL2NhdGFsb2cvSW1hZ2VzLzEyMDJfcGljXzMuanBnIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==

Only two more years...

Anyhow!

Basically, the saying "no jury will ever convict me" holds rather true in the states. If you honestly think that in a case of self defense that ended in the death of the attacker, that the jury would convict... well, you don't know American law very well. Not that that's at ALL the case in this matter, mind you.

Now, if any of you have some case law relevant to my country, I'm all ears.

EDIT: Also, I'm not defending Zimmerman. Just wanted to make that clear. I'm arguing about self defense in general, not this.

just because you say it is all right and a lot of places in america say it is all right to shoot an unarmed person does not make it so. america is an oddity in the western world with this stance.

So essentially, you're making an argument by conformity and an argument to the people?

*eyeroll*

As I said, Americans are more individualists, and we maximize positive liberty (freedom to things) to the expense often times of negative liberty (freedom from things). That's pretty much how our legal system is set up