Trayvon Martin Case

thats a very good point, had never thought about it like that. also did not realize the immunity from arrest law was a seperate law than the stand your ground law. still i wouldn't mind seeing both of those laws amended.

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't have to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't have to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.

you shouldn't have to, but theres also a lot of other things i shouldn't have to do. comes back to that whole common sense thing, have to take each case as it comes and for the most part just have some faith in humanity.

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking.

I think any situation where you chase after a individual, the "stand your ground defense" should become null and void. I find it hard to believe that one can claim self defense when he was in fact being the aggressor and pursuing the other.

I wasn't saying Zimmerman had a right to the stand your ground defense. I don't think he did. Rather, I think it was Martin that could invoke the stand your ground defense. In Maryland, if he felt threatened by Zimmerman's pursuit, Martin had a duty to retreat from Zimmerman. In Florida, under the same circumstances, Martin did not.

I think, the idea that Zimmerman could invoke the "stand your ground" defense comes from the version of the story where Martin waylays Zimmerman as he returns to his car. A version not born out by the girlfriend's statement or, IMHO, a reasonable view of the scene.

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't have to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.


I believe in the social law that says "don't start shit, there won't be shit." I believe using deadly force as a last resort. I believe in seeking a safe place to retreat if you hear someone pop-offs. If you can't, by all means, get behind the nearest thing and aim to kill. I believe that people can lose it and shoot you dead for talking shit about their mama or spitting at them. I believe that would constitute manslaughter.

I believe the laws on the book are adequate. I don't believe Stand Your Ground solves any real world need or problem. I believe all it does is introduce uncertainty into the picture and makes it permissible to subjectively shoot someone.


Stand Your Ground Law:

A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; I can come up with countless of scenarios that render the above law idiotic. I mean, it nullifies responsibility for the utterance of fighting words, instigation and escalation of a situation. It can potentially allows sadistic people to get away with murder. Any law that simply requires you to have wounds to justify self-defense is beyond idiotic.

Now the truly ironic thing in this Trayvon Martin tragedy is that in Florida Aggravated Stalking is considered a forcible felony.

So, in response to 12th's and saden1's statements that Zimmerman's actions created the reasonable fear in Martin and that it was he, Martin, that had the right to defend himself, I started poking around and found the law in this area not as clear cut as one would hope.

Here's the deal as I understand it.

(1) Absolutely, saden1 and 12th are right in that Zimmerman's actions could be reasonably seen to cause Martin/I] reasonable fear of imminent harm. The question is what was Martin's or anyone's duty at that point.

In Maryland, Virginia and most other States, you have a "duty to retreat" so long as you reasonably and subjectively believe you can do so safely [[I]e.g. If I am walking with my daughter and am stalked and pursued, I could reasonably say "my daughter cannot safely retreat, so I can stay"; also a disabled person is not bound to retreat from a pursuing able bodied person; you need not retreat from someone brandishing a gun as you cannot reasonably be expected to outrun a bullet].

In Florida and Pennsylvania (which also has a "stand your ground" law") there is no duty to retreat from a place you have a right to be.

With that said, based on the conversation that Martin was having with his girlfriend, it seemed to me he acted incredibly prudently for a teenager, more so than I would have at his age. His girlfriend told him to run from the unidentified pursuer and his response was something like "I will walk faster, but I am not gonna run".

(2) No one has the right to escalate a confrontation. In this case, again according to the girlfriend, Zimmerman said "Why are you here?" to which Martin replied "Why are you following me?" [I may have that reveresed]. This brief verbal exchange suggests to me that "pursuit" had stopped and, instead, we now had a momentary aggressive confrontation between aggressive adult pursuer and defensive juvenile pursued (please don't insult anyone's intelligence by suggesting that Martin was a defenseless elementary school "child" like my daughter and I won't insult yours by saying Zimmerman was just making friendly inquiry).

If, instead of this exchange, Zimmerman simply attacked Martin, again, too bad so sad for Zimmerman if Zimm starts to lose a fight he started without provocation.

Rather than an immediate attack by Zimmerman, however, what we have is a verbal confrontation between two individuals that escalates immediately into a pushing/shoving match according to the girlfriend. It is unclear who pushed who first.

Then we have nothing as g/f's loses contact.

Next thing we have is two witnesses "John", who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman, and Witness X who say that they witnessed Martin attacking Zimmerman. Neither saw the gunshot. (I apologize I can't find the link to Witness X today - he/she was another individual who saw the altercation but not the beginning of it and refused to have even have his/her gender revealed b/c he/she was afraid of the possible reprucussions - this person essentially repeats the testimony of witness "John" and appeared to be as close to the action as "John". If I can find the link, I will post). Then Trayvon is shot.

Regardless of who threw the first punch, I think what we have is the legal doctrine "mutual combat". It is an imperfect defense to murder. At the point of verbal confrontation, either Zimmerman or Martin could have backed down. Neither did. Both, to me, had braced themselves for a physical confrontation and, regardless of who started it, once that happens, Zimmerman can no longer claim self-defense and, instead, is guilty of manslaughter.

Here's language from a Maryland case on the subject:


Based on what I have read and heard, this is what happened. Pursuit, verbal confrontation, fight, death. It was an impermissible killing in the heat of passion.

So, to be clear, I have changed my opinion in this matter in that I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter b/c, regardless of who through the first bunch, and based on the girlfriend's statements, we had an aggressive verbal confrontation that turned violent and someone ended up dead.

It seems reasonable to think that you can't create and participate in a situation that ends with the other party dead and then claim self-defense.

Firstdown, the altercation took place between two rows of homes on each side, possibly on grass, not at his vehicle. The crime scene, where they taped off, was no where near Zimmerman's vehicle.

Well what I just saw on the news the night of the shooting crime scene taped off was right by the road and had a truck right there. I don't know if it was Zimmermans truck but it was clearly by a road with a truck parked on the side of the road.

I wasn't saying Zimmerman had a right to the stand your ground defense. I don't think he did. Rather, I think it was Martin that could invoke the stand your ground defense. In Maryland, if he felt threatened by Zimmerman's pursuit, Martin had a duty to retreat from Zimmerman. In Florida, under the same circumstances, Martin did not.

I think, the idea that Zimmerman could invoke the "stand your ground" defense comes from the version of the story where Martin waylays Zimmerman as he returns to his car. A version not born out by the girlfriend's statement or, IMHO, a reasonable view of the scene.

Sorry, should have clarified my intent. I was expounding on your point that the law needs tweaking. Didn't mean to infer anything else.

... Now the truly ironic thing in this Trayvon Martin tragedy is that in Florida Aggravated Stalking is considered a forcible felony.

What Zimmerman was doing was not Aggravated Stalking, that refers to repeated and/or continued course of conduct:


Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

State Stalking Laws (http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm)

What Zimmerman was doing was not Aggravated Stalking, that refers to repeated and/or continued course of conduct:




State Stalking Laws (http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm)

Can you say with certainty Zimmerman's didnt follow him repeatedly? We have Trayvon say he lost him, you have Zimmerman say he lost sight of him. Couple that with Zimmerman following him, saying "they always get away" and the fact that Trayvon ended up in a body bag you can make the case for repeated stalking.