Trayvon Martin case: FL stand-your-ground law on trial

[bozwell]

I hadn't heard that GZ is getting a new judge.  Good news.

This myth that GZ pursued TM troubles me.  Pusuit is defined as: Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them.  AsI recall from the disparcher recording, GZ was looking to see where TM was going or what the exact building number was so he could report the information to the police.  In military jargon, he was involved in reconnaissance, not pursuit.  In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that TM stalked GM.  Besides, who made a rule that says one who carries must never, ever follow or appear to be following anyone?  If that rule were ever put in place one could never leave home while carrying.

I think people mention that because it just goes towards GZ not avoiding a confrontation that could easily have been avoided.  He didn't have to do "recon" work.  He didn't have to get out of his car.  And so on and so forth.  It really goes to (although certainly is not determinative of) who started the conflict, as that has a direct impact on GZ's argument of self defense. 

[skipper]

I hadn't heard that GZ is getting a new judge.  Good news.

This myth that GZ pursued TM troubles me.  Pusuit is defined as: Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them.  AsI recall from the disparcher recording, GZ was looking to see where TM was going or what the exact building number was so he could report the information to the police.  In military jargon, he was involved in reconnaissance, not pursuit.  In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that TM stalked GM.  Besides, who made a rule that says one who carries must never, ever follow or appear to be following anyone?  If that rule were ever put in place one could never leave home while carrying.

I think people mention that because it just goes towards GZ not avoiding a confrontation that could easily have been avoided.  He didn't have to do "recon" work.  He didn't have to get out of his car.  And so on and so forth.  It really goes to (although certainly is not determinative of) who started the conflict, as that has a direct impact on GZ's argument of self defense.

"
Gz had signs of physical contact which shows there was a scuffle of some type. Unless there are witnesses to what happened it would be hard to prove murder. Sounds a bit messy with the delay in the arrest and changing judges.They may enact the "Stand Your Ground" law and put this issue to rest if there are no credible witnesses.

[Skookum]

GZ must have started the confrontation by pulling TM on top of him, and in the process battered the back of his head on the sidewalk multiple times and breaking his nose. At the same time he verbally assaulted TM by loudly crying out for help for 40 seconds.  Throughout his vicious, premeditated assault, the only injury GM was able to inflict on TM was to scuff up his knuckles -- until he pulled his 9mm and blew away the innocent teenager in cold blood.

There's a saying among lawyers:

 ?If you have the law on your side, you argue the law. If you have the truth on your side, you argue the truth. If you have neither, bang on the table with your fist, loudly and with as much conviction as possible.?

The state has neither the law or the facts on their side, so all they can do is bang the table loudly by making up supposed limitations on GZ's behavior, e.g., it's illegal to follow someone (law citation, please), it's illegal to get out of one's car (law citation, please), it's illegal to recon (law citation, please), it's illegal to conclude that someone looks suspicious (law citation, please), it's illegal to shoot someone who is beating the living hell out of you and threatening, by word and deed, to kill you if that person is 1) unarmed or 2) a minor (law citation, please), etc.  In post-Constitutional America we are no longer a nation of laws and facts are largely irrelevant.  All that matters to many is how good of an emotional story you can weave to arrive at the pre-ordained outcome.

[bozwell]

I don't think the state argued any of that was illegal.    I also don't think you fully grasp the laws at play here.  An action, while not illegal, may be relevant to determining someone's state of mind.

Here, the reason it's important to know who started the confrontation is because there's a different legal standard applied depending on who initially provokes the aggression.  Just because GZ lost the fight doesn't mean TM started it.  I could walk up to Brock Lesnar and slap him across the face, and I'm 100% confident I'd go on to lose that fight.  In that situation, I initially started the conflict and I'm the initial aggressor in the eyes of the law.  Thus, if I turned around and used lethal force to stop his attack, I would face a heightened legal standard in proving self-defense.  In some states, self-defense would only reduce my charges to some form of manslaughter or the equivalent charge.

As far as the facts being irrelevant, while the media will almost certainly put their spin on the facts, the facts (as determined by the jury) are entirely what will determine the outcome this case.  The jury needs to determine who was the aggressor and whether the force used by TM rose to a level that justified lethal force.  A broken nose might bleed a lot, but it isn't lethal.  The head injuries might be, but it all comes down to what the jury finds.  It's 100% a question of fact and it'll ultimately come down to what the jury thinks happened that day.

[skipper]

I don't think the state argued any of that was illegal.    I also don't think you fully grasp the laws at play here.  An action, while not illegal, may be relevant to determining someone's state of mind.

Here, the reason it's important to know who started the confrontation is because there's a different legal standard applied depending on who initially provokes the aggression.  Just because GZ lost the fight doesn't mean TM started it.  I could walk up to Brock Lesnar and slap him across the face, and I'm 100% confident I'd go on to lose that fight.  In that situation, I initially started the conflict and I'm the initial aggressor in the eyes of the law.  Thus, if I turned around and used lethal force to stop his attack, I would face a heightened legal standard in proving self-defense.  In some states, self-defense would only reduce my charges to some form of manslaughter or the equivalent charge.

As far as the facts being irrelevant, while the media will almost certainly put their spin on the facts, the facts (as determined by the jury) are entirely what will determine the outcome this case.  The jury needs to determine who was the aggressor and whether the force used by TM rose to a level that justified lethal force.  A broken nose might bleed a lot, but it isn't lethal.  The head injuries might be, but it all comes down to what the jury finds.  It's 100% a question of fact and it'll ultimately come down to what the jury thinks happened that day.

Had there not been so much media mania over this shooting there would not be much to say. Have to admit i have somewhat change my view on this will reading the many posts. Hard to say what any of us would have done, but as the saying goes, the beating will continue until morale improves, might just induce lethal action. Mostly depends on how they load the jury. Either way it goes there will be an uproar.

[bozwell]

If they can even settle on a judge.    Voir dire would be interesting to see for this case, as jury selection definitely is going to be an important aspect of this case. 

[SMSgt]

A lot of spouting about FL laws and Stand your ground, but this is what the FL statutes state:

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.?A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other?s imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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; or
 (2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
 
776.013: (3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (This is the Zimmerman Defense.)
 
776.08?Forcible felony.??Forcible felony? means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

I've added the bold for emphasis. You'll notice that no where in the statutes does it say you can defend yourself with deadly force only from an armed individual. There is also a statute that I couldn't find that says one cannot be arrested for claiming self defense until after an investigation is completed, which is why Zimmerman was not arrested on the spot.

While we all have our opinions as to whether Zimmerman was in the right or the wrong, we should allow the legal system to work as designed before we pass judgement.

[skipper]

If they can even settle on a judge.    Voir dire would be interesting to see for this case, as jury selection definitely is going to be an important aspect of this case.

Yeah, a judge would be good for starters. 

[bozwell]

SMSgt, you omitted:

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.?The justification described in preceding sections of this chapter (edit: i.e., the defense of self-defense) 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.

[skipper]

A lot of spouting about FL laws and Stand your ground, but this is what the FL statutes state:

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.?A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other?s imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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; or
 (2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
 
776.013: (3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (This is the Zimmerman Defense.)
 
776.08?Forcible felony.??Forcible felony? means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

I've added the bold for emphasis. You'll notice that no where in the statutes does it say you can defend yourself with deadly force only from an armed individual. There is also a statute that I couldn't find that says one cannot be arrested for claiming self defense until after an investigation is completed, which is why Zimmerman was not arrested on the spot.

While we all have our opinions as to whether Zimmerman was in the right or the wrong, we should allow the legal system to work as designed before we pass judgement.

Very good post. Time to lay back see what happens.

[SMSgt]

SMSgt, you omitted:

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.?The justification described in preceding sections of this chapter (edit: i.e., the defense of self-defense) 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.

True, but again--none of us were there, we don't know what happened, and it is not ours to decide who was the "assailant" and who was the "aggressor." I do think we can all agree that this whole incident was foolish and could have been prevented. But once that snowball starts rolling downhill...

[bozwell]

Oh, I'm not suggesting the requirements of 776.041 are satisfied by the facts of this case.  We won't know until the jury determines the facts.  I only meant that it's relevant and you can bet it will come up at trial.

[Skookum]

I don't think the state argued any of that was illegal.    I also don't think you fully grasp the laws at play here.  An action, while not illegal, may be relevant to determining someone's state of mind.

I understand that if GZ is found guilty on the basis of at least some of the lame claims that his known behavior was provocative, and if the trial court's guilty ruling is upheld on appeal, those "provocative" behaviors will become illegal.  Of course, that would be absurd, but in post-Constitutional America absurdity is the norm.

Here, the reason it's important to know who started the confrontation is because there's a different legal standard applied depending on who initially provokes the aggression.  Just because GZ lost the fight doesn't mean TM started it.

Trouble is, there is no a shred of credible evidence that GZ initiated any aggression.  Trying him for the murder of TM is just as baseless as you or I being tried for that murder.  It is an abuse of goverment power to submit someone to the whim of a jury (and in this case a judge) when there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Don't forget, even if GZ did something provocative (purely speculative), all evidence points to TM being the one who elevated the aggression to the point of it being life threatening, thus granting GZ a license to kill in self defense.

As far as the facts being irrelevant, while the media will almost certainly put their spin on the facts, the facts (as determined by the jury) are entirely what will determine the outcome this case.

That GZ is on trial is proof that the facts are irrelevant.

Media spin?  They've already convicted GZ and been caught tampering with the evidence to sway public opinion against GZ.

The jury needs to determine who was the aggressor and whether the force used by TM rose to a level that justified lethal force.  A broken nose might bleed a lot, but it isn't lethal.  The head injuries might be, but it all comes down to what the jury finds.  It's 100% a question of fact and it'll ultimately come down to what the jury thinks happened that day.

Fact -- Any blow to the head, including one that breaks a nose, is potentially life threatening.  The evidence demonstrates that GZ took multiple blows to the head over a period of more than 40 sec.  Fact --  Just because 12 men are empowered with decision authority doesn't make the story they agree on factual.

Finally, what's the finish on your CZ 82?  It looks like a durable polycoat?

[Skookum]

[W]e should allow the legal system to work as designed before we pass judgement.

Very good post. Time to lay back see what happens.

That GZ is on trial for murder is proof that the legal system is not working.

Why should we lay back and see what a corrupt system brings?  The racists and their apologist certainly aren't.  Imagine what might happen if the law abiding people who want a nation of laws restored stood up and demanded a return to the rule of law.  I suppose we'd have to threaten to riot at a minimum.

[bozwell]

Trouble is, there is no a shred of credible evidence that GZ initiated any aggression.  Trying him for the murder of TM is just as baseless as you or I being tried for that murder.

Self-defense is still an affirmative defense and it's not black and white here as to whether GZ can establish such an affirmative defense.  A prima facie case of murder is pretty easy to establish here - GZ doesn't dispute he shot TM and it's a fact that TM is dead.  The question is whether GZ can establish he acted in self defense.  Florida law prohibits criminal prosecution under these circumstances here unless there's probable cause that the use of lethal force in self defense was not justified.  Here, I suspect it probably was, but it's by no means black and white.

It is an abuse of goverment power to submit someone to the whim of a jury (and in this case a judge) when there is insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Don't forget, even if GZ did something provocative (purely speculative), all evidence points to TM being the one who elevated the aggression to the point of it being life threatening, thus granting GZ a license to kill in self defense.

I also don't think it's 100% clear that the force was life threatening.  Just because a head wound can theoretically be lethal doesn't mean that each and every head wound justifies the use of deadly force.  GZ had some cuts on his head and there was some blood, but anyone who's had or seen head wounds in a fight knows that even the smallest cut on the head will put out a lot of blood, especially during a fight when your heart rate is up and the blood is pumping full force.  I'm a bit suspect that a broken nose and a few minor cuts can (or should) rise to the level of justifying lethal force.  Now, if they can establish he was slamming his head into the ground or something along those lines (as opposed to his head scraped the ground during the scuffle), he would certainly have a stronger case. 

In any event, I fail to see how this case is black and white (or how invoking the Constitution is at all relevant).  Hm, bad analogy - I meant that figuratively, not literally.