Tweet
Many of our civil and criminal laws are based on the theoretical concept of the reasonable person and what he or she would do in any given situation. We establish standards of conduct based on this theoretical reasonable man or woman and impose civil or criminal liability and consequences on people who intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently violate those standards.
This concept of reasonableness can change over time as people’s concepts of what constitutes reasonable behavior in any given situation change.
For example, our common law comes from Great Britain and the Brits are not as violent and gun-loving as Americans. According to their cultural concepts, a reasonable person would attempt to retreat from a volatile situation before using force in self-defense. Hence, the duty to retreat at common law that we kept after we won the war for independence.
Conditions in the western frontier of our country were not as civilized and sedate as back east. Out west the thinking was real men stand their ground and shoot your ass, if you mess with them, so the western states eliminated the duty to retreat. Their concept regarding what a reasonable man would do when threatened with violence was significantly more aggressive than back east.
As our society has become more suspicious and fearful of strangers, more and more people now appear to believe that a reasonable person would stand their ground meeting violence with equal or greater violence. The NRA and many people now think that the solution to our violent society is more people armed with guns.
Recently, in a blog within these hallowed halls, a person said we should require all teachers to carry guns in order to stop violence in schools. I think that idea is absolutely crazy and about as unreasonable as unreasonable can get, but there is no denying that a lot of people believe it’s reasonable. Fortunately, I think I am still on the majority side of this issue.
Whenever you see the word “reasonable” in a law, it means an objective, as opposed to a subjective standard. In other words, reasonableness is not based on the perception of any specific identified person, which is a subjective standard. It’s based on the actual facts and circumstances of a given situation and what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in that situation.
As I have said, Florida’s SYG law is not a license to kill. Yes, a person can stand their ground. Yes, they have no duty to retreat, Yes they can use force, including deadly force in self-defense, but only if a reasonable person in the same situation (i.e., the objective reality out “there,” as opposed to a particular person’s perception of it) would do so, AND they cannot use more force than is reasonably (i.e., there’s that damn word again) necessary to prevent being assaulted. A person can use deadly force in self-defense only if the objective facts and circumstances of the situation they are in, as opposed to their perception of it, are such that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.
Trayvon Martin was unarmed. That is an objective fact and circumstance. George Zimmerman was armed with a gun and following him. That is an objective fact and circumstance. They had a physical confrontation. That is another objective fact and circumstance. These are undisputed facts.
One of them started the fight. That is another objective fact and circumstance, but we do not know for certain who did. The identity of that person is a disputed fact and there have been many arguments about it.
I believe Zimmerman did because he followed Trayvon against the police dispatcher’s request. He thought Trayvon was a burglar casing the neighborhood and he was frustrated because he thought Trayvon was going to get away before the cops arrived. We know that is what he was thinking (i.e., his subjective state of mind) because he said so. As I recall, his specific words were, “These assholes always get away.”
He also got out of his SUV and started following Trayvon and, after being pressed by the dispatcher to provide an address or location where the police officer could meet him, he said, “I’ve to get out of here,” and told the dispatcher to tell the officer to call his cell phone when he arrived in the neighborhood, instead of agreeing to meet the officer at the mailboxes as he had previously suggested. The mailboxes are located close to the clubhouse near the entrance to the neighborhood and would have been easy for the officer to find. The only problem with meeting the officer at the mailboxes was that he had lost sight of Trayvon, who ran behind some houses and he did not want him to get away. He then terminated the conversation.
The objective reality was that Trayvon was staying in the neighborhood and walking home after purchasing Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea at a nearby 711. Therefore, Zimmerman was mistaken.
Would a reasonable person have made that mistake? Would you or anyone you know have made that mistake?
Having made that mistake, what, if anything, would you have done upon encountering Trayvon?
And what about that loaded 9 mm KelTek semiautomatic in your holster? What, if anything, would you have done with it?
Was George Zimmerman a reasonable person that night?
A casual perusal of the 47 pages of his 911 calls to report suspicious activity strongly suggests that he was anything but a reasonable person. Those 47 pages are a damning indictment of a deeply paranoid person and I challenge everyone to read every freaking entry on every freaking page and then construct an argument that he was not a ticking time bomb waiting for the right stressor to set him off.
Why did George Zimmerman call the police that night? He saw an older teenage Black male wearing a hoodie type sweatshirt, jeans, and white tennis shoes walking around in the rain looking around at houses. I am surprised he even noticed him. Why call the cops? Why not ask him, if he needs help or directions? Don’t the police have better things to do than to respond to calls about supposedly suspicious people doing ordinary things?
A police officer cannot detain someone to investigate a possible crime, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. A hunch is not enough. There must be sufficient objective facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that the person was committing a crime. I do not see that here and I see no reason to summon police to investigate.
George Zimmerman likely knew all about the reasonable suspicion test since he is a student in a criminal justice program. That is one of the key concepts that is taught in those programs.
Nevertheless, George Zimmerman was certain that Trayvon was “up to no good” and, we know that because that is exactly what he told the dispatcher.
Knowing his state of mind when he ignored the dispatcher’s advice and he set off in search of Trayvon, which is something that no reasonable person would have done, what do believe he was prepared to do, if he found Trayvon and Trayvon was not cooperative?
What would a reasonable person have done in Trayvon’s situation? We know he knew he was being followed because that is what he told his girlfriend, when she called him moments before he was shot. We know he was afraid because he ran away from George Zimmerman.
Even if George Zimmerman did not start the physical confrontation, which I suspect he did, he still could not use deadly force in self-defense unless the objective facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable person in that situation would have used deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.
Perhaps George Zimmerman should have asked someone that night for directions to the house of the reasonable man.
I do not see a reasonable person doing anything George Zimmerman did that night up to and including his effort to find Trayvon. Nevertheless, this is not my judgment to make.
We have a legal system to decide what happened and what to do about it. We have due process of law with an adversarial system presided over by judges and we have juries to decide what happened. We will have to be patient and wait and see what happens.
In the meantime, we can wonder and while we wonder, we can conduct a diligent search for the reasonable man.
As an aside, why does our president believe he has and should exercise the power to unilaterally decide to kill someone just because he believes that person is a terrorist.
What is reasonable about that?
48 Comments
No, Sonny. I can’t.
But I can tell you where it ain’t.
[Inhales and blows a smoke ring that throbs in the air]
It ain’t next to the House of the Rising Sun.
And it ain’t near the Spanish Moon, either.
Definition of REASONABLE: “1a : being in accordance with reason
Definition of REASON: “1a : a statement offered in explanation or justification
So I don’t think the word ‘reasonable’ precludes Zimmerman or Obama’s ” a statement offered in explanation or justification”
Just funning Fred; I know what you’re implying. But even the law associated with what a ‘reasonable person’ would do succumbs to ‘community standards’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urrbhgC8PB0
Hi, Ubet.
I know you’re funnin’. It’s always good to see and read your fonts and musings.
Ahm jes’ usin’ dem legal definitions from law world, a swamp inhabited by learned but exceedingly eccentric fellows who spend their social time boring people to death.
Hope you get to feeling better. I’ve missed you.
BTW, I think it’s ironic that so much of our laws is based on the theoretical behavior of a hypothetical person who has never existed and never will.
Yikes.
If the ‘law’ is predicated on the concept of the perceptions and actions of an objective, reasonable, hypothetical human being, one, mind you, who does not exist in reality, then the codified corpus of the law must in reality be fashioned by a subjective, idiosyncratic real set of self-serving human beings, and the entire conceptual foundation of the law is not only fatally flawed, but realistically becomes little more than the self-serving self-interests of a cabal of influential, moneyed individuals whose only goal is to subject the citizenry of their prospective sphere of influence to ‘legal’ rapine.
Or, the shorter version:
The law is the whip by which the wealthy maintain the concept of privilege and class structure and thereby destroy the lives and hopes of the majority of the world’s population.
Or shorter yet:
The true golden rule is simply: Those who have the gold buy the laws by which they financially bludgeon the rest of society.
Or the shortest:
The ‘law’ is the tool of the ultimate criminal class to destroy the lives and aspirations of the majority of mankind.
Mason, what did I miss or not understand?
And thank you again for sharing your knowledge and wisdom
Namaste
You are right, my friend, about most of the laws. For example, the so-called Jobs Act that Obama recently signed into law legalizes and promotes fraud in efforts to finance start-up companies with little, if any, foreseeable effect on creating very many jobs. It’s just a license to steal money under the false pretense of starting a new company that you can abandon without hiring anyone and pocket the money without facing any consequences.
Just another way for the rich to steal more money from the hoping-to-get-rich.
That’s just one example.
We have so many wars going on against this or that and with few exceptions the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is disappearing. There is no doubt that the laws are being used to facilitate that process.
You and Ubetcha have certainly spotted the flaw in the reasonable-man standard; namely, that it’s based on a subjective idea of what constitutes reasonableness and the people with the most influence and power get to define reasonableness for the rest of us.
The same standard, whatever it might be, must apply to everyone or it should apply to no one, and no legal system is going to survive for very long when it does not.
Our Titanic struck an iceberg on 9/11 and it has been sinking ever since. Obama hasn’t done anything but facilitate that process.
Namaste
“Would a reasonable person have made that mistake (thinking Trayvon was a burglar casing the neighborhood)?”
In a neighborhood that had seen eight burglaries, nine thefts and one shooting in the last year? Yeah: I can see a reasonable person making that mistake.
Mason: “George Zimmerman was certain that Trayvon was “up to no good” and, we know that because that is exactly what he told the dispatcher”
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he is up to no good”
Emphasis added. Would a reasonable man interpret “looks like” as “certain”? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Zimmerman’s actions and mental state, Mason: no need to fudge the record to make more.
“he ignored the dispatcher’s advice and he set off in search of Trayvon, which is something that no reasonable person would have done”
Unless of course that person was a neighborhood watchman in which case it becomes very reasonable, if inadvisable.
Zimmerman “still could not use deadly force in self-defense unless the objective facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable person in that situation would have used deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.”
I don’t know if I’m a reasonable man, but if someone was sitting on my chest holding my throat or ears and pounding my head on the ground (assuming that actually happened) then I’d feel justified in using whatever force was necessary and available to get him off me.
Note the and available part: if Zimmerman had mace or a taser in addition to his pistol and still chose the deadly force option then you’d have a case, but did he? As far as I know his options were (A) continue the physical struggle that he was losing badly, or (B) use the only weapon he had. That does not, of course, absolve him of responsibility in creating the situation in the first place.
I am not a bloodthirsty, reich-wing, racist, fascist clinging to guns and bibles: I’m just looking at this the way a hypothetical “reasonable” man would. It seems to me that a reasonable man would not let someone beat the shit out of him when there was a means of defense at hand.
“We have due process of law with an adversarial system presided over by judges and we have juries to decide what happened. We will have to be patient and wait and see what happens.”
That is true and thank you for saying it, but a great many people made up their minds weeks ago. I would not advise looking to them in your quest for a reasonable man.
Thanks for commenting, but you have not identified a single fact that would support a reasonable suspicion that Trayvon Martin was about to commit a crime in that neighborhood between 7 and 7:15 pm on a Sunday evening.
Therefore, as you say, I would not advise anyone to look to you in their quest for a reasonable man.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
I think your analysis of this case is seriously flawed, and I am tired of picking it apart, but ironymeter’s comment was pretty good, and I don’t even think “reasonable” comes into play until we get to the moment where Zimmerman had to make a decision that Trayvon was about to inflict serious injury upon him. So, I’m a bit surprised by your work regarding this case. Sorry to say, cuz I usually feel very differently about your contributions here.
So, was Zimmerman justified, then, in killing? Was the killing necessary, and without choice? Was it absolutely essential for Zimmerman to continue to follow Martin because there was nothing else that Zimmerman could have possibly done?
“you have not identified a single fact that would support a reasonable suspicion that Trayvon Martin was about to commit a crime”
In the preceding 13 months police had been called to that complex over 400 times. You have not explained how it is in any way UNreasonable for a neighborhood watchman to regard a stranger walking between the buildings as someone who should be checked out, but that’s about whether Zimmerman should have followed Treyvon in the first place not the use of deadly force.
Would you care to address that? It seems to me that a reasonable man would not let someone beat the shit out of him when there was a means of defense at hand. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
“So, was Zimmerman justified, then, in killing?”
Can we postpone that decision until we actually have all the facts?
Like, was Zimmerman really on the ground getting pounded? That makes a hell of a difference, and while there is some physical evidence for it there are still lots of question marks (at least in my mind).
Along those lines, the autopsy report will clear many issues, I believe.
I am open to being wrong here and I am not an attorney, but the number of calls from the complex to police in the preceding 13 months is, unless Zimmerman had access to the information before the encounter, after-acquired information and cannot be considered by the court on the reasonableness issue.
I have no more idea of whether Zimmerman was justified in killing than anyone else can possibly have, based on the facts as we know them as of now. I am surprised at Mason, whose legal work I usually find to be very good, because he has taken many facts and instead of treating them neutrally, as I know he knows how to do, he is putting a pro-Trayvon, anti-Zimmerman cant on many of them. What matters in this case is what happened in the moments when they came face to face. Mason has said he can’t “believe” Trayvon was the aggressor in those moments. I can easily believe it. Plus, an eyewitness from close range said he saw Trayvon on top beating Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was screaming for help. That’s it. There is no more definitive eyewitness so far. We should all be curbing any sense of certainty now, and waiting to see what further evidence becomes released to the public. Like the forensics, and any additional eyewitnesses. But the “reasonable” term this post is about relates only to the key moment before Zimmerman deployed deadly force. I hate to have to disagree so strongly with Mason, as I admire him in general, and normally gree with his work, but the conversation at FDL has been very heavily weighted, and unfairly IMO, against Zimmerman. I have seen men destroyed when their legitimate self-defense claims were ignored, and actually got the results of one of those cases reversed after the man had wrongfully been imprisoned and away from his young family for years, so the self-defense issue is one I take very seriously, regardless of the race of the people involved. Nothing personal against Mason, I am sure we will go back to agreeing on future cases and issues. ;-)
I would wager anything I have that Zimmerman was aware that a lot of bad activity was happening in his neighborhood. I don’t know why you would choose to argue over this kind of fact. It makes it feel like you have an emotional investment in getting a particular outcome, and that is exactly, and all, that I am arguing against. Ever see The Ox-Bow Incident? I am the Henry Fonda character lol.
I am not arguing, only speaking to the reasonableness issue, and how it is handled in court vis-a-vis after-acquired information. Mabe the judge will include general knowledge of lots of bad stuff happening in a neighborhood as contributory to the totality. I have no idea, but I have read cases that go both ways. Presence in a neighborhood known for drug activity is one example that I have seen go both ways. Again, I am not picking sides and I am not a lawyer, only a reader of many cases!
Summary: No argument from me!
Hey, we are all friends here. Never doubt that. But the cases you refer to are, I believe, about what police may act upon, and the standard for a citizen’s behavior would be very different. You or I have a legal right to walk up to a stranger and ask a question, based on nothing. The stranger can answer, or refuse to answer, and that is also legal. But, if the stranger responds with a physical assault that leads to him banging your head against concrete, then he is trying to kill or seriously injure you. It is not prudent to judge when we know additional evidence will become available later.
“Along those lines, the autopsy report will clear many issues, I believe”
Yes, which is why I’m patiently waiting for it, and advising others to do the same.
“unless Zimmerman had access to the information before the encounter”
Ummm… It is technically possible that a neighborhood watcher who had himself made numerous police calls was totally oblivious to the crime rate in the area he lived and patrolled.
Hey, you want a reasonable man? How about realitychecker: “We should all be curbing any sense of certainty now, and waiting to see what further evidence becomes released to the public.”
Sounds pretty reasonable to me…
Yes, friends for sure, and to be clear, I am not judging at all one way or the other. I admit, though, it is a fascinating case that is interesting to discuss, even if rigorously. We can agree that facts are missing. We can also agree that there are many separate legal issues. I do not feel that Mr. Zimmerman has an easy, open and shut acquittal here. Okay, so. I love to argue and debate, but that does not mean that I am taking any personal issue with you at all. Can we agree on that? Virtual cup of coffee if we can.
I guess what I am saying here is that we can discuss issues without concluding anything about this case.
@ironymeter, you as well. We are all friends here, I’m in with that!
“Ummm… It is technically possible that a neighborhood watcher who had himself made numerous police calls was totally oblivious to the crime rate in the area he lived and patrolled.”
Absolutely, although, the calls he made himself may not play in his favor at all in this case. No doubt each and every call he made was out of his own concern for public safety at large, but the jury may not see it this way.
One would think, take for example, that battered women who have called police terrified for their lives on numerous occasions and then go on to kill the batterer and present the battered women’s defense, have strong factual acquittals. This is not always the case. Not at all, unfortunately.
Gentlemen:
I don’t see any point in continuing this argument because whatever is going to happen is going to happen regardless of what we say here.
I’ve said everything that I can think of to say and I don’t see any point in repeating myself.
Nothing either of you has said has changed my mind or caused me to reconsider my opinion.
Nevertheless, to briefly recap:
Your trump card, the witness named John, did not even witness the fatal shot because he locked his patio door and went upstairs. When he looked out the window, Trayvon Martin was already dead.
Two audiologists using different methodologies have analyzed the scream for help on the 911 call and independently reached the same conclusion; namely, that, to a reasonable scientific certainty, George Zimmerman is not the person screaming for help. That terrified scream ends with a gunshot and, for that reason alone, it is unlikely that the shooter was the person screaming.
George Zimmerman was the shooter.
Trayvon Martin’s mother has listened to that scream and she has identified Trayvon as the person screaming.
George Zimmerman was not justified in believing that Trayvon was about to commit a crime in the neighborhood. Yet, even though he had no reason to suspect Trayvon and even though the dispatcher told him not to follow Trayvon, he did set off to find him and he was carrying a gun when he did so.
Trayvon was not armed.
How can Trayvon be the aggressor, if George Zimmerman set out to make sure he did not get away and the unarmed Trayvon is screaming for help when George Zimmerman shoots him?
How can you disregard the two experts and Trayvon’s mother in favor of John, who did not even witness the shooting?
Moreover, unless you think the prosecutors are extremely stupid, do you think they would have charged George Zimmerman with second degree murder, if he sustained a serious injury in a scuffle with Trayvon before shooting him?
There are two items of evidence that we do not have: the autopsy report and the EMT’s report regarding George Zimmerman’s injuries.
I seriously doubt the prosecutors would have charged him with second degree murder if the autopsy report shows skin lacerations and stippling at the entry wound. If they were not present, the gun was fired from a distance of more than a meter and that is not consistent with Zimmerman’s story.
I suspect the EMT has described Zimmerman’s injuries as superficial or minor, which is consistent with his decision to forego a trip to the hospital. The type of head banging that both of you have described could have produced a fatal brain injury, but there is no indication of any concern about that by Zimmerman or the police.
The reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that his injuries were minor and certainly not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense.
For the two of you to be correct, not only are the two experts mistaken and Trayvon’s mother is lying or mistaken, but the prosecutors are so stupid that they filed a murder 2 charge despite knowing Zimmerman was seriously injured and that his claim that he fired the fatal shot at very close range during a struggle is substantiated by the autopsy report.
If any part of Zimmerman’s story is contradicted by the evidence, the jury will likely disregard all of it.
I do not believe they would file a charge they know they cannot prove.
Y’all are free to believe anything you want, but I ain’t buying what you’re selling.
Nothing personal here. I just don’t agree with your argument.
Namaste.
All friends here works for me: two scoops of virtual sugar in my virtual coffee, please. May I offer you a virtual cookie to go with yours? 8^)
It strikes me as absurd to suggest it was unreasonable for a neighborhood watchman to observe, follow, or even confront someone in the performance of his duties. Whether Zimmerman did it well (Hey, Pal, can I help you?) or poorly (Stop right there you suspicious looking punkass!) we don’t know. We do know it doesn’t matter: he’s not charged with stalking, he’s charged with murder in the second degree.
What does matter is what happened in the face-off (how did they end up wrestling on the ground?), and at this point we just don’t know. I heard (meaning I don’t know for sure) that the lead homicide investigator recommended manslaughter charges after questioning Zimmerman on the night of the killing.
Can anyone tell me whether the location of the shooting supports Zimmerman’s claim that he was returning to his car? Hell, I’m not even 100% certain he made that claim: there’s so damn much chaff flying around it’s really hard to locate the wheat…
If anything, believe me, my bias would go against the prosecution. Were I to identify one thing that I find most tragic in the courts today, it would be wrongful convictions. Rather, my emotional investment is one of grave concern. Mr. Zimmerman is facing a very tough road, not an easy one at all, that is what I am saying.
Well, sure. Except that he was instructed, mid-follow, to stop following because police were on the way. This is problematic.
Two shots of espresso, black. Can I get you a refill?
“Hell, I’m not even 100% certain he made that claim: there’s so damn much chaff flying around it’s really hard to locate the wheat…”
True. Big pieces of the story missing!
“his injuries were minor and certainly not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense.”
Oh, for crying the fuck out loud, Mason! His injuries were minor because the fight ended. By your logic I could shoot a man holding a shotgun to my head and you’d dismiss self defense because I lacked serious injury.
“Nothing either of you has said has changed my mind or caused me to reconsider my opinion.”
Yeah, no kidding: please note that your opinion was formed prior to getting the autopsy results. I’m doing my best to keep an open mind but it ain’t easy in this environment.
“I do not believe they would file a charge they know they cannot prove.”
30 years before the bar and you never saw charges filed that were intended to be bargained down? Or for flat-out political reasons regardless of the evidence? As astonishing as that would be what boggles the mind even more is a former criminal defense attorney saying (in effect) Well, he’s been charged so there MUST be evidence, right?
Before you dismiss me, Mason, you might want to try answering some points I’ve raised. For example, It seems to me that a reasonable man would not let someone beat the shit out of him when there was a means of defense at hand. I’d only asked that twice before, perhaps the third time will be the charm?
Good Lord, you’re serving double espressos? One will do: thanks.
LOL, HaHAAA! …Americano, a double Americano, that is the word I was trying to think of: espresso topped with hot water. Might as well just order coffee, but Americano sounds better.
Only one thing is for sure: the courts can get mighty surreal these days.
No reasonable person puts sugar in coffee, BTW. Wanna split this red devilsfood cookie? It has sugar.
What makes you think he was getting the shit beat out of him?
I don’t see any evidence to support that statement.
As I have said many times, I believe the EMT will testify that his injuries were minor and, as we know, Zimmerman declined to go to a hospital.
Why it’s almost as if he didn’t want to risk creating a medical record of an ER doc shooing him away with a suggestion that he take an Advil.
“What makes you think he was getting the shit beat out of him?”
To quote myself from an earlier post on this thread: “assuming that actually happened”
Mason… either suck it up and say, “if someone is slamming your head on the ground, it’s okay to shoot him” or suck it up and say, “no: you can’t shoot someone who is slamming your head on the ground.”
Or duck the question for the fourth time, but will you then please step back and let the goddamn jury decide who was assaulting whom?
“No reasonable person puts sugar in coffee, BTW”
Well, as I said earlier, “I don’t know if I’m a reasonable man”
When it comes to coffee, apparently not… 8^(
Please point to the evidence of head injury or other evidence of Zimmerman having “the shit beat out of him” from this police video taken shortly after the incident, where, by the way, EMTs were present and treatment declined by Zimmerman, then the video was taken at intake.
You can use the time markers and indicate minutes, seconds as 00:00.
“Slamming his head against the ground” is imprecise because, a conscious person would be resisting having his head slammed against the ground. Under some circumstances, for example against a much stronger, bigger, and heavier person who is slamming your head with considerable force against a hard object like a concrete sidewalk, it probably would warrant the use of deadly force in self-defense.
In other words, the answer depends on the totality of the circumstances.
Besides, the legal test isn’t whether someone is slamming your head against the ground; the test is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would believe it was reasonably necessary to use deadly force to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury.
We may never know who threw the first punch, but we do know that Zimmerman was armed and Trayvon was unarmed. We also know that Zimmerman was 11 years older (28/17), 4 inches shorter (5’9″/6’1″) and 40 pounds heavier (190/150). Trayvon was a tall skinny kid, so I think he was likely at a significant disadvantage in a wrestling match at close quarters.
Whether Zimmerman was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious bodily injury probably depends on whether he was taking a beating and I’m not seeing any evidence of that, which is what I’ve said ad nauseum.
I don’t know what else to say.
Right, a video taken in the sally port and not in the ER, for one. Unless other facts emerge that reveal a conflicting and convincing scenario, Mr. Zimmerman has reason for concern about this case, because the fact is, there are people serving lengthy sentences that had a far stronger factual (and legal) defense- that has been my observation.
Other facts may well emerge, but for now anyway, his self-defense stance is problematic.
BTW, there’s another part to this analysis.
If, for example, Trayvon was on top and Zimmerman wrapped his arms and legs around him and rolled over on top of Trayvon, pushed away and stood up straddling Trayvon as he pulled his gun out, Zimmerman would be in control and no longer in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious bodily injury, assuming for the sake of argument that he was before he got control of Trayvon and the situation.
If he shoots Trayvon as Trayvon is screaming for help upon seeing the gun, that’s murder.
As I have also said, this might actually have happened. The witness John might have seen the portion of the struggle before Zimmerman got control and Zimmerman might even have called out to him for help before John shut and locked the door and headed upstairs. Maybe no one else heard that call for help except John. Maybe by the time he got upstairs and looked out the window the fight was over and Trayvon was dead.
I can’t recall, but I don’t think John called 911 until after the incident was over and Trayvon was dead.
Kind of suggests that John didn’t think the matter was all that big a deal until after he saw Trayvon lying dead in the grass.
John may hurt, not help Zimmerman.
I can do better than that, I offer a virtual hug. This is an interesting case, because there are several iffy aspects to it. I have only stepped up to argue some points because I feel the conversation has been unreasonably weighted on the other side. E.g. the picture we keep seeing of Trayvon is of a beautiful 12 year old, but that is NOT who Zimmerman dealt with that night. He faced someone over six feet, who was old enough to be fighting with the Marines in Afghanistan. Think about that for a moment. Why is it so unreasonable to think he had an attitude with Zimmerman and just wanted to give him a beatdown for being “disrespectful”? And why wouldn’t anyone worry about losing such a fight? If the known facts are weighed with a neutral objectivity, it seems to me none of us has enough to be certain of how the case should turn out, at this point. But we will learn more from the forensics. I can wait. Meantime, no question in my mind that I am a friend and ally to both you and Mason.
BTW, this scenario also would explain why Trayvon screams for several seconds before Zimmerman kills him (i.e., he sees the gun).
If Zimmerman’s story is true, Trayvon likely never would have seen the gun.
Now, I know you’re thinking Zimmerman was screaming, but why is he screaming, if he has the gun?
BTW, Zimmerman could reenact his scream for help and submit a recording of it to an audiologist to compare to the scream on the 911 tape.
I recommend not holding your breath for that to happen.
Incidentally, the prosecution could file a motion for an order requiring him to do that. This is similar to obtaining an order to provide a handwriting examplar, or to say a word that a robber said to see if a witness can identify the voice.
There is no 5th Amendment violation (right to remain silent) because that is not considered testimonial evidence.
I would do this, if I were the prosecutor.
Dude, I like and respect you too and this has been a respectful and legitimate debate.
” goddamn jury decide who was assaulting whom?”
It all depends on these facts added to the missing ones that defense has sealed, of course, but do not underestimate the idea that a goddamn jury may well convict.You’d be surprised. Nothing is a given at all. There is not yet, nor will there be, an arraignment even, until May…not an open and shut case.
Good. And we agree that both the ballistic and the audio evidence will be crucial here. The audio evidence so far is not something I would rely on, we don’t know much about it. I have no doubt we will get better audio evidence as the case progresses. Let me just say, I used to carry a gun legally in New York City, and the last thing I would ever want is to be forced to take it out and actually use it. Life becomes a nightmare as soon as you do that. That may be why Zimmerman screamed for help before he took his gun out. I have also had much smaller men instigate fights with me. You can’t go by that to determine who was the aggressor.
(((realitychecker))) back at you, good debate, and also that version of Imagine is my absolute favorite. This is an unfortunate legal case that we have discussed. Thank you.
“a conscious person would be resisting having his head slammed against the ground”
Like by drawing a properly licensed and registered weapon and shooting the slammer, maybe?
“In other words, the answer depends on the totality of the circumstances.”
In other words, the answer depends on what you don’t know yet.
“the test is whether a reasonable person in the same situation”
Shrug. I gave you my view on that, you’ve been either mum or equivocating. I’ve asked this ad nauseum, now “stand your ground,” Mason: if a man was on top of you and slamming your head against the ground or sidewalk and you had a pistol would you (A) shoot him or (B) pray? If it was your brother, sister, stranger, friend, son would you advise them to (A) shoot or (B) pray?
“I think he (Treyvon) was likely at a significant disadvantage in a wrestling match at close quarters.”
If he was indeed on top and slamming Zimmerman’s head on the ground I’d venture to say he managed to overcome that disadvantage, huh?
“whether he was taking a beating and I’m not seeing any evidence of that”
There are none so blind as those who will not see. There is eyewitness testimony and an abrasion on the back of his skull: I won’t say it’s conclusive, but it’s enough to make “I’m not seeing any evidence” an obvious case of willful blindness.
“BTW, there’s another part to this analysis. If, for example…”
Oh, by all means, let’s move into the realm of total speculation.
If, for example, Trayvon was on top and saw Zimmerman’s holstered weapon he might well have thought it prudent to disarm his opponent: the whackjob guy who followed then assaulted him. I absolutely would have, under those circumstances. So now we have two people — neither of whom started out with an intent to do harm — grappling over a firearm. Where do you think that might lead?
Sorry, Counselor, but speculation tends to favor the defense: I’d suggest you not go there.
“I don’t know what else to say”
Of course not: you’ve already made up your mind, ergo people still asking questions are incomprehensible to you.
You’re good lol. Remind me never to argue a case against you.
You just had to get the last word, didn’t you?
That’s fine.
I have made my case and I am open to changing my mind if the evidence warrants it.
I do not like guns and I do not own one. I would not have called the cops in this case and, if I had any concerns about Trayvon walking around and looking at the houses, I would have approached him and asked him if he needed any assistance. I would not have followed him.
If he had attacked me, which I regard as extremely unlikely, I would have defended myself, which is something I know how to do.
I am a confident person and I fear no one. I do not fear death and I never assume the worst about anyone. I treat everyone respectfully.
If it were not for my monthly social security check, I would be homeless. I get most of my food out of dumpsters and I am comfortable mingling with poor people and street people from all walks of life. I feel totally at ease among people of color, no matter their economic class, social standing, and religious beliefs. I speak Spanish fluently. I have traveled extensively and I am comfortable anywhere among anyone.
You asked me if I would kill someone if they were beating the shit out of me, which has nothing to do with this case so far as I can see, and the answer is a firm, “NO.”
I am a peaceful warrior and I will never use deadly force against anyone. I do not believe that anyone should ever kill another person.
If someone kills me, so be it.
I do not understand where you are coming from. Your projections and fears make little sense to me and your assumptions about me and what happened in this tragic case, your games with words and arguments in a never ending effort to declare “Gotcha,” seem pointless to me.
Do you not understand that an innocent young man is needlessly dead because George Zimmerman believed he was a burglar and aggressively pursued him with the intent of detaining him, despite being warned not to do so by police?
That is the horrible truth of this case. This is not an intellectual exercise. The jury will relive Trayvon Martin’s last minutes via blown-up glossy color photographs of his lifeless body at the crime scene and they will see incredibly graphic blown-up photographs of his naked dead-meat body, including close-ups of the wound, shots of the wound with a metal rod protruding from it to show the trajectory of the fatal shot and where it came from; the Y-incision with the removal of all of the organs in his chest, and close-up of the tissue and organs damaged by the fatal shot.
That is the reality of a murder trial and the ultimate reality of this case is Trayvon Martin did not have to die and George Zimmerman killed him.
I have tried many homicide cases. I have tried many death penalty cases. I have stood and faced a jury’s angry disgust and desire to take revenge on my client. It’s not a theoretical game to them, such as the game that you and reality checker play.
I’m done.
I’ve made my arguments and people can decide whether they agree or disagree.
“You just had to get the last word, didn’t you?”
Irony Meter rating: 8.5