I apologize for starting another thread on this topic, however, I think it is important to ground this discussion, and to think through it reasonably.
Relevant Facts:
- On the night of February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin
- There was only one weapon at the scene of the crime, that weapon belonged to George Zimmerman and was used to kill Trayvon Martin
- That night, George Zimmerman was on duty as the night-watchman for his neighborhood.
- George Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious male in the neighborhood.
- The police instructed Zimmerman to cease his pursuit of the suspicious male. They also told Zimmerman that they would send someone to investigate.
Non-Relevant Facts:
- It is reported that Trayvon Martin bragged about breaking and entering homes and stealing jewelry.
- Trayvon Martin was found with both jewelry and a screwdriver one day at school.
Pertinent Legal Concepts:
- You are only authorized, by law, to use deadly force in an event in which, by a reasonable person standard, you feel that a person is threatening you in a way that you feel your life is in imminent danger.
In this forum, the pro-Zimmerman and anti-Zimmerman arguments appear to reduce to the following:
- Trayvon Martin has a history of robbing houses and, therefore, not only was Zimmerman was justified in approaching Martin but Martin deserved to be shot.
- Zimmerman was following Martin and, therefore, not only was Martin justified in physically assaulting Zimmerman but since Martin was justified, Zimmerman was not justified in resorting to deadly force.
Both of these arguments are BS.
- It is not illegal to follow someone in public (this is the defense that law enforcement uses all the time to argue for GPS trackers and surveillance).
- Law enforcement cannot legally, without the act of a judge, order one individual to stop following another individual on public land; they certainly cannot make decisions (without the act of a judge or legislature) for the owners of private lands on who can do what on their private land.
- Merely following someone is not synonymous with threatening their life and/or physical security.
- If Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following, Martin's attack was unjustified. It was not a case of self-defense.
- If Zimmerman attacked Martin because he thought Martin was being suspicious, Zimmerman's attack was not justified. It was not a case of self-defense.
- The punishment, under the law, for assault is not death; the punishment, according to reasonable persons, for assault is not death.
- The simple act of being assaulted does not give one the right to kill another. One must feel that their life is imminently at risk.
- If Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin has the right to resort with the minimum force necessary to stop the attack.
- If Zimmerman was on top of Martin, Martin has the right to fight back. In doing so, Martin may end up on top of Zimmerman.
- Once Martin is on top of Zimmerman, he does not have the right to continually slam Zimmerman's head into the pavement.
- If a reasonable person would accede to the fact that having one's head slammed repeatedly against concrete is in fact a life threatening situation, then Zimmerman is justified in resorting to deadly force (if that is the only manner in which he can escape death).
Thus, we see that regardless of everything else, the question comes down to what was happening at the moment that Zimmerman fired. If Martin was slamming his head into the ground, then the jury ought to find Zimmerman not-guilty on the charge of murder/manslaughter.
Relevant Facts:
- On the night of February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin
- There was only one weapon at the scene of the crime, that weapon belonged to George Zimmerman and was used to kill Trayvon Martin
- That night, George Zimmerman was on duty as the night-watchman for his neighborhood.
- George Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious male in the neighborhood.
- The police instructed Zimmerman to cease his pursuit of the suspicious male. They also told Zimmerman that they would send someone to investigate.
Non-Relevant Facts:
- It is reported that Trayvon Martin bragged about breaking and entering homes and stealing jewelry.
- Trayvon Martin was found with both jewelry and a screwdriver one day at school.
Pertinent Legal Concepts:
- You are only authorized, by law, to use deadly force in an event in which, by a reasonable person standard, you feel that a person is threatening you in a way that you feel your life is in imminent danger.
In this forum, the pro-Zimmerman and anti-Zimmerman arguments appear to reduce to the following:
- Trayvon Martin has a history of robbing houses and, therefore, not only was Zimmerman was justified in approaching Martin but Martin deserved to be shot.
- Zimmerman was following Martin and, therefore, not only was Martin justified in physically assaulting Zimmerman but since Martin was justified, Zimmerman was not justified in resorting to deadly force.
Both of these arguments are BS.
- It is not illegal to follow someone in public (this is the defense that law enforcement uses all the time to argue for GPS trackers and surveillance).
- Law enforcement cannot legally, without the act of a judge, order one individual to stop following another individual on public land; they certainly cannot make decisions (without the act of a judge or legislature) for the owners of private lands on who can do what on their private land.
- Merely following someone is not synonymous with threatening their life and/or physical security.
- If Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following, Martin's attack was unjustified. It was not a case of self-defense.
- If Zimmerman attacked Martin because he thought Martin was being suspicious, Zimmerman's attack was not justified. It was not a case of self-defense.
- The punishment, under the law, for assault is not death; the punishment, according to reasonable persons, for assault is not death.
- The simple act of being assaulted does not give one the right to kill another. One must feel that their life is imminently at risk.
- If Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin has the right to resort with the minimum force necessary to stop the attack.
- If Zimmerman was on top of Martin, Martin has the right to fight back. In doing so, Martin may end up on top of Zimmerman.
- Once Martin is on top of Zimmerman, he does not have the right to continually slam Zimmerman's head into the pavement.
- If a reasonable person would accede to the fact that having one's head slammed repeatedly against concrete is in fact a life threatening situation, then Zimmerman is justified in resorting to deadly force (if that is the only manner in which he can escape death).
Thus, we see that regardless of everything else, the question comes down to what was happening at the moment that Zimmerman fired. If Martin was slamming his head into the ground, then the jury ought to find Zimmerman not-guilty on the charge of murder/manslaughter.
