What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[Charles Kozierok]

The anniversary of the incident was, I believe, yesterday.

When I joined here at AT, there was already a thread on this in P&N that was about 20,000 posts long. Now it's over 40,000. I couldn't even begin to get up to speed on it, and on the rare occasions when I look in there, it seems to be mostly speculation and flaming.

My general take on stuff like this is that the most prudent course of action is to wait until the actual trial and let the facts come out. They will determine whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense or not.

But what bugs me about this case relates to the whole issue of the "stand your ground" law. My understanding is the idea that if an innocent person is faced with violence, they have the right to defend themselves, rather than being forced to retreat. In theory I agree with that idea.

But what exactly is the right definition of an "innocent person faced with violence"? Sure, some cases are clear-cut. But cases like the Martin one are not, specifically because there are different "levels" of action in terms of who really is innocent and who is not.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Zimmerman's really did act in self-defense in the altercation -- either Martin threatened him, or attacked him, or there was a struggle for the gun. If tru, on that level, he really was defending himself.

But at a higher level, what responsibility does someone have for creating a situation in which the self-defense itself was necessary? All I keep coming back to is this: if Zimmerman had stayed in his damned car, none of this would have happened. Can someone really be an "innocent victim" when they create the situation that leads to the shooting?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Should we be sending people to prision based on "what if scenarios"?

 

[corwin]

Can someone really be an "innocent victim" when they create the situation that leads to the shooting?

So if you walk down the street with $100 bills hanging out of your pocket are you responsible for someone robbing you? Does wearing trampy clothes make a girl responsible for being raped?

How high of a level do you really want to go to?

 

[Jaskalas]

...
But what bugs me about this case relates to the whole issue of the "stand your ground" law. My understanding is the idea that if an innocent person is faced with violence, they have the right to defend themselves, rather than being forced to retreat. In theory I agree with that idea.

To me, the act of shooting Martin is legal well before "stand your ground", this law doesn't even need to be considered. How can stand your ground apply to a situation where you're on your back, pinned to the ground, with an assailant on top of you? Zimmerman wasn't standing, he was not allowed to retreat.

Ballistics and eyewitness account can prove, to some degree, how the shot was fired. Distance from clothing, burn marks. That would corroborate being pinned and unable to flee.

...
But at a higher level, what responsibility does someone have for creating a situation in which the self-defense itself was necessary? All I keep coming back to is this: if Zimmerman had stayed in his damned car, none of this would have happened. Can someone really be an "innocent victim" when they create the situation that leads to the shooting?

I strongly oppose the notion that a person must not confront another. If we see a suspect, is it now our legal and moral duty to turn around and walk the other way - heaven forbid they attack you? If I'm walking down the street and there's a jogger approaching, am I to flee?

When I say confront... I pretty much mean walk up to and say hi, to talk to them. A verbal "confrontation" along with being able to meet them, so you may identify them later.

We could argue that if you feel threatened enough to call the police - that you are no longer allowed to approach the "suspect", but I'm fairly certain that's not the law. If you want it to be the law then we could discuss that, but such obligations should not apply here in this case or reflect legally on Zimmerman.

 

[Jodell88]

So if you walk down the street with $100 bills hanging out of your pocket are you responsible for someone robbing you? Does wearing trampy clothes make a girl responsible for being raped?

How high of a level do you really want to go to?

If I pick a fight with you and you start whupping my ass, can I shoot you and claim self defense?

 

[corwin]

If I pick a fight with you and you start whupping my ass, can I shoot you and claim self defense?

That is a false equivalency, however in some states it would be legal given you tried to disengage and were subsequently in grave fear, it would take a mastermind to pull something like that off with any real hope of it working.

That said there is no evidence of such here, nothing showing a fight was "picked" by the shooter, no offensive wounds on the decedent save the single fatal shot fired after grave bodily injury was inflicted on the shooter who was on the ground with no ability to remove himself from the situation and (using logic) would have been the person yelling for help for nearly a minute prior to shooting.

 

[Jaskalas]

If I pick a fight with you and you start whupping my ass, can I shoot you and claim self defense?

The circumstances of this case do not exactly mirror that. To prosecute we should have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you picked the fight. Remember, the story is that Zimmerman was "heading back to his truck" when Martin "confronted" and then "assaulted" him.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Can someone really be an "innocent victim" when they create the situation that leads to the shooting?

No.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Lots of good questions raised, and I certainly can't answer all of them.

Obviously whenever an altercation happens between two people and one ends up dead, we don't get to hear the dead guy's side of the story.

This isn't specifically about Martin/Zimmerman, though, but rather the larger issue of where we draw the line between innocent victim and instigator. Someone walking down the street with a "$100 bill sticking out" is not instigating anything. But someone who is following somebody, calls the police, the police tell him not to pursue the matter, and he pursues it anyway?

Maybe the story is as he says. I don't know the details, they'll come out at trial. The more interesting question, as I said, is how to distinguish between someone who ends up killing a person as a result of a situation they create, versus one they did not.

My larger difficulty with these "stand your ground" laws is what I said before -- dead men tell no tales. If I have a neighbor I don't get along with well, and he comes over to my house and I end up shooting him, I can say I "felt threatened", and if there are no other witnesses, how do I not get away with it? It seems these laws are encouraging poor behavior.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm not sure how the justice system should handle this, but Zimmerman went looking for trouble and he found it. That in no way excuses what Martin did, if the allegations are true, but Zimmerman should also bear some responsibility for creating the situation. That said, I do think Zimmerman had the right to defend himself if Martin truly attacked him. Unless Zimmerman somehow attacked Martin first, Martin had no right to use violence. I'd like to see Zimmerman charged for some lesser offense, however. I just don't know what's appropriate.

But ultimately, I don't have all the facts and am content to let justice take its course.

 

[corwin]

Someone walking down the street with a "$100 bill sticking out" is not instigating anything. But someone who is following somebody, calls the police, the police tell him not to pursue the matter, and he pursues it anyway?

Actually the situation appears to be closer to my analogy than your sequence of events, yes he followed someone he found suspicious, he called the police and continued to watch this person, when he was following on foot he was told "we don't need you to do that"...which isn't exactly "telling him not to", might be splitting hairs there but wording is legally significant in most cases. Regardless had he not called the police and merely followed him to see what he was up to and was subsequently attacked in the same manner would it make a difference? By all physical evidence Zimmerman was attacked and beaten on the ground for a significant (over 1 minute) period of time before he drew and fired on his attacker. Following someone cannot be considered "instigating" a fight or else we will have a lot more fights happening.

If I have a neighbor I don't get along with well, and he comes over to my house and I end up shooting him, I can say I "felt threatened", and if there are no other witnesses, how do I not get away with it? It seems these laws are encouraging poor behavior.

If there is no physical evidence of the "threat" you felt there is no way in hell you're not going to jail, if you are bloody and beaten and his hands show evidence of having been the one to beat you then you should be a free man without having to be put through a trial...aside from what this case displays otherwise.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actually the situation appears to be closer to my analogy than your sequence of events...

How so?

You said this: "So if you walk down the street with $100 bills hanging out of your pocket are you responsible for someone robbing you?"

If Zimmerman's story is to be believed, then he is the victim here, and thus the "person walking down the street with $100 bills hanging out" in your analogy. That would imply that Zimmerman was minding his own business and Martin went after him.

But it's the exact opposite. Zimmerman, the guy who is claiming to be the victim, got out of his car and went after the other guy. So how does your analogy apply?

Following someone cannot be considered "instigating" a fight or else we will have a lot more fights happening.

So you think Zimmerman did nothing more than follow Martin, who then decided to attack Zimmerman -- a guy who, IIRC, outweighed him by 100 pounds? It just seems a bit hard to believe.

Zimmerman was not minding his own business here, as is obvious from the phone call he made. He was minding Martin's business.

If there is no physical evidence of the "threat" you felt there is no way in hell you're not going to jail, if you are bloody and beaten and his hands show evidence of having been the one to beat you then you should be a free man without having to be put through a trial...aside from what this case displays otherwise.

When the other guy is dead, how is one to know who started the altercation?

It could be that Zimmerman swung at him first, and missed, and then Martin nailed him. Who knows?

That's the problem with these situations.

As a theoretical -- if I come up to you and slap you in the face, and then you punch me in the face in response, am I now justified in shooting you?

 

[corwin]

But it's the exact opposite. Zimmerman, the guy who is claiming to be the victim, got out of his car and went after the other guy. So how does your analogy apply?

Not exactly, while getting out of your car and following someone you find suspicious is not the wisest thing to do, akin to walking down the street with money hanging out of your pockets, it is well within your rights to do so without the expectation that you will be physically assaulted for doing so.

So you think Zimmerman did nothing more than follow Martin, who then decided to attack Zimmerman -- a guy who, IIRC, outweighed him by 100 pounds? It just seems a bit hard to believe.

Pretty much, were you ever a hot headed teen? Maybe getting heckled a bit by a girl you were talking to on the phone to beat some old fat guys ass who is watching you? That last is purely speculation but not outside the realm of possibility..."kids" today do some shit that defies logic and much of it is violent in nature.

When the other guy is dead, how is one to know who started the altercation?

It could be that Zimmerman swung at him first, and missed, and then Martin nailed him. Who knows?

That's the problem with these situations.

Sure it "could" be that however there is zero evidence of it, and if it went down like that why would Trayvon continue to beat him on the ground for an extended period of time? That is where it crosses the line, we have someone screaming for help, logically that is going to be the person getting beat on and not the attacker which physical evidence shows was Zimmerman.

 

[blankslate]

If I pick a fight with you and you start whupping my ass, can I shoot you and claim self defense?

That is a false equivalency

Actually it might not be, no one can say for sure yet. We don't know yet how the evidence will be revealed in court. Until now it's mostly been speculation.

It could very well have been Trayvon Martin being shady and suspicious or it could be that George Zimmerman chose not to stay in the car and eventually provoked a fight he couldn't handle with fists and finished with a gun. Or it could be some other convoluted combination of the two.

The trial last I checked should start up in late April or early may. Not so long unless it gets pushed back somehow.

 

[corwin]

Actually it might not be, no one can say for sure yet. We don't know yet how the evidence will be revealed in court. Until now it's mostly been speculation.

It could very well have been Trayvon Martin being shady and suspicious or it could be that George Zimmerman chose not to stay in the car and eventually provoked a fight he couldn't handle with fists and finished with a gun. Or it could be some other convoluted combination of the two.

The trial last I checked should start up in late April or early may. Not so long unless it gets pushed back somehow.

No mater how the evidence is revealed there is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight, prosecution has admitted such openly, and the lack of any physical evidence that Zimmerman even grabbed his sleeve. Without any evidence it should never go to trial, that isn't the way our justice system is supposed to work.

 

[GreenMeters]

And there's no evidence that Zimmerman didn't start the fight, so you're by default assigning guilt to the party who's dead and can't defend himself. That's the problem with stand-your-ground.

 

[JEDIYoda]

By all physical evidence Zimmerman was attacked and beaten on the ground for a significant (over 1 minute) period of time before he drew and fired on his attacker.

really? I never read that...can you link me to this so I might be better informed??

 

[JEDIYoda]

No mater how the evidence is revealed there is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight, prosecution has admitted such openly, and the lack of any physical evidence that Zimmerman even grabbed his sleeve. Without any evidence it should never go to trial, that isn't the way our justice system is supposed to work.

Again please link me to where the Prosecution admitted there was a lack of physical evidence???

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Not exactly, while getting out of your car and following someone you find suspicious is not the wisest thing to do, akin to walking down the street with money hanging out of your pockets, it is well within your rights to do so without the expectation that you will be physically assaulted for doing so.

I agree that following someone is not something for which one should be physically assaulted.

But there are two problems here, I think.

First, in your analogy of walking around with money hanging out of your pockets, you may be presenting a tempting target, but you are taking no specific action against another individual. That's not the case here. There's a fundamental difference between "just walking down the street" and actively following someone. As soon as you start following a person, you are increasing the chances of an incident. That doesn't apply to just walking on your own not considering other people.

Second, we don't really know if Zimmerman was "just" following Martin, or if he did something more. How do we assess that? We have to use all of the available evidence to judge whether his description of events makes sense, given that Martin is dead.

I don't think anyone really knows what happened except for Zimmerman. But when I look at the full context of this -- especially the phone call Zimmerman made to the police -- I think it stretches the bounds of believability to portray Zimmerman as someone who was just innocently following Martin when the latter decided to attack him.

Zimmerman thought Martin was a problem, and he apparently had a track record of looking for trouble. On the 9/11 call, he said "these assholes, they always get away" -- that's not the sign of someone who is minding his own business. It doesn't prove him guilty of anything, but IMO it suggests a confrontational attitude, and considerably raises the probability that Zimmerman himself instigated this altercation.

And there's no evidence that Zimmerman didn't start the fight, so you're by default assigning guilt to the party who's dead and can't defend himself. That's the problem with stand-your-ground.

That's it in a nutshell. As long as there are no witnesses and the other guy ends up dead, it's your story versus.. nothing.. and you get off.

 

[corwin]

And there's no evidence that Zimmerman didn't start the fight, so you're by default assigning guilt to the party who's dead and can't defend himself. That's the problem with stand-your-ground.

Again, not the way our justice system is supposed to work, by default he is innocent, the physical evidence shows he was being beaten and on the ground when he killed his attacker...that is the definition of self defense. There is nothing wrong with standing your ground and it has nothing to do with this, on the ground being beaten by your attacker kind of removes the option to run away, he wasn't even standing.

really? I never read that...can you link me to this so I might be better informed??

Again please link me to where the Prosecution admitted there was a lack of physical evidence???

Watch the bond hearing...

 

[corwin]

First, in your analogy of walking around with money hanging out of your pockets, you may be presenting a tempting target, but you are taking no specific action against another individual. That's not the case here. There's a fundamental difference between "just walking down the street" and actively following someone. As soon as you start following a person, you are increasing the chances of an incident. That doesn't apply to just walking on your own not considering other people.

Not really, as I said both are not the most brilliant things to do and both are completely legal...remember it isn't just "walking down the street", it's walking down the street with money hanging out of your pockets, you are "making yourself a target" by intentionally having money showing, the analogy is pretty darn close.

Second, we don't really know if Zimmerman was "just" following Martin, or if he did something more. How do we assess that? We have to use all of the available evidence to judge whether his description of events makes sense, given that Martin is dead.

I don't think anyone really knows what happened except for Zimmerman. But when I look at the full context of this -- especially the phone call Zimmerman made to the police -- I think it stretches the bounds of believability to portray Zimmerman as someone who was just innocently following Martin when the latter decided to attack him.

Zimmerman thought Martin was a problem, and he apparently had a track record of looking for trouble. On the 9/11 call, he said "these assholes, they always get away" -- that's not the sign of someone who is minding his own business. It doesn't prove him guilty of anything, but IMO it suggests a confrontational attitude, and considerably raises the probability that Zimmerman himself instigated this altercation.

This is true, we also have the physical evidence to use and completely ignore what he says since many don't want to believe him anyway. Physically there is nothing to indicate he touched his attacker even once, all physical evidence backs up his story. And I don't think "innocently following" has ever been put forth, he was following a suspicious person, that's not "innocent", he had a purpose to see where and what this person was doing. It's bad that you want to say someone looking out for their neighborhood is "looking for trouble", it would seem that the neighborhood was having trouble and he was looking to help, part of being a concerned neighbor, but in these times I guess it's more PC to just "mind your own business" and let whatever happens happen, so long as it isn't directly happening to you that exact second you shouldn't get involved.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Not really, as I said both are not the most brilliant things to do and both are completely legal...remember it isn't just "walking down the street", it's walking down the street with money hanging out of your pockets, you are "making yourself a target" by intentionally having money showing, the analogy is pretty darn close.

Sorry, I can't agree. Even if you are wearing something that makes you a target, you are still minding your own business.

Zimmerman was not.

Physically there is nothing to indicate he touched his attacker even once, all physical evidence backs up his story.

I can't comment on that as I haven't investigated it.

And I don't think "innocently following" has ever been put forth, he was following a suspicious person, that's not "innocent", he had a purpose to see where and what this person was doing. It's bad that you want to say someone looking out for their neighborhood is "looking for trouble", it would seem that the neighborhood was having trouble and he was looking to help, part of being a concerned neighbor, but in these times I guess it's more PC to just "mind your own business" and let whatever happens happen, so long as it isn't directly happening to you that exact second you shouldn't get involved.

That's a valid argument in general. I'm just not sure where Zimmerman was on the line between concerned watchfulness and vigilanteeism.

 

[GreenMeters]

Again, not the way our justice system is supposed to work, by default he is innocent, the physical evidence shows he was being beaten and on the ground when he killed his attacker...that is the definition of self defense. There is nothing wrong with standing your ground and it has nothing to do with this, on the ground being beaten by your attacker kind of removes the option to run away, he wasn't even standing.


Watch the bond hearing...

You say that Zimmerman should be assumed innocent by default, which is correct, but you also assume that Trayvon is guilty by default. But Trayvon is the one who won't even get a chance to prove his innocence. Again, that is the problem with stand-your-ground; it creates this paradox of assumed guilt. It's too easy for someone to instigate a fight and murder the target.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Watch the bond hearing...

links to your claims please....

 

[Soundmanred]

links to your claims please....

Watch the bond hearing.