excellent read - New Yorker, "...Stand Whose Ground?"

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Regardless, no laws were broken. Whether he should or shouldn't have followed really isn't an issue, IMO. If you think it is, then I would guess that logically you would think that TM should have run straight home and called 911 to report the strange man following him.

That is what I think, if he would have made it home he would have been safe. I don't know how the two met if he was walking/running home. Either he turned back around to confront GZ or GZ caught up to him by shortcut or coincidence.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Nobody is saying that following someone is illegal. And nobody is saying that it would give someone the right to assault another. But then, there's nothing in evidence that supports the notion that Martin assaulted Zimmermann for having followed him. Why are you stuck on that?

Oh boy. Yes not one single bit of evidence.. You have officially gone off the reservation

[Darnell 8,478]

That is what I think, if he would have made it home he would have been safe. I don't know how the two met if he was walking/running home. Either he turned back around to confront GZ or GZ caught up to him by shortcut or coincidence.

I wonder why the father's bed partner NOT take him to a store, in a car ?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's interesting commentary from a criminal defense attorney:

I have not commented on the ultimate merits of the Zimmerman prosecution. If you’ve been in hiding for the last few weeks, I refer to the criminal investigation and ultimate prosecution of one George Zimmerman for shooting and killing of one Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26th in a little town called Sanford in Florida.

On the face of it, there is what we defense attorneys call a “triable issue” based on Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. But the defense is far from slam dunk, partly because the decedent was unarmed, and partly because – well, the dead party was a black male and the shooter had a “white” name. As one news source put it, “Zimmerman is a white native of Virginia whose mother was born in Peru.” An embarrassing amount of ink and cloud data storage has been taken up by puerile discussions of which “identity” group the, now defendant, Zimmerman belongs to. The sincerity and reasonableness of Mr. Zimmerman’s reported belief that Mr. Martin was a criminal is germane; the defendant’s tribal affiliation – or lack thereof – is not.

Much also has been made of the Florida Statute, Section 776.013, particularly paragraph (3) which provides that--

“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 not particularly controversial. The California law of self-defense, for example, is captured in some formula jury instructions, the so-called CALJIC set, having been approved for trial judges to use by the California Judicial Council. Two such instructions – with which I am well familiar – seem to bear on the issues in Mr. Zimmerman’s case.

CALJIC No. 5.51, Self-Defense—Actual Danger Not Necessary, as given (in a particular case where the result was affirmed):

"Actual danger is not necessary to justify self-defense. If one is confronted by the appearance of danger which arouses in his mind, as a reasonable person, an actual belief and fear that he is about to suffer bodily injury, and if a reasonable person in a like situation, seeing and knowing the same facts, would be justified in believing himself in like danger, and if that individual so confronted acts in self-defense upon these appearances and from that fear and actual beliefs, the person's right of self-defense is the same whether the danger is real or merely apparent."

CALJIC No. 5.50, Self-Defense—Assailed Person Need Not Retreat, as given: (in a particular case where the result was affirmed)

"A person threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense need not retreat. In the exercise of his right of self-defense, a person may stand his ground and defend himself by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge; and a person may pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably necessary. This law applies even though the assailed person might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene."

The bottom line, the so called black letter law of self-defense adhered to by almost every jurisdiction in the USA, is that

(a) in defending yourself you are entitled to reasonably rely on appearances when assessing the danger; and

(b) you do not have to run.

The key qualifier in these cases, the one that functionally allows a degree of jury latitude is the term reasonable.

And there is also the murkier issue of proportionate response. If you are threatened by a homicidal toddler bearing a table fork, are you entitled to respond with an assault weapon? No reasonable jury would agree with such a disproportionate response.

Is there a hard and fast rule? No. This is why we have trials.

A key element in self-defense is that sincerity is an absolute predicate but a NOT free pass. If you did not actually think you were “defending yourself by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person”, i.e., if your claim was insincere, then you are toast. But even a sincere claim of self-defense can be rejected if the jury concludes that it was unreasonable. In most jurisdictions, unreasonable or “imperfect” self-defense reduces a murder to manslaughter.

http://jaygaskill.com/ZimmermanJustice.htm

Edited July 10, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I wonder why the father's bed partner NOT take him to a store, in a car ?

What's a bed partner, m'lady? One who doth lies upon straw in another's company? Pray tell.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

That's for determining whether George committed murder. There's wiggle room in what is called, 'imperfect self-defense' which is the determination that he acted in self-defense, but didn't meet the full criteria (reasonable fear and reasonable actions). The state would be up a creek without a paddle if they didn't think they could go anywhere, for one. Second, the judge would have dismissed the trial had she believed the evidence was insufficient. He'll get manslaughter, but not 2nd degree murder based on imperfect self-defense. He may only serve a couple of years, get out and write a book about it....maybe even get his own show on Fox News.

Ok, whatever helps you sleep at night. Pick and chose the parts that suit your needs and ignore or don't answer the parts that worry you. I expected a higher standard from you.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I wonder why the father's bed partner NOT take him to a store, in a car ?

I think his father and girlfriend were out at the time.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I wonder why the father's bed partner NOT take him to a store, in a car ?

Not relevant.

[Darnell 8,478]

I think his father and girlfriend were out at the time.

uh oh. scoring some weed ?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

That is what I think, if he would have made it home he would have been safe. I don't know how the two met if he was walking/running home. Either he turned back around to confront GZ or GZ caught up to him by shortcut or coincidence.

We will never know for sure, but by the timeline it seems that he could have made it home after he allegedly walked by GZ while he was sitting in his car.

[Darnell 8,478]

Not relevant.

ah? might have saved a life, that night.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

ah? might have saved a life, that night.

Right and if he lived in Vermont he'd still be alive too.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

uh oh. scoring some weed ?

Oh maybe going out to eat dinner, you don't know, neither do I.

[Darnell 8,478]

Oh maybe going out to eat dinner, you don't know, neither do I.

Well, o k... it's certain I not know.

I wonder who does?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Well, o k... it's certain I not know.

I wonder who does?

The father and girlfriend know.